Author: Roger

I'm a librarian. I hear music, even when it's not being played. I used to work at a comic book store, and it still informs my life. I won once on JEOPARDY! - ditto.

Matthew Shepard as Emmett Till

Matthew Shepard’s parents, Dennis and Judy Shepard, became activists for gay rights and more vigorous prosecution of hate crimes.

Matthew ShepardRecently, Arthur wrote about Matthew Shepard’s interment, a surprising ending of a two-decades-long journey.

In case you are unfamiliar, per NPR: “Matthew Shepard, the young gay man brutally killed on a chilly night in Wyoming 20 years ago… was finally laid to rest at Washington National Cathedral… A reflective, music-filled service offered stark contrast to the anti-gay protests that marred his funeral two decades ago.”

The music included Lacrimosa from the Mozart Requiem, which always affects me greatly. His parents had been afraid to bury him in Wyoming, lest his grave be ransacked.

Somehow, that murder became a flashpoint where other crimes of that nature had not. “Shepard’s killing became the basis for a play, The Laramie Project, which brought widespread attention to the problem of homophobia.” The events were the subject of a 2002 TV movie, The Matthew Shepard Story.

“Shepard’s parents, Dennis and Judy Shepard, established the Matthew Shepard Foundation and became activists for gay rights and more vigorous prosecution of hate crimes.”
emmett till

It occurred to me that, in some basic ways, his death paralleled that of Emmett Till, the Chicago-born black teenager who was murdered, purportedly for whistling at a white woman, in rural Mississippi in August 1955. The woman in the case has only recently recanted her allegation.

His brutal demise, which helped energize the efforts for black equality, has been the subject of Dreaming Emmett, the first play by the Nobel-winning African-American writer Toni Morrison, in 1986, and the Oscar-nominated short film My Nephew Emmett (2017), both of which I have seen.

The parallels are interesting. Neither victim was a publicly known person; they weren’t activists in their respective civil rights struggles. Yet because Emmett’s mother had his battered body photographed in an open casket, because we saw the fence upon which Matthew was symbolically crucified, they were remembered nationally far beyond how the average murder victim is recalled.

As I’ve mentioned here more than once, Emmett Till’s death has haunted me ever since I saw the photos in either JET or Ebony magazine in 1960. When some idiot pseudo-Christian group came to Albany to protest a production of The Laramie Project at Albany High School in 2009, I was one of the great number of counter-protesters.

It’s kismet the way some lives, and deaths, transcend to tell the larger story.

Submission, women, the Bible: 1 Timothy 2

“There are those who believe this text is making a blanket statement about the role of women in the church. “

religious-inclusion01There was this picture on Facebook of a guy holding a sign that women “should be quiet, submissive to husband, cooking, ironing, silent in church”. It specifically cites 1 Timothy 2.

I came across this article by Jenna Daniels, who was, at least as of the publication date was associate pastor at Awaken Community Covenant Church, St. Paul, MN. The piece was undated but was posted at least two years ago.

Rev. Daniels pulls our verses 11-15:

“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love, and holiness with propriety.”

She notes, correctly, that “There are those who believe this text is making a blanket statement about the role of women in the church. There are other passages that seem to say this same thing, where women are to remain silent, or that they are the glory of man, they are to submit, they can’t lead.”

So what is she doing preaching? She sees Paul’s writing in this and other cases as a contextual prohibition. Specifically, the apostle may have been referring to the culture in Ephesus and the worship of Artemis, the goddess of fertility, for example.

Paul “is addressing a group of women who were false teachers influenced by the Artemis cult in which female supremacy was the norm. When [he] talks about the authority these women are exercising, he uses a word that is used nowhere in the entire New Testament: authentein, translated as ‘exercise authority.’ Other times when Paul is referring to authority, he uses [the generic] exousia…

“But authentein carries a sense of abusing power and acting on your own authority. These women are teaching things that aren’t true, and doing it in an abusive way, so Paul tells them to be silent. Interestingly, he still tells them to learn.”

