I'm one of those liberal Episcopalians, too, also living in one of the handful of Episcopal dioceses in the US wanting to break off and ally with the Anglican Church. I don't think it will be as easy as they imagine; they're welcome to go and take whomever is willing, but will likely encounter legal difficulties when they try to take the Church's financial assets with them. What's really ironic to me is that our current presiding bishop (a woman, for the uninitiated) has precisely the sort of wisdom and true righteousness we have the right to expect in our religious leadership.

A blog I frequent (http://www.correntewire.com/) routinely refers to the hypocrites as Christianists, a term apparently coined by Andrew Sullivan. A Christianist "perverts Christianity to achieve political power or wealth, 'practic[ing] their piety before others in order to be seen by them' (Matthew 6:5)." Useful term, Christianist.

Posted at December 5, 2007 6:05 PM in response to Christianity as a Global Threat

I. too, am often disgusted by what is done in the name of Christianity and other religions. But it's simplistic to imagine discarding my faith like I would an old shirt that is frayed and misshapen. If I'm able to rid myself of it that easily, it couldn't have been very integral to who I am in the first place.

I haven't lost faith in the teachings just because mankind (as usual) seems incapable of understanding them well enough to follow them. There's probably a good reason for all those shepherd/flock metaphors in the bible; sheep aren't exactly known for their brilliance.

My experience with people in general is that they don't want to have to work too hard at understanding and avoid self-reflection like the plague. So they look for easy answers, like a Step 1, Step 2, Step 3, Open Sesame, Welcome to Heaven. Rigidly trying to interpret the "letter of the law" usually means overlooking the spirit of the law, so the whole point of the enterprise gets lost in the process.

Posted at December 3, 2007 6:01 PM in response to Christianity as a Global Threat

The burden isn't on the netroots or grassroots to move closer to common ground with the DLC. The DLC reaped the benefits of our activism in 2004 (voter turnout) and 2006 (winning Congress), all while continuing to convey the message that WE'RE the ones who must come on board with THEIR agenda. It ain't about us wanting to settle scores, it is about them demonstrating they're finally ready to offer us an equal seat at the table. The best predictor of the future is the past, and until the DLC makes a clean breast of their past disdain for netroots activism and the progressive agenda, they shouldn't be surprised by our mistrust and rancor.

As for the commenter who equated this group with "elite political junkies", I can only conclude that those sought-after "average American citizens" are Democratic voters misinformed enough to think the DLC represents them just because the word Democratic is part of their name.

Posted at April 4, 2007 10:24 AM in response to In Search of Common Ground

One of the first things we have to do is to stop allowing every debate to descend into simplistic either-or dichotomies.

Shouldn't the most prosperous country in the world be able to provide productive work for everyone who's ready to work? Blaming the [insert favorite bogeymen here] in the workforce for our economic woes is short-sighted; it can't be any secret that good jobs have been getting shipped out of this country for decades. Let's once and for all put the damned blame for THAT where it belongs.

As for jobs that don't force parents to make Faustian choices (or non-parents, for that matter; most of us have some type of family obligations or life beyond work): as long as the guiding philosophy for prosperity is "maximum profit with minimum investment," family issues like the ones under discussion here will remain background noise. Quality of life - beyond a big house and fancy car and other accoutrements of disposable wealth - is not something we talk about enough.

Posted at March 19, 2007 8:25 PM in response to Working families, the care crisis, and time for change

Hi, Katha, this is totally off-topic, but you wrote a column in the 80's, I think, about a true meritocracy - i.e., your willingness to forego the preferred treatment received by children of alumni if that meant the most qualified person in your office was chosen for the promotion. I've searched numerous archives but haven't been able to find that piece, and wondered if it might be available somewhere else online.

If this is too off-topic, please just disregard.

Posted at February 24, 2007 12:29 AM in response to Your Blog Will Come Back to Haunt You

Way to tell it, Grandma M. If that's what you can do off the top of your head, imagine what we could accomplish with someone like you actually RUNNING things.

Posted at February 23, 2007 12:20 PM in response to Walter Reed: Is The Worst Yet to Come?

This is infuriating and shameful, though not very surprising to me. It's been clear from the outset that politicians and pundits of a particular stripe are fond of supporting our troops only so far as to the battlefield; after that, it's every man and woman for themselves.

This needs to be taken up by Move On and/or similar activist groups. We need to be sending delegations to every legislator demanding that it be the very first order of business. Call it the "Support Our Troops Act". The money allocated for the Iraq Victory celebration (if it's still around somewhere) should definitely be earmarked, and $1 of the defense budget allocated to returning soldiers for every $1 expended on technogadgetry (with no money taken away from the pay, body and vehicle armory, etc., of currently serving military personnel).

Maybe we need some new magnetic ribbons that say "Support Our Vets."

Posted at February 23, 2007 10:44 AM in response to Walter Reed: Is The Worst Yet to Come?

viviane, I stand corrected on your point about the earliest women's movement. Their priorities were the vote, marriage and property laws and educational access. Those issues were combustive enough without bringing up something so shocking as child-bearing in a public forum. Still, I don't doubt that birth control would have made its way into the discussion if there were any viable methods of same at hand for women. For sure, Margaret Sanger was considered an angel of mercy by many when she arrived on the scene in what, the 20's? (before she was charged under obscenity laws, of course)

I think the second wave of feminism took us in some needed and sometimes some silly ways (I keep envisioning that encounter group scene from Fried Green Tomatoes) but movements do take on a life of their own, and the most seemingly inane things can often lead to serendipity.

Yes, you're reading me inaccurately when you suppose I think being feminist must include being in favor of abortion. That's a common distortion of the feminist viewpoint, I think. I DO think being feminist must include being pro-choice - as in, "I reserve the right to decide for myself what I can and cannot, will and will not; therefore, I must stand in defense of every woman to reserve that same right to herself."

I do not agree that the issue of reproductive choice is at all symptomatic, but rather see it at the very root of whether women will have the same right to self-determination guaranteed as a basic human right to all "free" people, or must resign themselves to "biology is destiny." Yes, men become parents, too; but theirs is an entirely different investment in terms of time, physical and psychological health, etc. I would no more tell another woman that she must have a child than I would tell her that she must not have one. And that is, really, all the issue of reproductive choice boils down to as far as I'm concerned.

Posted at February 22, 2007 10:55 AM in response to Reporting feminism: Are we our own worst enemy?

Sorry about the double post; I didn't see it go through even once, never mind twice!

Posted at February 22, 2007 12:00 AM in response to Reporting feminism: Are we our own worst enemy?

I think it's overly simplistic to talk about feminism as some static thing. Like every movement, it has evolved over time. The second wave grew out of an entirely different social context; Friedan's The Female Eunuch provides a classic description of what it meant in the late 50's and early 60's to be female - wife, daughter or mother, but generally overlooked as a unique entity outside her relationship to others. The Myth of the Female Orgasm, anyone?

Where we are now with feminism has to do with the natural and mostly necessary evolution of movements, but also the backlash this particular one has engendered. Feminism touches on such a fundamental aspect of who we are, male or female - our gender identity, sexuality, how we will treat and be treated by same- and different-gender family, friends, bosses, coworkers. Because of its potential to impact the home as much as the workplace, it has always threatened the status quo as no other movement I can think of does. No wonder it's such a divisive topic of discussion.

Feminism has also gotten the same hatchet job as liberalism; I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say, "I'm not a liberal[feminist] but..." Both groups have been branded crazies and utopians and fringe to the point that many people actually believe that b.s.

I agree that the women's movement has done a poor job of reaching out to working class women and forming coalitions with other groups struggling for their place at the table. I also think the preoccupation of NOW and related groups with any candidate who is pro-choice, regardless of his/her party affiliation and otherwise regressive viewpoints is misguided to the max. I, too, would like to move beyond "feminism" to some "ism" that promotes basic dignity and respect for all creation;"injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," as MLK said.

But we also need to recognize how much ground has been lost for women due to the backlash of the past 30+ years. Not only is Roe v. Wade increasingly at risk, but women are now being denied legitimately-prescribed birth control by meddling pharmacists who think they have the right to insert their "values" between a patient and her doctor (my cynical side wonders whether the hue and cry would be greater should those same pharmacists refuse to refill a Viagra prescription). Access to scientifically-based sex education and family planning is being choked off bit by bit. Pregnancy, planned or unplanned, is a uniquely female issue given the nature of....well, nature; which explains why reproductive choice has always been the linchpin of the women's movement and why feminism continues to be relevant and necessary.

Personally, I think it's past time to enshrine the ability to choose when or whether to bear a child as a fundamental human right, without which any claim of individual rights is mere self-delusion.

Posted at February 21, 2007 11:58 PM in response to Reporting feminism: Are we our own worst enemy?