Soxy

I think it's interesting too, that most of the students support the work. As do most of the professors. It's the vocal minority that has had the work taken down. There is a book to write comments. One of the comments was that 'women's bodies inspire lust and sin and should not be displayed.' I have class with the boy who wrote it. And for his sake I think the art should remain uncensored as the point of the show was to say that women are NOT pornography and our body should not be taken that way, and I feel that the photos were taken in a way to show that they were not pornographic but where very artful.

I forgot to add that some of the breasts were older women and used to show the scars of breast cancer.

So, I know we have some college students here, and some people with opinions so I figured I would share something that's been going on at my little old Christian school. This week 12 female artists put up an exhibit in the student center that include some rather graphic work of breasts, butts, and pubic hair, and various other bits of female imagery, or associated female imagery. Including card catologue cards with works by or relating to Martin Luther that had black feather painting on it and then below all the works in large scroll the quotation "Girls grow faster than boys because weeds grow faster than good crops" Martin Luther. There were also sculptures of belly buttons, and pots with cherries, and just lots of female imagery. But, it was just basically, a show about the female. Immediately after being put up all of the nudish pictures were up they were taken down--and later put up with signs that said "CENSORED". Then yesterday a girl sat next to the works (mind you this is in the main student center) wearing only pasties and a nude thong and a veil and had written on her body, I am not pornography--which was the point of the exhibit. Basically, the whole campus has been in an uproar--and there has been a lot of talk about is there room for art like this on a Christian campus. Or is this art at all--or is it just porn? Thoughts?

No, but I'm questioning the Ethics of a midterm the day after St. Pat's....

Water. And studying for my midterm on the Ethics of Jesus. Happy St. Patrick's Day.

Crap, hold on. No it's not. I just caught the end of what you said, Flaxx, and now I have something else to add. Could just edit my old statement, but, meh. The problem with the Passion, theologically, and with the them just showing the last isntallment of that mini-series is that they lose the ethical message and, essentially, the ENTIRE MESSAGE of what Jesus actually preached. By just showing crucifixtion the execs are basically divorcing the fact that Jesus was crucified for a reason. The movie doesn't show WHY Jesus was crucied jsut that he was. It takes more of a Pauline view on the crucifixtion than a Gospel view. So, by sticking to this "Gospel" message of the passion we're actually getting further from the actual ethical message of what Jesus preached, and so forth by not talking about what he said and did. You can't have a movie about Jesus' death without mentioning the fact that he DIED because he was questioning the very power structures that crucified him--and that is what the passion and all of these movies are missing. By just focusing on his death we are missing the radically compassionate message of Jesus' life which ultimately lead to his death.

That's the one with the guy from Clueless as Jesus!!!! That's all I had to add.

Happy St. Pat's from one of the few Irish at St. Olaf College! And now, a song to celebrate: We sing the songs our fathers sang when they were growing up, rebel songs of Erin's Isle in the South Side Irish pubs, and when it comes to baseball we have two favorite clubs, the go-go White Sox — and whoever plays the Cubs. :fthecubs

I think he only got like 2% of the vote. :headshake Although one of those was my absentee ballot. Heck, I even have Kucinich TRADING CARDS. Yes, I am that cool.

Obama and Ryan appear to be the senate takers... My biggest shock was that Carol M-B took home 5% of the vote in the presidential...

Apu isn't saying Christians are evil, he's saying extremists are out of line. And I know many Christians that support the gay marriage bill. And I personally would argue that theologically, it wouldn't be out of line with JESUS' ethical message of radical inclusion. With the Pauline tradition, yes, but with Jesus, no.

Haven't seen it either. But I might, if my dad takes me, buys my ticket and buys me popcorn and a big soda AND takes me out for ice-cream later. AND lets me explain all the theological inaccuracies later. So, odds on me seeing it: slim to none.

Baseball but soccer is a very close second.

No it's not a split squad. What's the line up? I don't have the broadcast...

Every sperm is saaaaacred, every sperm is great, and if you waste it God gets quite irate... Right, too much cold medicine for me...

