Creature of Mad Enthusiasms

The Post had an article two days ago about how condoms are locked in pharmacies in the District, in the name of "preventing theft" even though items like lipsticks are easier to steal and cost more. In order to get the rubbers (a legal item that is not age-restricted in sales), you have to ask. A poll was taken among teenagers - is anyone surprised to discover that the females were either ignored by the staff or given lectures on how they were "too young for sex" instead of sold the condoms?

(But just remember - if the girls become pregnant, it's because they were little whores who were too lazy to use birth control!)

Worse, in the continuing push to criminalize sexuality in the name of someone else's rights, multiple pharmacies are refusing to fill prescriptions that come from Cedar River Clinics, a family planning clinic.

This isn't just "I won't give you birth control." The complaints listed include a Safeway pharmacist saying "I won't give you vitamins" and "I won't give you antibiotics." (I am quite happy to see that the local women's rights advocates have stopped buying into the "Conscience Clause" terms and started calling a spade a spade by calling these "Refusal Clauses.")

Vitamins. How could anyone morally object to vitamins? Well, at Safeway, it was because the pharmacist wanted to know why the patient was going to THAT clinic, and then the pharmacist decided - apparently on her own - that the patient did not require said vitamins.

But it's the second case that should really make you stop and think. Antibiotics. A woman was refused antibiotics, making this a definate health- and life-threatening case, and I damn well want to see this case tried as criminal negligence on the part of the pharmacist. And why did this patient not deserve her pills? It wasn't for the sake of the "unborn baby" she was carrying. The pharmacist was refusing her service because she said she was "morally unable" to fill prescriptions from the family planning clinic, and furthermore, the antibiotics were prescribed as follow-up care after an abortion.

They're not even pretending it's about the unborn babies anymore. It's about removing our 14th Amendment rights in the name of punishing us for choosing our own doctors and for denying us any care related to pregnancy at all - be it birth control, vitamins, or antibiotics.

So far it's just this one report on google news; I'll be watching over the next few days.

If y'all aren't reading Slacktivist, you should be. (It's an independent blog, but has an LJ feed at slacktivist. I started reading because I found out that every week (more or less) he took a few pages of Left Behind and discussed them from a theological standpoint.

A few weeks ago, that prompted me to quote massive chunks of a linked blog, "Real Live Preacher." This week it would prompt me to pull out his Left Behind vs Huck Finn "what is salvation" discussion except 1) it's difficult to do that on my Mother's laptop and 2) I'd end up quoting the whole thing anyway.

Basically, he has hit the chunk of Left Behind where it tells you in excruciating steps how to Get Saved (tm)... and compares it not just to Jesus' own words on the subject in the New Testament, but also the deeper (and to Slacktivist and myself, more meaningful) theological wrestling Huck went through as he decides if he will turn in Jim the runaway... or go to hell.

Great, great stuff.

Was late to work mostly because I spent so much time reading the paper this morning. Not pleased with the SCOTUS ruling over the 10 Commandments; because it was so muddy, at least one group is announcing that they're going to try to set up 100 more monuments to force the issue. According to the Post, they have the free time now that Terri's dead & buried, and their hospice picket is over. *sigh* ( Rant )

*blink* Okay, I'm not sure where all that came from. Well, I know where it came from, I just don't know why it came pouring out today.

On the good side of things, it's lunch with friends today, and this Saturday is the Team Wench Midsummer Fantasy Ball. I'm going to bring wads of cash - there are some prizes I *really* want - and I finally find out how well the book baskets go over. It's been a hard haul to keep myself from making dozens until I know how popular a ticket draw the first four are. (I've only saved aside 20 baskets, about 4 goblets, and three double-stacked shelves of books, not much at all, just in case...)

Reminder - if you're interested, all the details can be found under my Team Wench links, and tickets will remain on sale until Wednesday night. The theme is Alice in Wonderland, and no, I don't know what I'm wearing yet...

Although I don't want to see the movie (I'm not big on the gore and guts for any reason, and as an atheist I'm not really willing to pay to be proselytized) I have been following the reviews and commentary on The Passion of the Christ with interest.

And after a while, particularly in seeing the various responses from the public in breathless/horrified anticipation, I finally realized something.

There are, to oversimplify, two kinds of Christians.

One kind, the kind I grew up with/as, focuses almost entirely on Christ's life. Yes, he died horribly, but that's glossed over with the simple chant of the creed weekly - "He was crucified, died, and was buried." But that's not the important part; that's what comes next in the creed. "On the third day he rose again, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father..." What is stressed is how he lived, what he taught, and that he lives still, and you can too if you live according to What Would Jesus Do?

The other kind, and these are the ones that Passion is aimed completely at, focuses more on the death than the life. The point here is less on what would Jesus do than what he did - offer himself up as an Old-Testament-style blood sacrifice, the literal scapegoat for humanity. The prayer on the back of Chick tracts says "I believe you died for my sins" and never mentions "I will live according to your teachings." The hymn sings "washed clean in the blood of the Lamb." Was it Mel or was it one of the ministers singing the praises of his film that said "Jesus didn't give one drop of blood for us, he gave every drop of blood for us!"

Looked at that way, of course the movie is going to be as graphically sanguinary as possible. The suffering is the whole point.


Mind you, this still leaves me wondering about another either/or that came up recently:

Last summer, a religiously-based group of people drove a major kink convention out of Ocean City. Although the activities would have been completely shrouded in a hotel, the objections were "what about the children, what if they're exposed to it?" and "people shouldn't be allowed to hurt other people, even if they think they want it!"

This spring, several religious groups are founding a major drive to take children to see what is, in essence, a torture snuff film.

Can anyone explain that to me?