|
Post by Kapitan on Jun 5, 2021 17:46:28 GMT
Three more homicides in Minneapolis last night brings us to 37 so far this year.
For comparison, we had 48 total in 2019 before the spike of 2020 brought a second-highest total of 84. (The record is 97, in 1995, when we were nicknamed "Murderapolis" by NYT.)
It's not particularly scary to be here. But it's sure disappointing.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jun 14, 2021 14:04:50 GMT
Last night in the Uptown neighborhood of Minneapolis, some idiot drove his car into a crowd protesting. He killed one woman and injured three more people.
Now, I am not fond of these eternal protests, either, and especially not of protesters unilaterally closing down streets (as this one had done). But that said, what good in the world could anyone think driving into them would do?
"I'm gonna teach them a lesson"!? Is that the thinking? Yeah, I'm sure those road-closing protesters will suddenly think, "you know, now that this asshole drove his car into our crowd, I see the error of our ways; let's all close this protest down."
Obviously it will do nothing but generate more protests, more opposition, more conflict. (By the way, the protests are over yet another recent police shooting in Minneapolis, this one over a man federal marshals were trying to arrest on felony charges, and who allegedly fired a weapon at police while trying to flee arrest. His companion at the time disputes the story and there is no video.)
Everyone needs to calm down before things devolve into riots and people loot and burn the city again. And anyone doing anyone else harm needs to go to jail and stay there.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jun 15, 2021 13:13:40 GMT
A story combining religion and politics on NPR this morning rubbed me the wrong way.
The basic topic was whether the Catholic church will, might, or should choose to refuse communion to politicians with certain positions that defy the church's doctrine (e.g., supporting abortion). It's an older argument that pops up anew every so often, so nothing too shocking there.
What I didn't like about the story was that one source they interviewed was basically saying it is hypocritical of them to refuse Biden communion just because he support legalized abortion because he's a regular church-goer (implying that Trump wasn't). To me, that's entirely irrelevant to the story, and just forces this topic into yet another example of the boring, overplayed Trump/non-Trump binary the media (and certain segments of society) insist upon.
Trump wasn't and isn't a Catholic. He may not really be a believing Christian at all. So it doesn't matter. The Catholic church wasn't refusing him communion because he wasn't seeking it.
And second, whether Biden is a regular (Catholic) church-goer is also irrelevant. The question is whether a church can and should impose restrictions or forbid benefits on people who, while obviously at least nominally of their faith, dispute particulars of their faith. It's not about freedom of religion for individuals, it's not about freedom of speech for individuals, it's not about Trump, it's not about believing in a god, it's not about church attendance, it's not about comparing moral or Catholic bona fides.
It's just about whether an organized church--which by definition is bound to have certain beliefs and doctrines--has a right to practice as it sees fit, including how to treat those it sees as dissenting, or heterodox, or heretical, or apostates.
Consider: if I am a believer in unregulated capitalism, gun rights, and small government, and I want to run for office as a Democrat, is the Democratic Party required to provide its endorsement of me? Or is its prerogative to deny me that endorsement based on my public beliefs contradicting its own platform? Seems like the same thing to me.
(Whether it is wise for a major church with bipartisan membership with a diversity of beliefs to refuse communion is another issue entirely. I don't know. And it's none of my business, frankly.)
|
|
|
Post by carllove on Jun 15, 2021 20:00:03 GMT
I was raised Baptist, so once you are Baptized, you are good to take communion. Seems to be more biblical than the Catholic way, which throws in a lot of rules, like if you are divorced, you can’t take Holy Communion. I always thought it was stupid and therefore I would never choose to become Catholic. (Then again, I pretty much chose neither, currently). That being said - They have a right to make those rules. It would be horrible though, to be raised in a Catholic family and be unable to partake of the holy sacrament at a Wedding and Funeral masses.
Also, NPR is not a place where I would expect to hear a learned discussion of anything concerning Christianity, so the “attendance waiver” concept is to be expected.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jun 15, 2021 20:13:23 GMT
I was raised Lutheran--"confessional Lutheran," which is a very conservative type and in some ways more similar to Catholic than to other forms of Protestantism including other Lutherans. (I've been an atheist for decades now, though I'm still VERY interested in religion and not hostile to it. I also don't pretend to know about God's [or gods'] existence.)
In my forms of Lutheranism, basically you need to be a member of that synod or a similar one that is close, or "in fellowship," to take communion in one of their churches (So for example, I believe the Evangelical Lutheran Synod and Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod allow members of one another to take communion.) But even other Lutherans aren't necessarily allowed to take it, much less Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, or anyone else.
The idea as they teach it is that in part it is a confession of unity of faith, and if your faith isn't that same faith, why would you want it? I think the Catholic idea, though I know it is different in some ways (including precisely what communion is), is along those lines.
My personal opinion would be that sacraments across Christian denominations are almost by definition mysteries, and it's best to leave the details and processes and procedures for God to worry about. But like you said, it's their church. Their rules.
I also couldn't agree more about how NPR covers religion generally, and Christianity specifically. Pretty ignorant, condescending, and of course politicized.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jun 17, 2021 11:58:33 GMT
Last night in the Uptown neighborhood of Minneapolis, some idiot drove his car into a crowd protesting. He killed one woman and injured three more people.
This driver--who hasn't had a drivers license since 2013 due to numerous DUIs--is being charged with second-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon (his car).
Protesters and the city are still battling over the streets in the area, with the former attempting to barricade off the area in memorial and as a protest site. (We have been dealing with that same phenomenon for over a year elsewhere in the city.)
The killing that was being protested previously, leading to the initial blocking of the roads that the driver busted through when he killed the protester, is still being investigated. Initial reports of the investigation back up officers' claims that the man shot at them before they shot and killed him, as spent bullet casings from the gun he was found with were found in his car. However, the woman who was in the car with him says she didn't see a gun or see him shooting. There is no footage from body cams or dash cams apparently because it was an undercover U.S. Marshals effort, not an MPD one.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Jun 18, 2021 0:20:19 GMT
Last night in the Uptown neighborhood of Minneapolis, some idiot drove his car into a crowd protesting. He killed one woman and injured three more people.
This driver--who hasn't had a drivers license since 2013 due to numerous DUIs--is being charged with second-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon (his car). I had considered that perhaps this wasn't a deliberate, politically-motivated incident. But, the thought that it was, sickened me. Actually, that's nowhere near a strong enough term. It got me thinking about such a person's political beliefs and that they'd most likely believe in the death penalty (at least, up to the moment they killed someone and got caught...). Anyway, this kind of sent me down a rabbit hole. I saw that Minnesota abolished the death penalty in 1911. Then I started reading about Eddie Slovik who was executed by the US government in January of 1945 for DESERTION. That is fucked up! He thought he would be dishonorably discharged and given a prison sentence (he had been in and out of prison prior to being drafted and preferring that to fighting on the frontlines). I can understand (NOT condone, but understand) soldiers being shot at by officers for retreating during battle, as I've seen depicted in movies, such as, Enemy at the Gates, but to hold a trial, to go through the legal process, and follow through with the execution of Eddie Slovik is a grave injustice. He was the only American soldier since the Civil War to be executed for desertion.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Jun 18, 2021 0:27:16 GMT
I've signed up to attend a virtual meeting tonight for a local chapter of Braver Angels, a group devoted to depolarizing the country. I've seen several of their podcast discussions in the past and especially am a fan of their primary spokesperson John Wood Jr.
To date, as much as I've followed politics and cultural issues, I haven't been very active in them outside of donating to causes I believe in, having personal conversations with friends and colleagues, and of course voting. I'm especially not a protester type. And frankly I'm lazy, so I haven't been one to join this or that, to attend meetings, and so on.
I'm not sure whether I'll actually join this organization, or participate in any real way. But I figured I could spare an hour or so on a Tuesday evening to check it out.
How was it?
|
|
|
Post by carllove on Jun 19, 2021 0:09:09 GMT
I was raised Lutheran--"confessional Lutheran," which is a very conservative type and in some ways more similar to Catholic than to other forms of Protestantism including other Lutherans. (I've been an atheist for decades now, though I'm still VERY interested in religion and not hostile to it. I also don't pretend to know about God's [or gods'] existence.)
In my forms of Lutheranism, basically you need to be a member of that synod or a similar one that is close, or "in fellowship," to take communion in one of their churches (So for example, I believe the Evangelical Lutheran Synod and Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod allow members of one another to take communion.) But even other Lutherans aren't necessarily allowed to take it, much less Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, or anyone else.
The idea as they teach it is that in part it is a confession of unity of faith, and if your faith isn't that same faith, why would you want it? I think the Catholic idea, though I know it is different in some ways (including precisely what communion is), is along those lines.
My personal opinion would be that sacraments across Christian denominations are almost by definition mysteries, and it's best to leave the details and processes and procedures for God to worry about. But like you said, it's their church. Their rules. I also couldn't agree more about how NPR covers religion generally, and Christianity specifically. Pretty ignorant, condescending, and of course politicized.
One thing I did enjoy about the Southern Baptist Church was that everyone was welcome to take communion. Still, No Women Pastors and Women could not teach Sunday School to males unless their husband was the leader and no female Deacons. I enjoyed the Sunday School Class taught by a PhD in Theology that covered other Religions. It was very informative. I find religion fascinating. I always wonder - who first thought of the idea of God? Did someone decide that humans couldn't behave if they didn't have a set of rules from "God"? I feel like I have had enough information to decide that maybe there is some sort of a "higher power", just pretty sure it isn't the mythical Christian father in the sky. Most of my friends from High School are pretty religious, but I don't have a problem with it. I sort of envy them. I still give them my prayers when requests are made, since I do believe the positive energy of prayer can do some good. Most of them probably think I am still a Christian. I also love to sing "Oh Holy Night". I actually enjoy a good Christmas Eve service because I love singing the hymns. I really enjoyed the Billy Graham Crusade that was in Kansas City over 20 years ago. Just can't call myself a believer anymore. I do feel for that baker in Colorado. I think he has a right to choose to refuse to make a cake for a transgender reveal as it contradicts his beliefs. My only daughter's fiancé is transgender, and she would probably disagree with me on that opinion, because I know she does on the issue of transgender females competing against cis females. I love my daughter's fiancé, and think that transitioning has been the right choice for her and support most transgender rights, except when they interfere with religious rights or contradict science. I am an former high school athlete that had to train with the boys in cross country as I was the only female, and it was hard. There were major physiological differences. I could still beat half of the JV at that time, but I had to train so hard (coach never cut me any slack with splits), I broke my foot midway through the season my Junior year. Until then, I medaled in every race I ran. How do you feel about the Colorado baker?
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jun 19, 2021 12:11:23 GMT
How do you feel about the Colorado baker? Wow, no easy questions in this thread!
First, I do have to note that I think you're combining a couple different stories. The Colorado baker had refused to bake a cake for a gay couple, but they weren't transgender. (I think trans issues came to the forefront of the country's attention around the same time, so I can understand conflating them.)
But that said, I guess my feelings would apply the same regardless.
I personally, fully support everyone's right to live as she or he feels, so long as it doesn't inappropriately infringe upon other people's living of their lives. And I think equal treatment under the law is essential--and has been a long time coming. The legal acceptance of gay marriage is one such example of something that should have been the case for decades. (That said, once it changed, it changed very fast. I'm glad for that.)
However, I do see where in cases such as the one you mention, that right to live as one sees fit does butt up against someone else's right to live as they saw fit. And honestly I can't pretend to feel entitled to say what the ruling should have been in that case or similar ones. I lean intuitively toward letting privately owned businesses (and private citizens) do as they see fit, at least in cases where their businesses require something active on the part of the business owner (e.g., writing a message on a cake, making a television commercial, admitting members to a group whose public beliefs are contrary to the group's mission). But in most cases, I don't think those people SHOULD discriminate.
I think it would've been better for all involved had the bakers simply made the requested cake, as they aren't clergy and weren't "blessing" the marriage--just baking a cake that might have said two men's names on it or something. I wonder how many other people's cake requests they denied: something sexually risque (for some bachelorette party maybe)? Something with profanity? Something for an unmarried couple living together? Were they consistently adhering to their faith, or was it only to discriminate against a gay couple? I don't know.
But to be clear, these are just my thoughts. The older I get, the less comfortable I am saying how things ought to be for everyone. My vote is one vote. I'm almost always glad to talk through issues with people, even argue them, but only in good faith and with that understanding.
To summarize: I generally think private citizens and businesses ought to be allowed to reject business as they see fit, but I think they very often will be wrong to do so and will be judged harshly in the court of public opinion for it. But I also think there is a limit to that general idea, and I'm not sure where it is.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Jun 19, 2021 12:15:27 GMT
How do you feel about the Colorado baker? Wow, no easy questions in this thread!
First, I do have to note that I think you're combining a couple different stories. The Colorado baker had refused to bake a cake for a gay couple, but they weren't transgender. That’s what I thought, but no! He’s back! I’ll comment later today.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jun 19, 2021 12:43:09 GMT
Wow, no easy questions in this thread!
First, I do have to note that I think you're combining a couple different stories. The Colorado baker had refused to bake a cake for a gay couple, but they weren't transgender. That’s what I thought, but no! He’s back! I’ll comment later today. Hmm, you've piqued my curiosity, then!