An interesting take on Ozzie and the Sox--from a Minnesota paper... Baseball Insider: Guillen hopes to bring out the best in White Sox Jim Souhan, Star Tribune March 10, 2004 INSI10 TUCSON, ARIZ. -- Even as the Twins won consecutive American League Central titles, they perceived a lack of deference from the Chicago White Sox. Ozzie Guillen promises to change that. In fact, the White Sox's rookie manager promises to change just about everything about the team that, in terms of market size, pedigree and star power, should be the division's 300-pound gorilla. Sitting behind his desk at the White Sox's spring training complex in Tucson, Guillen wore his cap askew and cracked jokes about his children, his players and himself. Asked by a Minnesota reporter what it was like to observe the White Sox and Twins from his position as third base coach for the Florida Marlins last season, Guillen became serious, even reverent. "I'm a White Sox fan all my life," Guillen said. "I grew up here, and I'm good friends with [White Sox boss] Jerry Reinsdorf. I feel for this team. "I think it was a shame they didn't win last year. It was a shame they didn't win for their manager, Jerry Manuel, because I think they've got a good enough team to win. "But the Minnesota Twins -- we played against them a couple of years ago, and I told [manager] Ron Gardenhire, I feel proud of what he has on the field. I went right to the dugout and said, 'I've never seen a bunch of kids go out and play the way they've played, go about their business the way they did during the game. "I told Ronnie, 'That's not easy to do.' That's the best team we played against that year -- meaning the way they handled themselves on the field. I told Ron, 'That's something I want to bring here, to bring fun to the ballpark and always play hard.' " Guillen said he will insist the White Sox play up to their capabilities, something they haven't done since winning the division in 2000. "Right now, I think we have a good team, almost the same team we had last year," Guillen said. "These players have played so many years together, it's time to go out and perform the way they should." The White Sox have lost Bartolo Colon, Carl Everett, Roberto Alomar, Tom Gordon, Scott Sullivan and Tony Graffanino from the team that said "No mas" to the Twins last September. Remember? Everett, sensing his team's lack of competitiveness as the Twins surged past, actually told Twins first baseman Doug Mientkiewicz on the basepaths: "We're done. Good luck in the playoffs." And this was when the division title remained in doubt. Manuel was a kind man but a poor match for an underachieving and sometimes lackadaisical team. Guillen's personality promises to remake the Whities in his own aggressive, upbeat image. "I don't believe in good managers," Guillen said. "I believe in good players who have chemistry. If the guys play good for you, then you get called a good manager." But "managing" is exactly what he will need to do with Frank Thomas' ego. When Guillen was introduced as the White Sox manager, he made Thomas an example of the kind of selfishness he won't tolerate. Then Thomas refused to return phone calls all winter from White Sox management, setting the stage for an explosive opening to camp. Instead, Thomas and Guillen have praised each other. "You can ask Frank -- I don't have any problems with him," Guillen said. "A lot of people thought we were enemies, but people forget that when I was his teammate he won three MVPs. "What I heard about Frank in the past, I didn't like it -- that he was moody, that he didn't play hard every day. This year he's been great. "To me, Frank is the biggest key on this team. You can see in spring training, everybody's happy, because Frank's having fun. Everybody thought it was going to be a war between us, but I talk to Frank more than I talk to anybody." Of course, Guillen talks to everybody, all the time, which has always been his charm. On a recent day at White Sox camp, he continually circulated through the clubhouse, taunting, yelling, cajoling, needling. "I think we have a good team, almost the same team we had last year," Guillen said. "They've played so many years together, it's time to go out and perform the way they should and take it to the next level. It's time for this team to try to win the division." If they don't, they will hear from Guillen. Of course, even if they do, they will hear from Guillen.

The article cites Australia as allowing asylum based on gender based persecution--and down under you tend to be a fairly progressive. I would imagine both you and NZ have the law like that. I'm really hoping this goes through; like the article mentions it won't affect huge numbers of asylum seekers--but it would mean a lot to those women that did get it. Here's a chance for old Johnny to redeem himself a bit in my eyes.

