Somethings are Slow to Change

Every once in awhile you see something that will haunt your existence for good or bad.  Last night I saw Spring Awakening at Kingsbury Hall.  I have not been able to get this show out of my head.  It was a truly fresh and amazing experience.  It was here in Utah for a limited three show engagement.  I was surprised by the  fact the theatre was not sold out.  It has a rockus sound track that is raw and edgy and beautiful all at the same time.  It was this show that launched Lea Michele's (Glee) career.

The show explores 'coming of age' at the end of the 19th century in Germany.  This original play by Frank Wedekind was written between 1891 and 1900.  It has long been a censored and banned play because of its frank discussion of teen sexuality and the consequences of of ignoring their natural curiosity and failing to provide them with the information they need to make good choices.  


Spring Awakening was updated and set to music by Steven Sater and Duncan Sheik.  It boldly deals with all aspects of teen life and sexuality from the pressures that school brings added with the awakening of sexual desire.  This show touches on all of it from masturbation, academic pressures, sex in the religious context, sexual and physical abuse, homosexuality, sex for the first time and teen pregnancy.  The musical is largely a tragedy displaying the effects of ignorance, piety and ambition on our youth.  The devices of language, simulated masturbation and nudity are boldly appropriately integrated in this production.


The Wikipedia article does a good job of summarizing the plot

For me this show is a mirrored representation of the culture we all still live in with little progress on the public discussion of how we educate our children about sex and it consequences.  I saw this show with my wife and my 20 year-old daughter.  During intermission she told me, "Dad theses are the conversations we have today."  Unfortunately the topic will keep the pious and fundamentally inclined away from the production and if they were to see it the open representation of our culture will prevent them from hearing the message.  For parents the message is: When we deny our children information and understanding on the topic of sex it leads to disaster and we are ultimately responsible for the tragedy that results.

The Apple Fell Close to The Tree

My beautiful daughter Jessica has started a new blog.  According to her she will write about feminism, fashion, theatre, growing up in a non-Mormon in Utah, and whatever else she chooses.  I have written about her in my blog and she now moving into the 20 somethings and she feels like she has something to share.

Her blog name is Kate the Cursed; which I used to call her when she exhibited a strangely fierce independence as a young girl.  I hope the followers of this blog will welcome her into the blogging community.

Attacking Beliefs.... When Does One Cross into Incivility?

I know there is a bunch of attention in the blog-o-sphere regarding the Arizona Congresswoman Shooting.  There has been a bunch of discussion regarding the power of words.  I feel like this has been well addressed by my friend Andrew Hackman at Hackman's Musings.   I am not going to rehash the obvious outrage to the senseless violence that occurred in Arizona.  This has been contemporary to a couple of conversations I have engaged in on Facebook.

I have noted that tone and context are somewhat subjective in prior posts.  While the writer does have the ability to guide the tone and context in any piece whether you find it funny, offensive, believe it to be true or false depends on your own filters and experience that makes up those filters.  I posted two PZ Myers' links.... here and here.  The first post was an opinion piece written by Myers and posted on his blog.  I happen to agree with the content of the topic however it did result in the following conversation on Facebook:

• Face Book User: Kevin? You do realize that by pasting and applauding these inane rantings you become the exact person you rail against day after day; right? Myers "thoughts" are equivalent to an atheist "Chick Tract".
  

  January 2 at 10:06pm · 
• 
  

  Kevin Dudley I love PZ and I agree with this post. If you can give an example as to why he is wrong... I would be happy to discuss that.
  

  January 2 at 10:09pm · 
• 
  

  another user: I'm with you, Kevin.
  

  January 2 at 10:13pm · 
• 
  

  Face Book User I know you love him, Kevin, it's rather obvious. His errors are legion, he's the atheist equivalent of Kirk Cameron.
  

  January 2 at 10:13pm · 
• 
  

  Kevin Dudley I disagree. He is a biologist who has a pretty good understanding of how life begins and evolves. Kirk Cameron is an actor (has been) who knows nothing and pretends to know something. If I have to bank my future on someone it will be the likes of PZ and not the likes of Cameron or any other theist.
  

  January 2 at 10:17pm · 
• Face Book User
  

  
  

  Well . . . 1) If Myers is correct, you have no "future". 2) Kirk Cameron is an actor . . . much like someone else I know . . . yet that someone else has the intellectual ability and educational background to judge Myers understanding of how life begins as , "pretty good"? Seems like a stretch to me, that is unless a certain someone has a biology degree I don't know about. Why should I believe one actor over another, Kevin? 3) Myers uses oversimplifications and bombastic language designed for the pulpit, he's not "setting anyone straight" he's building strawmen and hacking them down in front of a friendly crowd . . . much like Cameron and Comfort.

