Category Archives: opinion

bio, religion

An Unholy Alliance: American Conservatives and the Vatican

Leave a comment

I have had it up to here with the media frenzy over the Papal death-and-succession, and can only be relieved that the Conclave only lasted two days (to the disappointment of news crews, no doubt – hang around in Rome and wait for a chimney to smoke? Tough job.)

Though I’m glad it’s over, I’m not at all happy with the results of this “election” – in which only 110 or so of the world’s one billion Catholics had a vote, and women were completely disenfranchised. Catholicism is definitely not for me but, out of respect for my many Catholic friends (some of whom read this newsletter), I will leave that topic alone. I’d only start foaming at the mouth anyway…

I’m not Catholic, so what any Pope says or does shouldn’t matter to me anyway, right? Well, as Richard Cohen of The Washington Post points out, it’s not only Catholics who are affected by Catholic dogma:

“…There are other areas… where John Paul II’s teachings affected non-Catholics. I am referring now to his implacable opposition to birth control – not just abortion, mind you, but the mere use of condoms…

It is the underdeveloped world where birth control is most needed. It is there, where medical services are the most meager, that the AIDS pandemic poses its greatest threat and where condom use is the cheapest and most effective preventative measure. The pope counseled abstinence, a wholly unrealistic piece of advice…” (Indeed, if abstinence was easy for the average human being to achieve, the Catholic Church might not face the severe shortage of priests that it currently does.)

Opposition to birth control is also a Bush administration policy with devastating effects on non-Americans: the US government refuses to fund development agencies or projects where family planning includes so much as a mention of abortion, in spite of the fact that abortion is legal in America. Where American conservatives cannot impose their will by law in America, they are doing it by budget policy in other countries. Catholic dogma lends “moral” support to this stance, and Ratzinger, like Wojtyla before him, will no doubt continue to do so very vocally.

Ratzinger’s virulent anti-gay stance will also reinforce American conservatives in their homophobia. However, the Church’s opposition to the death penalty (and the Iraq war) will be conveniently ignored. Politics and religion make strange bedfellows.

You might also like:

High Water (Not Hell) in Venice, part 1 Default ThumbnailLearn Italian in Song: Translations of Lyrics for Italian Songs Italian Brats Default ThumbnailEnglish Not Spoken Here
bio, Italian culture, religion

The Papal Funeral Bash

Leave a comment

I’m not going to say much about this; I wasn’t there, and ignored it as far as possible. The only footage I actually watched was on the Daily Show. But I do have a few items:

Early last week, I was riding the bus down to Lecco, at my usual time when it’s full of schoolkids. One girl was on her cellphone. “She only goes to mass ogni morte di papa!” she exclaimed, completely without irony, –nd now she wants to go to the funeral!”

Indeed, many of the Italians who traveled to Rome for the funeral probably don’t go regularly to Mass. I won’t presume to comment on why they went to the Pope’s funeral, except that Ross told me that some of her peers came back with cellphone photos of themselves drinking Limoncello (a strong lemon liqueur) in Piazza San Pietro.

I do know a number of serious Catholics – those who truly believe and practice Christianity, e.g., doing volunteer work. Interestingly, none of them went to Rome, and all were nonplussed by the outpouring of whatever this was, and disconcerted by the yells of “Santo subito!” (“Make him a saint immediately!”) As far as I know, it’s not in the church canons to saint somebody just because he was popular.

Rome rose magnificently to the occasion, managing to keep things in order and take care of the crush of people. Every cellphone in Italy received messages from the Protezione Civile (“Civil Protection” – the government emergency-response organization). The first read: “If you go to Rome to pay homage to the Pope, use mass transit and be prepared for organized but very long lines. Hot by day and cool at night. For information, listen to Isoradio [public information radio, mostly used for traffic warnings] 103.3.”

The second message said: “Due to enormous turnout, from Wednesday at 10 pm access is closed to the lines to salute the Pope. Friday for the funeral traffic will be stopped in Rome. The area of San Pietro is full. Large screens will be in the piazzas and at Torvergata” (an area outside Rome where the final rush of pilgrims was told to stop when the city couldn’t take any more).

My friend Alice Twain then sent her own message: “Protezione Civile: Before leaving for Rome, remember to turn off the gas, close the shutters, and water the plants.”

photo above: April 1, 2005 – the Papal Deathwatch. A TV transmission truck (belonging to RAI, Italian state television) parked outside the headquarters of Avvenire, Italy’s Catholic daily newspaper. The vultures are circling…

You might also like:

Default ThumbnailA Woman’s Work… Default ThumbnailAirport “Security”: Reflections on Our Times Imaging in Italy: A Photographic Walking Tour of Rome – Day 2 Default ThumbnailThe End of an Era
bio, religion

The God Gene: Why Some of Us Just Don’t Get Religion?

7 Comments

In this new book, Dean Hamer discusses possible genetic components of “a personality trait known as self-transcendence, originally identified by Washington University psychiatrist Robert Cloninger. Cloninger found that spiritual people tend to share a set of characteristics, such as feeling connected to the world and a willingness to accept things that cannot be objectively demonstrated. … Hamer confirmed what earlier studies had found: heredity is partly responsible for whether a person is self-transcendent or not.” (quoted from a review on Amazon)

The book has been attacked on various grounds; I won’t bother to attack or defend since I have not yet read it. But the theory that religious feeling (or spirituality) may be genetically determined would explain something that otherwise puzzles me greatly: why do many intelligent people believe in god?

A number of religious people have been part of my life, including some who, while not following any organized religion, believe in or crave some sort of “spirituality.” I try – I really do! – to be respectful of their beliefs, because I respect these folks personally for other reasons.

But, frankly, I just don’t get it. I don’t feel a need for god or spirituality. I can feel connected to the world, and delight in its many wonders, without needing to thank anybody. I have my own strong moral compass that tells me how to treat people and the world, without reference to any scripture. I have no belief in a spiritual world I can’t see, and don’t feel the lack of that belief. Some people are born color-blind; I guess I was born god-blind.

Religions have an explanation for people like me: we haven’t been exposed to, or have refused to accept, the word of god – we haven’t seen the light (as I said: god-blind).

Until now, I’ve been groping for a way to explain them. “Opiate of the masses” only covers the ignorant and easily-led, and assumes complete bad faith on the part of every spiritual leader who ever lived. I can’t go that far. So I’ve had to assume that people whom I know to be intelligent in every other way are just dumb in this particular area, or victims of a traditional upbringing. Which, of course, is no explanation.

I therefore like the idea that the need for religion may have a genetic component. This would explain why some people feel this need strongly, and others not at all. The desire for this feeling of self-transcendence is independent of any specific religion, and even of the question as to whether there is a god. There may or may not be something “beyond” what science will ever be able to explain; for genetic reasons, some of us care a lot about being in touch with whatever it may be, and others don’t. In either case, we can’t help it – we were born that way.

 

You might also like:

Chemo Roundup: April Keeping Cool, Italian Style: Energy Efficiency and Home Safety, All in One More Things to Buy in India – The Growth of a Consumer Society An elephant walking on the street in Jaipur, carrying a load of fodderJaipur Transportation
bio, opinion

Reversing Sexual Liberation

Leave a comment

By the time I reached adolescence in the mid-1970s, women’s sexual liberation, in the West at least, had supposedly been accomplished. No longer were women divided into “good girls” and “sluts” as they had been in the 1950s and early 60s – the sluts being sought after because they would “put out,” but then despised for doing so, while every man wanted to marry a virgin. That virgin-whore dichotomy died in 1968 – didn’t it? The Pill removed the risk of pregnancy, so women were free to have sex as, when, and with whom they pleased, simply because they enjoyed it.

Well, that last was never entirely true. Even Western culture assumes that women want sex only or mostly within the context of “a loving relationship,” and feel betrayed by men who “use love to get sex.” Few people were ever really comfortable with the idea of women having sex on the “male pattern” – that is: often, casually, with many different partners, just because they liked it. Outside of pornography, one of the few fictional characters who personifies and enjoys this lifestyle (and is not ultimately punished for it) is Samantha in Sex & the City.