I've been closely following this story...Hopefully Ashcroft decides favorably in the cases for these women--then we will be on par with Britain, Australia and Canada...Sounds like the chances are pretty good; but who knows. I think it's time for this change to be made. Ashcroft Weighing Granting of Asylum to Abused Women March 11, 2004 By RACHEL L. SWARNS New York Times WASHINGTON, March 10 - The first hint of change came without much fanfare or publicity last month as the Department of Homeland Security quietly proposed sweeping changes in the handling of political asylum cases. But as word trickled across the country, dozens of battered women seeking refuge in the United States felt the first stirrings of hope. In their home countries, the women say, the authorities repeatedly ignored them when they tried to report and escape their abusive partners. The Department of Homeland Security, which took on the function of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, is proposing rules that would allow for political asylum in such extreme cases, opening the door to women fleeing countries that condone severe domestic abuse, genital mutilation and other forms of acute violence against women. If approved, the rules would for the first time recognize severe cases of domestic violence as equivalent in certain instances to more familiar asylum cases involving political and religious persecution. Department officials have passed along their recommendations in a 43-page legal brief to Attorney General John Ashcroft, who will make the final decision. The officials have urged Mr. Ashcroft to allow the department to put in place rules governing such cases and have called for Rodi Alvarado Peña of Guatemala, whose case gave rise to the recommendations, to be granted asylum. Justice Department officials say Mr. Ashcroft is still considering the issue, which has been roiling the immigration courts since a small but growing number of such cases began appearing in the 1990's. Some Justice Department officials indicated that Mr. Ashcroft had initially opposed such rules, but a former senior administration official familiar with the issue said he believed that Mr. Ashcroft would approve the proposal, given the considerable pressure from conservative groups and the Homeland Security Department. More than 36 Democrats in Congress, as well as leaders of conservative-minded groups like Concerned Women for America, and World Relief, an arm of the National Association of Evangelicals, have urged government officials to rule in favor of Mrs. Alvarado and women like her. Many battered women are anxiously awaiting the government's final determination. In California, Mrs. Alvarado, who said she fled an abusive husband who had dislocated her jawbone and used her head to break windows and mirrors, said her eyes filled with tears when she learned that domestic security officials had recommended granting asylum to women like her. In New York, Zaide Cinto of Mexico, her vision blurred and her hearing dulled after years of beatings by her husband, said she shouted, "Yes!" "I don't know who makes these decisions, but I think they must have hearts," said Mrs. Cinto, who is living in a shelter for the homeless as she awaits a decision on her petition for political asylum. "Perhaps they can understand our suffering." "Things are changing," she said hopefully, "not only for me, but for many people." The shift in policy would bring the United States in line with countries like Britain and Australia, which have been granting asylum in such cases for several years. Officials say the rules would also give much-needed guidance to immigration judges who have been issuing contradictory opinions in dozens of cases. In 1996, the Board of Immigration Appeals granted asylum to Fauziya Kassindja, who said her clitoris would be cut off if she were forced to return to Togo. The board, the highest administrative court for asylum cases, agreed that female circumcision was equivalent to more widely recognized forms of persecution. But three years later, the board denied asylum to Mrs. Alvarado. She said she had gone to the police in Guatemala on five occasions, reporting that her husband routinely raped and sodomized her, nearly pushed out one of her eyes and beat her into unconsciousness. The police declined to investigate, saying it was a domestic matter. The immigration board found Mrs. Alvarado's testimony credible and agreed that the abuse would most likely continue if she returned to Guatemala. But it concluded that she failed to meet the statutory requirement for asylum. Government lawyers criticized the board's analysis in the Alvarado case, and Janet Reno, who was attorney general, vacated the decision in January 2001, ordering the board to decide the case after the government completed regulations allowing victims of domestic violence to be granted asylum in limited cases. The rules were never finished. Bo Cooper, who served as general counsel for the Immigration and Naturalization Service until it was subsumed by the Department of Homeland Security last year, called the new recommendations "very important" and said they would provide a critical road map for judges and government lawyers. "Under established principles of asylum law, these kinds of cases should be granted," Mr. Cooper said. "What they're trying to do is to help bring some clarity to what has for years been a very unsettled doctrine in U.S. immigration law." It is unclear how Mr. Ashcroft, who decided last year to take up the case, will rule on the issue. But a former senior administration official who has been involved in recent discussions of the issue with lawyers and lobbying groups said he believed Mr. Ashcroft would rule favorably. "With conservative women's groups weighing in on this and now homeland security, the politics of it would be awful for the administration, whether it's good policy or not," the former administration official said. "That's going to mean enormous pressure put on Ashcroft to stay with the proposed regulation. I think he will ultimately go with it." The need for clarity on the issue has become increasingly evident as a small but steady stream of women press their claims here. Some women, like Mrs. Alvarado, left their abusive husbands in their home countries and entered the United States illegally. Other women followed their husbands to the United States, entering the country illegally or on visas. They petitioned for asylum when the violence they had endured at home continued on American soil. Immigration officials do not know how many of the roughly 250,000 asylum cases awaiting disposition have been filed by such women, but they believe the numbers are small. Karen Musalo, director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, represents Mrs. Alvarado and has tracked about 500 pending gender-asylum cases. But critics of the Department of Homeland Security's proposal fear that the new rules will encourage a flood of frivolous asylum claims from poor women around the world. "How can we provide permanent residency to everyone who is fleeing an unfortunate domestic or social situation where the government is alleged to be nonresponsive?" asked Dan Stein of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which seeks to limit immigration. "This is stretching the bounds of common sense." In its brief, the Department of Homeland Security counters that the policy will affect only a "limited number of victims of domestic violence" who can prove that they meet the strict criteria for asylum seekers. Asylum seekers must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. For years, advocates for immigrants have argued that women in certain circumstances can constitute a particular social group. Joe D. Whitley, general counsel for the Homeland Security Department, explained in the brief that victims of domestic violence seeking asylum should show that the abuse was "supported by the legal system or social norms in the country in question." Mrs. Cinto, who left Mexico in 2002, said the police there repeatedly ignored the abuse she suffered. She moved to the United States, and when her husband continued to beat her here, friends at a local church directed her to a domestic shelter in New York. Sanctuary for Families, a nonprofit group that supports victims of domestic violence, helped her file a petition for asylum last year. Across the country, Mrs. Alvarado has been waiting almost a decade for her case to be decided. She has been separated during that time from her parents and two children, who still live in Guatemala."It hasn't been easy," she said. "But I know that if I win my case, other women like myself are going to be helped."