  
  

  January 2 at 10:35pm · 
• 
  

  Kevin Dudley 
  

  PZ states and accurately that there is no evidence for the existence for god. I have plenty of future without a God. There is absolutely no evidence that there is more after you die and the threat of hell does not govern my actions. Myers has and is willing to debate his stance with any theist. He does not just play to a friendly audience. This post was merely an expression of opinion but he has posted many others with evidence, citations, and peer reviewed research. What has the theist community put out? What is the evidence for God. I dare say there is none. Just because it is not explainable does not mean god did it.
  
  Myers, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Barker are all men that I agree with and will stand on their court any day. Unless there is evidence to the contrary presented, I believe God and all Gods are myths. They deserve no more consideration than Santa Claus.

  
  

  January 2 at 10:58pm · 
• 
  

  One of My Children: Personally I'm willing to ignore Kirk because his conversion was based entirely on Pascal's wager. A line of thought filled with so many fallacies as to be laughable. If that's the best he could reason, find evidence, and sort information, then he truly isn't qualified to provide 'truth'. PZ Myers actually has education in his field and provides evidence. I'm willing to take a biology professors word on biology and science. Call me crazy.
  

  January 2 at 11:54pm · 
• Face Book User
  

  
  

  Kevin? I have nowhere declared that your behavior should take into account future punishment, I have not attacked your worldview at all. I'm very sure that you came to your intellectual holdings through reasoned clarity. I have not claimed that just because something is not understandable = therefore - God. All I have said is that Myers is a very poor spokesmodel for atheism. Having read dozens of books on the subject, been to many lectures and explored countless discussions in the atheist/theist arena, it's safe for me to declare Myers rantings as buffoonery. Agreeing with someone does not mean that they are good representatives of a given cause . . . agreed?

  
  

  January 3 at 5:55am · 
• 
  

  Kevin Dudley Agreed and not agreed. I don't see him the same way you do. Maybe it is because we use different filters
  
  
  

The second post was much more terse:

• facebook Friend II 
  

  And I suppose we should stop eating in restaurants out of fear that the kitchen crew forgot to wash their hands?
  
  
  The fear of exposure in this instance came from a person distributing the wafers, not parishioners drinking from a common chalice. Please do your homework and check your sources before proceding to malign what we already know you don't believe. You demand that of your dissenters, right? http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/ny-church-delivers-hepatitis-a-scare-12536232
  
  Partaking of the chalice is optional since Catholics believe the fullness of Christ exists in the wafer alone. Catholics who don't want to "swap fluids" already have the option of abstaining. In this case, clearly, it was stupid for an ill person with unclean hands to distribute Communion. As a Communion Minister at my own parish, we can't/don't serve when ill; we always thoroughly wash and sanitize our hands before serving; and during the swine flu scare last year, the diocese removed the common chalice and the holy water from the common fonts.
  
  Now that I've said my peace, I'll go back to observing my "silly rituals."

  
  

  January 4 at 8:41pm ·  ·  1 person
• 
  

  
  Facebook user PWND
  

  January 5 at 8:54am · 
• 
  

  Good Friend: 
  

  I was going to post a reply yesterday but decided to wait and think it over. Facebook Friend II has done a wonderful job of posting some of my original thoughts about homework and maligning.
  You know I am not one to believe in "God" as ascribed in organized religion. I respect your convictions and enjoy for the most part reading your well thought out discussions.
  However, this current thread smacks of Tea Party, Palin, Right Wing playground tactics used to dehumanize. Disingenuous and totally unexpected from you to resort to name calling while trying to express your view.

  
  

  January 5 at 9:05am · 
• 
  

  Kevin Dudley 
  

  The CNN link to the article does not discuss the delivery method. Does your minister require the use of food service gloves? What percentage of your parish shares from the same chalis?
  
  
  While I will acknowledge PZ Myers made an assumption it was a natural assumption considering the traditionally practiced ritual and again the CNN article did not discuss the delivery method.
  
  In the broader context in the name of religious freedom Rabbis in New York have recently been under fire for performing circumcisions in a method that exposes the infant to mouth to genital contact. Many infants have contacted hep infections and staff infections for what? An imaginary or unprovable claim of salvation?
  
  In other communities in America women/ girls are forced in to marriages (many plural). All in the name of ritual and tradition. The point of my link is that religion is not benign.
  
  I appreciate your passionate rebuttal however and I am aware of where you stand on matters of your faith.
  