I failed to comment on what I (maybe mistakenly!) thought of as trans issues more generally, though, which I think carllove was also talking about. Along the lines of what I said before, though, I think people should be allowed to live without harassment, etc., however they see fit, including if they are transgender.
That said, I don't like that it has been lumped in with the "LGB" part of the acronym. I don't think it's helpful to anyone involved, and in more cases, it seems there are inherent contradictions. But mostly, I just don't think gender issues are sexual preference issues, and so the only thing making the broader coalition a community is a status as historically disadvantaged groups. But then it could be LGBTAD (with Atheist and Drug-user added), as those are also groups who have historically been frowned upon.
There also was an approach that separated gender from sex when I was in college (mid to late 90s) and I think the issues are not such problems that way: apparent objective realities are respected, and so are individuals. Under that approach, there is simply an idea that biological sexes are real and almost always definitive, with the exception of very rare intersex cases. Then gender is more how society tends to treat people of those biological sexes: men are seen as tough, as leaders, competitive, they wear pants, they don't cry, they love sports; women are seen as nurturing, as softer, as sentimental, and so on.
In the majority of cases, people's traits more or less match the gender identities, which makes sense in that they are based on biological realities...but everyone is different. Some biological women feel more "masculine," and some men "feminine," sometimes to the point of not just being a tomboy or butch woman, but a trans man. I think that's fine, I'll respect it, I'll call him "him," and so on. But the underlying realities and obvious distinctions shouldn't be ignored in the interest of courtesy or emotional support. That's my opinion. (What I mean is, that some trans activism that goes so far as to say there's no way to tell a man from a woman other than asking, that it's transphobic for a straight cis man not to find a trans woman sexually appealing/acceptable, or the idea that trans women should be freely allowed to compete against biological women in all sports, seems wrong to me.)
But this is all just my opinion. I think the issue is so new--not in terms of trans people being new, they are not! But in terms of societal recognition and open conversation.--that we should be humble to some degree about what we do and don't understand.
Most of all we shouldn't allow traditional aversion to things--the shock factor or even "ick" factor some may feel--to override our reason, courtesy, dignity, and love for fellow people.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Jun 19, 2021 14:05:19 GMT
How do you feel about the Colorado baker? ...To summarize: I generally think private citizens and businesses ought to be allowed to reject business as they see fit, but I think they very often will be wrong to do so and will be judged harshly in the court of public opinion for it. But I also think there is a limit to that general idea, and I'm not sure where it is. Perhaps, it's right here? That's the conclusion I started to come to last night. Look, I'm very libertarian-minded, I believe in the free market, but while we wait for it to do its thing (i.e. for discriminatory business owners to adapt or fail), people are being discriminated against. Legally, it's clear that in this recent case he violated the state's anti-discrimination law (which resulted in a fine of $500 - the maximum amount). Apparently, Ms. Scardina was denied the custom blue and pink cake only after she said that the colors symbolized her transition. That's cut and dry discrimination. That's not a business decision. And, personally, I don't see how Ms. Scardina's request to purchase a blue and pink cake from a baker interferes with his religious rights. He's not asked to acknowledge, believe, accept, condone, or celebrate anything. Indeed, the judge ruled that baking and decorating a cake in the style requested by a customer is not a form of "compelled speech". What he is doing, essentially, is subjecting others (i.e. the public) to his private religious beliefs. That's not protected. That's not a right. Business-wise, it's not a good (or as they say in the business world: "best") practice. And, that's before factoring in the hardships of dealing with the legal fallout. Morally, he's flat-out wrong. As Ms. Scardina said, "we all have the same right to the same cake." Hard to argue with that...
|
|
|
Post by carllove on Jun 19, 2021 15:33:23 GMT
...To summarize: I generally think private citizens and businesses ought to be allowed to reject business as they see fit, but I think they very often will be wrong to do so and will be judged harshly in the court of public opinion for it. But I also think there is a limit to that general idea, and I'm not sure where it is. Perhaps, it's right here? That's the conclusion I started to come to last night. Look, I'm very libertarian-minded, I believe in the free market, but while we wait for it to do its thing (i.e. for discriminatory business owners to adapt or fail), people are being discriminated against. Legally, it's clear that in this recent case he violated the state's anti-discrimination law (which resulted in a fine of $500 - the maximum amount). Apparently, Ms. Scardina was denied the custom blue and pink cake only after she said that the colors symbolized her transition. That's cut and dry discrimination. That's not a business decision. And, personally, I don't see how Ms. Scardina's request to purchase a blue and pink cake from a baker interferes with his religious rights. He's not asked to acknowledge, believe, accept, condone, or celebrate anything. Indeed, the judge ruled that baking and decorating a cake in the style requested by a customer is not a form of "compelled speech". What he is doing, essentially, is subjecting others (i.e. the public) to his private religious beliefs. That's not protected. That's not a right. Business-wise, it's not a good (or as they say in the business world: "best") practice. And, that's before factoring in the hardships of dealing with the legal fallout. Morally, he's flat-out wrong. As Ms. Scardina said, "we all have the same right to the same cake." Hard to argue with that... Very well thought out analysis. I will be curious to see the courts take on this. You did really make me think.