I've seen the Canucks play the Wild a couple of times--and when I heard this story break I wasn't surprised. The Canucks are one of the more vicious teams I've seen play and they definitely know how to hold a grudge (they and the the Wild have an odd vendetta that has been going since the Wild started...). I do enjoy a good Hockey fight, or baseball fight, or whatever. But there is a line between a five-for-fighting and something that stays on the ice for games, and games and games because that stuff gets too crazy and turns out too be flat out assault.

A similiar, more weighty and more implicating article was published in the NY Times on February 26, 2004. Personally, I am mostly upset by the government handling of the sexual assault cases. Of course, handling of most sexual assault cases that I have been seen are nothing more than a trial of the victim mixed in with some beauracracy. I don't anticipate this being any different, except now we'll get to hear, Those women shouldn't have been there in the first place. I have nothing against the military--I respect all they do to keep me safe--but I am bothered by the above case because it appears the military isn't affording the proper care to keep all of their members safe.

Oh, Tex, don't even respond to this guy. I looked up his posts in this forum and he really only posts things that are pretty inflammatory--just ignore him. When is that button getting here?

I like the part that says "This note is moral legal tender to preserve the United States Constitution." Ooops. Thank God I'm not a cashier anymore...I would have peed my pants laughing...

My first statement, just meant that since I'm a Buddhist, I was curious about people who had left the Christian Church and no longer claimed to be religious but spiritual. And thanks, you definitely helped to clear that up! And, since I am a Buddhist, I definitely DO believe people outside the Christian church can be religious. I've just been wondering about the boundary between spiritual and religious.

I meant, as a non-Christian, a person with Christian ideals who used to be a Christian. So, what's the difference between spiritual and religious?

Right, I'm just saying that of the people I know. Usually very liberal, they don't want to be known as religious because of the negative connotations that come with that word. They have religious beliefs and would go to church if they weren't afraid of how people would treat them there or upset by many of the church's docterines. So, the question is, can you be religious outside the Christian church?