  .... Hey Facebook user.

  
  

  January 5 at 9:09am · 
• 
  

  Kevin Dudley Good Friend, point received.
  

  January 5 at 9:23am · 
• facebook Friend II
  

  
  

  Kevin, did you click on the ABC News link I provided? It clarifies that it was the wafer and not the chalice that was the problem. PZ Myers had made reference to the chalice.
  
  
  No, my particular parish does not require food service gloves. I don't know of any parish that does. We take other precautions prior to serving, though.
  
  We have five chalices at each Sunday Mass: the priest drinks from the main one at the altar; the extra ministers use the other four to serve a section of the congregation. I would say it's about 50-50 in each section as to who partakes and who doesn't. Many of the older generation doesn't drink from the chalice because they weren't brought up to do so. Having the laity receive from the chalice wasn't the norm prior to the church reforms in the 1960's. Many children don't drink from the chalice because they don't like the taste. Diabetics often refrain as well. Anyone who is concerned about the spread of disease has the right to refrain from either the wafer or the chalice. It's that simple.
  
  I've always known that you don't believe in God and are not religious. I can respect that. I always enjoyed our thought-provoking conversations when we worked together. I am struggling to understand, though, why the philosophical position of atheist ... of saying to oneself "I don't believe in God" ... spills over into attacks on people who do. Yes, I've read your disclaimers that what you post is not particularly faith-promoting and that it's not about other people. I get it; you're articulating your views. I just didn't anticipate that "not faith-promoting" = "faith-attacking" so much of the time. My mistake, I guess. As someone who does believe, reading or skimming through the frequent insults becomes tedious and maddening.

  
  

  January 5 at 7:41pm ·  ·  1 person
• 
  

  Kevin Dudley 
  

  facebook Friend II, I will acknowledge that the word I used, "silly", was harsh and the speed to post the article was rash. However CNN was a reliable source for the article.
  
  
  My question is how do you draw the line between challenging religion attacking it. It is my experience if you draw a line between a piece of doctrine and its absurdity you are considered an attacker by a theist. Help me understand where than line exists.

  
  

  January 5 at 7:52pm · 
• Facebook user
  

  
  

  facebook friend II has articulated very well what I was getting at the other day, Kevin. I'll add my .02. PZ is a purveyor of a particular flavor of bombast that is exceedingly distasteful to a great many on both sides of the aisle. He is quick to ridicule and harsh in his technique, he seeks not to foster understanding but rather play a game of one-upsmanship against those who believe. When I read any text authored by Meyers or his ilk I'm instantly jaded and read his thoughts from a completely defensive posture. Facebooking his blog as often as you do serves to label you a member of his camp. That's not the Kevin I know.

  
  

  January 5 at 8:09pm ·  ·  1 person
• 
  

  Facebook Friend II 
  

  CNN was a reliable source; however, you posted it via PZ Myers blog. His language framing the article was inaccurate. His bias compromised the accuracy.
  
  
  You posted awhile ago on your own blog that the tone of a written piece is subjective in the mind of the reader. I disagree. Tone is a function of a writer's word choice. If it weren't, we couldn't distinguish between seriousness, hyberbole, humor, sarcasm, irony, farce, or other literary constructions. To answer your question with a question: why does a question about a religious doctrine or discipline have to come loaded with insults? Raising a question about religion isn't offensive. Saying that you disagree with a doctrine isn't offensive. Saying that you think a doctrine is absurd isn't offensive. Attacking the people who practice it is. Maybe it's a difference between a discussion of the ideas and maligning the people who freely choose to participate in them.
  
  ("Silly" really isn't the harshest word you could have used; I've seen worse in PZ Myer's blog. You use him a lot as a source.)

I admit, now, I might not have put it up had I looked at the details of the situation and I believe the PZ made a rush to condemn Catholics.  I also enjoy the friendships of the folks that entered into the Facebook conversation on the two posts.  I also learned from the conversation that occurred as a result of the posts.

PZ Myer's is nearly as prominent in the atheist community as Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris.  He has a Phd and is a prominent speaker on the atheist circuit.  When I post from him it is not with the intent to offend but because he articulates my views and I see him as an authority in many of the topics he posts on including the creation debate and the origins of life.  He is a professor and well regarded in the scientific community.  He is also a militant atheist who calls the religious establishment on their crap.

The the question becomes when is one attacking someones beliefs.  In what ways and in what situations is it appropriate challenge someone's beliefs.  Is the direct and sometimes terse statement of your beliefs an attack?  Is there anyway to walk the line in the middle and still make it clear that you think that someone is full of crap.  I think in light of the recent violence in Arizona and the resulting calls for civility (which apparently have been ignored) it is a good time to evaluate our interactions.  Do we know the difference between asserting a well researched opinion and ginning up the masses.  Is someone right only because you agree with them?

Blogging into the New Decade

Here we are at the close of 2010.  I have completed my second full year as a blogger.  Last year I noted my progress and reflected on the fruits of blogging.  This post is a continuation of that tradition.

I closed out last year with a total of 9 public followers.  I am now up to 30 public followers by the blogger counter and 8 through networked blogs.  Three of those are duplicates from the blogger counter.  So I now have a net of 35 public followers.  I have found my blog linked on other sites that are not in my public counter.

Last year I posted 27 times this year 45 (including this entry)  My topics of interest have been consistent: politics, religion and living in Utah.  I have had a couple of posts that have stimulated robust conversations.  I have seen many more of my posts linked in the Sunday in Outer Blogness feature at Main Street Plaza which I have found flattering.

My blog has received over 5000 page views and  140 comments.

My goals for blogging in the coming year are:

1. Post with more frequency
2. Post with relevance
3. Continue the "Children are the Challenge" series
4. Attempt to stimulate thoughtful discussion on posts I submit

While my blog does not have a universal appeal here in Utah or among many folks who hold very fundamental beliefs either politically or religiously; I hope to expand the reader base.  I prefer a diverse audience because it brings great discussion.  However, I will not likely tone down my rhetoric in that vein.  I am however willing to facilitate discussion and to have conversations regarding what I post in hopes that discussion brings understanding and in some cases may sway my opinion on the matter.

Here's to the adventures that 2011 will bring!

Charity... what is your position... can you admit it?

If you really want to find out what people believe you look at how they behave and not what they say.~Roger Nygard

www.colbertnation.com

The above video clip has got a bit of attention on facebook this week.  My liberal theist friends have posted it and some have alluded to the fact that Colbert's comments are almost prophetic.  My conservative theist friends have been outraged at the audacity of Colbert to poke fun at them and to take the New Testament out of context.  

The Christmas season brings out two polls on the questions of how we deal with the poor and sick and less fortunate.  Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol is the standard by which we measure a person's commitment to the season.  You are either a Tiny Tim/Bob Cratchit or and Ebeneezer Scrooge.  Nobody wants to be seen as a Scrooge during this season and so there is a bunch of talk about Christian principles and keeping Christ in the season..... while arguing that our government has no business using tax dollars to look after the general welfare of the American populous.  After all, the government cannot tell who is faking it and who really needs the help.

One of my favorite quotes from the Dickens' classic is the result of the dialog between Scrooge and his Nephew Fred.  Fred optimistically states why he loves the Christmas season.:

 ..and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow-passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys.

Immediately, as Fred exits the office Scrooge is met by two solicitors.  Both, in contemporary terms, bleeding heart liberals:

"Scrooge and Marley's, I believe," said one of the gentlemen, referring to his list.  "Have I the pleasure of addressing Mr. Scrooge, or Mr. Marley?"

"At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge," said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and Destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time.  Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."

"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.

"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

"And the Union workhouses?"  demanded Scrooge.  "Are they still in operation?"

"They are.  Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."

"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?"  said Scrooge.

"Both very busy, sir."

"Oh!  I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge.  "I'm very glad to hear it."

"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavoring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink and means of warmth.  We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices.  What shall I put you down for?"

"Nothing!" Scrooge replied.

"You wish to be anonymous?"

"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge.  "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer.  I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry.  I help to support the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."

"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."

"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.  Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that."

"But you might know it," observed the gentleman.

"It's not my business," Scrooge returned.  "It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's.  Mine occupies me constantly.  Good afternoon, gentlemen!"

The section in bold came to mind as I engaged in a debate with a facebook friend who did not find the Colbert video funny.  This is the end of the discussion:

• 
  

  Him:.....
  
  You love to put groups of people into boxes and summarily dismiss the entire box, and that is just wrong. I know many liberals and many conservatives that give of their time and money to help people. I think if you gave them the chance to do the bulk of what is needed to help people who are underprivileged, they would surprise you. There is no one category of people who need help. Every person has a different reason, a different trial or problem. Some are self inflicted, some are not. Some people are truly helpless, others are simply irresponsible. The government doesn't distinguish between the two.

  
  

  December 17 at 3:57pm · 
• 
  

  Me: ‎"Some people are truly helpless, others are simply irresponsible. The government doesn't distinguish between the two."
  
  And based upon the Christian Dogma who is the one who is qualified to make that determination?
  

  December 17 at 4:04pm · 
• 
  

  Him: Only somebody who develops a personal relationship with the person in need. True charity involves giving yourself to serve others and listen and learn, not just give money.

The problem as I see it is that as Americans we are spoiled children of privilege and as Scrooge says:  "It is not my business."  So who's business is it?

My mother is dying of emphysema.  She is in the very advanced stages and is in incredibly poor health.  She also suffers from Post Polio Syndrome.  She struggles to breathe and is in constant pain.  One of the conditions she did to herself.  In fact she still smokes with the O2 turned all the way up.  The other she is a victim of.  She dedicated 30 years to raising her children and did the best she could with the tools she had.  While we do what we can for her including grocery shopping, taking her meals, and getting her to the doctor;  we are of humble means and cannot pay for her care.  She was on a medical retirement for 10 years and now is on social security and a meager pension.

While I agree with my friend that charity, true charity requires a personal touch, I also think it is unrealistic and impossible for everyone.  I pay into Social Security, I pay income and sales taxes and while it is not my favorite thing to spend my money on; I recognize it is necessary.  My Mother has us.  Many others have no one and the only care they get is the care Medicare of Medicaid covers.  Whether you are homeless by your own choice or because of mental illness; whether you liver is failing from alcoholism or NASH; whether you have lung cancer from smoking or working in asbestos; you deserve the best care you can get and to be comfortable on your way to returning to health or in my mother's case as you prepare to die. If you want to question where the money goes and who deserves it ask yourself who really profits from defrauding the government.  The answer lies in the lobbyists and the capitalist who exploit the system to the tune of billions.  Not the poor who benefit from the programs and exaggerate their conditions to get a few more dollars to live on.

It's time this "Christian Nation" put its money and compassion where its mouth is.... or acknowledge you are hypocrites and just don't want to do it!

    

Should we Limit Expression that Causes the Rabid Right to Get their Panties in a Wad.

I had a brief (no pun intended) conversation with my Facebook friend Thomas on the fact that there are few American Artists who's work is compelling, edgy, and that tells a story.  In fact, the object of that conversation is posted below:

I responded to the post with this comment:

If we had artists like this they would be censored and their works hidden from public view. Maybe not at the hands of the government but by way of right wing hysteria.

And the following morning this story is featured on Fox 13:



This is exactly the same "Right Wing Hysteria" I was talking about.  I remember, while I was a college student, the Salt Lake City Public Library had some nude paintings on display. The ridiculous outcry was all over the news including one mother who was completely distraught because her little boy was having nightmares over the paintings.  The ilk of the Knitting Needle Mafia have instituted plastic covers for magazines in our grocery stores to censor what they deem inappropriate material.

There is the rub... it is what they deem inappropriate.  As the video indicates the law is clear as to what can be determined pornographic and a woman wearing the equivalent of a bikini is does not rise to that level.  Nor does the word SEX on the cover of Cosmopolitan.

So it is the ads in the mall, the magazines in grocery store and what is next the art in our museums...



I enjoyed the hosts final comment:

I don't think it is up to anyone to tell me what art I am and am not allowed to see.

The point of this post is that if we allow the fundies, the pious, the superstitious, and the rabid right to control the media they also control the message.  Watch this video that discusses the outrage over the Atheist bus ads in Fort Worth Texas.  Note how fauxrage over the freedom of expression will drown out a minorities message:



The bus system will likely stop carrying this type of ad and the Mayor of Fort Worth has threatened to change the makeup of the board if they don't agree with him.  They take away an outlet for those who are non religious to engage in what is really a benign and in offensive message.

John F. Kennedy said:

The artist, however faithful to his personal vision of reality, becomes the last champion of the individual mind and sensibility against an intrusive society and an officious state. The great artist is thus a solitary figure.....

If sometimes our great artists have been the most critical of our society, it is because their sensitivity and their concern for justice, which must motivate any true artist, makes him aware that our Nation falls short of its highest potential. I see little of more importance to the future of our country and our civilization than full recognition of the place of the artist.

If art is to nourish the roots of our culture, society must set the artist free to follow his vision wherever it takes him. We must never forget that art is not a form of propaganda; it is a form of truth.

And as such we should resist restrictions of expression whether the art is commercial, the art is edgy, or the art is just beautiful.  Restrictions of expressions of points of view that are not your own is tyrannical.  This is certainly not what the First Amendment is about.  But if you are a fundamentalist I guess the First Amendment was inspired by God to protect your point of view only.