Even Buffy (the Vampire Slayer) couldn’t have sex just because she liked sex; a very passionate sexual relationship was presented as degrading to her because she wasn’t in love with the guy. Sex just for fun, or for comfort, was unacceptable. This is one of the few points on which I’ve ever disagreed with the Buffy writers.

It appears that we have now moved on to the service model of female sexuality, where sex is something that women do, and do often, but primarily for the benefit of men. Some girls of my daughter’s generation are using sex as a way to get male attention – not a new phenomenon, I know. A recent article in Seventeen magazine (a long-running US monthly for adolescent girls) told of girls who gave blowjobs to multiple boys at parties, then were shocked that everyone in school heard about it. Some girls Ross knows here in Italy have done much the same (or claim to have), at discos or parties. In both places, these girls are labeled “sluts,” and they do get noticed by the boys – many of whom take it for granted that these girls will perform oral sex on them as well, just for the asking. And the idiots do!

I don’t see what the girls are getting out of it, except perhaps some fleeting sense of power – the ability to give pleasure is a form of power, and some people find that in itself pleasurable. But this surely should not be the sum total of the pleasure a girl gets from sex.

The boys demanding blowjobs seem not to have any notion that they are obliged to do anything for the girls in return – nor have the girls. These boys are receiving service, not making love. I don’t know where they will learn the skills they need to uphold the long-standing reputation of Italian men as the world’s greatest lovers.

I am not anti-porn, but I can’t escape the conclusion that this attitude is leaking into the wider culture from that part of the porn industry that caters to straight men – which is the major part of the industry, right now. I got worried a few years ago when I saw girls wearing t-shirts saying “Porn Star.” The  majority of porn panders to male fantasies, offering a distorted picture of women’s sexuality.

My feminist antennae are quivering. Is this just another way to control female sexuality? Make girls believe that sex is something you do for the boys, not for your own pleasure, and they will then have sex on command, or not have sex on command, with equal indifference.

The solution to this commoditization of sex, I believe, is to teach girls, not that sex is bad or dirty, but that it should be done in an atmosphere of mutual respect, if not love. Girls should respect themselves and their sexuality, and demand respect from their partners. The question is not whether he will “respect you in the morning,” but whether he respects you NOW, enough to give as good as he gets – at least

You might also like:

cover of "The Naked Truth" by Margaret HeffernanFuck-you money Breast Cancer Default ThumbnailSalting the Wound Keeping Cool, Italian Style: Energy Efficiency and Home Safety, All in One
bio, politics

Pirate Politics

Leave a comment

The Usenet, that free-for-all haven of digital pirates, is an interesting place to observe grassroots political opinion. Generally, any new movie is uploaded (made available, illegally that is) for only a week or two around its release date, but “Fahrenheit 9/11” has been uploaded over and over again for months. Michael Moore has said that he wants the widest possible audience to see it, so presumably he doesn’t mind – though his distributors may feel differently.

Lesser-known films in a similar vein are also repeatedly uploaded, with titles like “A Colossal Mistake – Iraq, the Whole Truth Uncovered.” And some conspiracy thing about how Bush was actually responsible for 9/11 (I have not seen either of these, and can’t comment on how silly they may or may not be).

For the opposition, we have: “In Memorian [sic] 9/11 – an event that John Kerry, Michael Moore and the Dumocrats FORGET!”

People from both sides of the political spectrum have been posting clips from the conventions, and other items of more or less weird political rantery.

The audiobooks groups feature books from Maureen Dowd (of the New York Times – this is probably good), Jim Hightower, and Molly Ivins (these last two are Texas liberals – yes, there actually are Texas liberals, in large numbers even; they mostly seek refuge in and around Austin).

You might also like:

Chemo Roundup: April Australian Candy Sudhir Part 2: Hanged for a Lamb Default ThumbnailThe End of an Era