|
|
|
Post by carllove on Jun 19, 2021 16:23:40 GMT
That’s what I thought, but no! He’s back! I’ll comment later today. Hmm, you've piqued my curiosity, then!
I failed to comment on what I (maybe mistakenly!) thought of as trans issues more generally, though, which I think carllove was also talking about. Along the lines of what I said before, though, I think people should be allowed to live without harassment, etc., however they see fit, including if they are transgender.
That said, I don't like that it has been lumped in with the "LGB" part of the acronym. I don't think it's helpful to anyone involved, and in more cases, it seems there are inherent contradictions. But mostly, I just don't think gender issues are sexual preference issues, and so the only thing making the broader coalition a community is a status as historically disadvantaged groups. But then it could be LGBTAD (with Atheist and Drug-user added), as those are also groups who have historically been frowned upon.
There also was an approach that separated gender from sex when I was in college (mid to late 90s) and I think the issues are not such problems that way: apparent objective realities are respected, and so are individuals. Under that approach, there is simply an idea that biological sexes are real and almost always definitive, with the exception of very rare intersex cases. Then gender is more how society tends to treat people of those biological sexes: men are seen as tough, as leaders, competitive, they wear pants, they don't cry, they love sports; women are seen as nurturing, as softer, as sentimental, and so on.
In the majority of cases, people's traits more or less match the gender identities, which makes sense in that they are based on biological realities...but everyone is different. Some biological women feel more "masculine," and some men "feminine," sometimes to the point of not just being a tomboy or butch woman, but a trans man. I think that's fine, I'll respect it, I'll call him "him," and so on. But the underlying realities and obvious distinctions shouldn't be ignored in the interest of courtesy or emotional support. That's my opinion. (What I mean is, that some trans activism that goes so far as to say there's no way to tell a man from a woman other than asking, that it's transphobic for a straight cis man not to find a trans woman sexually appealing/acceptable, or the idea that trans women should be freely allowed to compete against biological women in all sports, seems wrong to me.)
But this is all just my opinion. I think the issue is so new--not in terms of trans people being new, they are not! But in terms of societal recognition and open conversation.--that we should be humble to some degree about what we do and don't understand.
Most of all we shouldn't allow traditional aversion to things--the shock factor or even "ick" factor some may feel--to override our reason, courtesy, dignity, and love for fellow people.
I do think things are getting better acceptance wise for trans individuals, but trying to force allowing trans females to compete against cis females is hurting their cause. Males are born with biological advantages that cannot be totally reversed by taking hormones. I do feel truly bad for trans female athletes, but they have an advantage. Perhaps in the future, they will add a category to events like track and field that will allow them to compete on an even field. Until then, it is going to be a rocky road for both sides. My daughter and I will never agree on this issue. We were having a conversation as to whether or not I was still going to support Donald Trump in 2024, and I told her that I would prefer that he step out of the way and let Ron DeSantis step in as the leader of the Republican party. She blew a gasket and told me that he had signed the bill prohibiting trans athletes participating against female athletes on the first day of Pride Month. I did have to agree that was kind of a dick move. He could have waited. It is eye opening seeing the difficulties trans individuals face when you have one in your life. Thankfully, my daughter's fiance has family support now, but it didn't start out that way. Her father is a Christian pastor and her mom threw away her mail order home pills, the first time she found them. When she was first dating my daughter, she still dressed as a male and didn't tell her that she was taking hormones and wanted to transition. She went so far as to break up with my daughter without telling her why and then when pressed explained the situation, my child was willing to not only accept her transitioning, but committed to help her in her journey. Kudo's to my daughter for that. My parent's are a little confused, but accepting and excited for the wedding. They asked me if that meant that their grandchild was gay. I told them that it just meant that she loved who she loved and she didn't care what their gender was. Mom said, "Well, it's a new world", then she asked the name of the hotel they like to stay at so she could book it for the wedding.
|
|