In this vein, here are Six Things Submission Is Not by John Piper, coincidentally also a Minnesota pastor. My broader point is that it is easy to cherry-pick scripture to support oppression; American slavery was justified in that manner.

As Rev. Daniels notes, “I believe the Enemy’s greatest and strongest work is to cause us to misunderstand God’s Word in a way that binds up and constricts and prevents where God’s intent is freedom and life in Christ for all people.”

Music Throwback: To Sir With Love

To Sir With Love was, the best-selling single of 1967 in the US

I was watching the 31 October 2017 edition of JEOPARDY! a few days later. There was a category in the second round called FILMS OF THE 1960s. The $1600 clue: “British pop singer Lulu had a small role in this 1967 film & also sang the title song.”

None of the contestants rang in, but then again, none of them appeared to have been born before 1970. Naturally, I knew, instantly, that it was To Sir With Love. At the time of the show’s airing, the song was in the midst of the 50th anniversary of its five-week run at #1 on the US Billboard charts. Interestingly. it also got to #9 on the US soul charts.

Marie McDonald McLaughlin Lawrie was born 3 November 1948 in Glasgow, Scotland. Tony Gordon, who would eventually manage Culture Club, discovered the 14-year-old performer. Tony recommended to his sister, Marian Massey, that she should manage the singer.

It was Marian who came up with a new name for Marie. “She actually gave up, and then said, ‘I’ll tell you one thing, she’s a real lulu of a kid,'” Lulu explained.

Marian’s sister Felice tipped off Marian about the script for To Sir With Love. Director James Clavell saw Lulu perform at a Beach Boys concert, and she got the film role and got to sing the title song.

In June 1967, Epic Records released The Boat That I Row, a Neil Diamond song. The song from the film was relegated to the B side. American DJs flipped the record. But To Sir with Love never made the UK charts and it was never even nominated for an Oscar.

Lulu has been an active performer on TV in the UK for decades and was married to Maurice Gibb of the Bee Gees from 1969 to 1973.

LISTEN to:

Shout – Lulu & the Luvvers, #7 UK, #94 US (1964); #96 on (1967 re-release)

The Boat That I Row, #6 in the UK, #115 in the US (1967)

To Sir With Love, the best-selling single of 1967 in the US

The Man Who Sold the World, produced by David Bowie and Mick Ronson; the former wrote, played saxophone, provided back-up vocals. #3 UK (1974), Top 10 hit in several European countries, did not chart in US

I Could Never Miss You (More Than I Do), recorded in 1979, but not properly released as a single until 1981. #18 pop US, #2 US Adult Contemporary chart, only #62 UK

If I Were You, #44 US (1982)

Independence, #11 UK (1993)

“Googlified” Brains on the Internet

“If we don’t know the answer to something, our first thought is likely to be ‘Google.'”

GooglifiedThere was a recent article in Median recently entitled “This Is Your Brain on the Internet, by Erman Misirlisoy, PhD. The subtitle: “We know where to find information — we just can’t remember it anymore.” I thought the primary points were self-evidently true.

“Our internet usage has ‘Googlified’ our brain, making us more dependent on knowing where to access facts and less able to remember the facts themselves.” That’s the key sentence for me.

“The internet acts as a great aid, but our faith and reliance on it can make us overconfident in our own abilities.” I think this is why I get cranky when people say, “I’ll just Google it.” People seem to use it, not just as a helper for thinking, but in lieu of thinking.

“The internet has changed the way that our brains work. Humans have always been good at learning and adapting to new environments. So given the internet’s dramatic impact on life in the developed world, it is no surprise that we have adjusted our thinking and behavior…”

How do you know the information is incorrect if you don’t already have general knowledge already? I recently caught an error on a podcast I listen to. The announcer said Rockin’ Robin was a Jackson 5 song when I knew it was a Michael Jackson song. It was also a cover of a 1958 hit by Bobby Day. A small thing, sure, but if one were to Google that uncorrected info, the misinformation spreads.

“Researchers have used this principle to test whether difficult trivia questions automatically activate internet-related concepts in our brain. If we don’t know the answer to something, our first thought is likely to be ‘Google.’ When study participants took part in a behavioral task immediately following difficult trivia questions, their performance in that task worsened when words like ‘Google’ appeared on a screen, distracting them…”

This is why, I suppose, I am old-fashioned enough to be impressed when people I know IRL show that they can extract information sans electronic aids. Like Chuck’s team winning a national trivia competition. Or Darrin placing second in the inaugural Times Union Crossword Championship.

Guano birthright citizenship rhetoric

Even Paul Ryan says “you obviously cannot” end birthright citizenship via executive order.

birthrightAs you probably heard, the head of the regime says he will void birthright citizenship law through Executive Order.

Hmm, getting rid of part of the US Constitution by a stroke of his pen? It’s Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (1868) that gives automatic citizenship to children born on US soil, even if their parents aren’t citizens.

He said “he had always been told ‘that you needed a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship. Guess what? You don’t.”

“You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress… But now they’re saying I can do it just with an executive order. It’ll happen. With an executive order.'”

As someone from the Boston Globe put it, “US conservatives have suffered from ABDS (anchor baby derangement syndrome) for years, and have been trying to get rid of so-called birthright citizenship, even though it… was enacted by… Republicans trying to help freed slaves after the Civil War…” Or maybe because of that.

A few questions popped up:

Question 1: Is he lying about the history of birthright citizenship, or is he just ignorant?

Birthright citizenship Wasn’t Born in America. Blame Elizabeth I for his least-favorite policy.

Also, it is a hallmark of New World democracies – “Nearly every nation in the Western Hemisphere, including Canada, Brazil, Argentina, and Venezuela, offer some form of unconditional birthright citizenship to children born in-country.”

So his assertion, going back at least to 2015, “that the United States is ‘just about’ the only country ‘stupid enough’ to grant citizenship to all children born within its borders is easily proven false.”

Question 2: What are we talking about anyway? “You can be born into U.S. citizenship by being born in the United States—the principle known as jus soli, or ‘right of the soil.’ Most countries in the Americas feature jus soli citizenship. And you can also be born into U.S. citizenship by being born to U.S. citizens, even if you’re born abroad—a concept known as jus sanguinis, or ‘right of blood.'”

“The traditional interpretation means that people with diplomatic immunity like an ambassador, would not be subject to US law, so their offspring would not be citizens by birthright. The regime “wants to bend that to mean ‘illegal’ immigrants. It’s ridiculous because they are bound by our laws, clearly.”

“The majority view is that the words mean exactly what they say—a reading the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with in the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which it rejected a government attempt to deny citizenship to the child of Chinese immigrants.”

Question 3: Who the heck are “they” who are putting these ideas in his head? Initially, I assume it was a function of advisor Stephen Miller or maybe some crackpots at FOX. I discovered that his people are pretty good at finding folks on the fringes of academia.

“Peter H. Schuck… and Rogers M. Smith… have for years been beating the drum for the idea that the Fourteenth Amendment means something radically different from its historical meaning, permitting Congress to strip these children of their citizenship and potentially render them stateless. Though Schuck and Smith are respected, few other serious constitutional scholars have joined their parade.”

There are a few others. “Writing in The Washington Post, the former Trump White House aide Michael Anton has now proposed…an executive order [that] could specify to federal agencies that the children of noncitizens are not citizens.'”

“Anton is not one of the ‘great legal scholars, the top’ whose authority Trump has claimed… He gained notoriety during the presidential election by comparing the Hillary Clinton campaign to an al-Qaeda hijacking. Voting for Trump, he argued, was a meritorious act of destruction, the equivalent of forcing the Flight 93 hijackers to crash into the ground.”

The executive order on birthright citizenship would fail to address his stated concerns while undermining fundamental American ideals. Even the outgoing Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) says “you obviously cannot do that.”

The only joy I got from this whole scenario is Borowitz satire: He Strips Citizenship from Children of Immigrants, Thus Disqualifying Himself from Presidency.

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial