Saturday, April 29, 2006

On May Day (Beltane)


(From John Foster's Web page) Beltane

Mayday is one of the few festivals that still exists in its own right and has not been swamped by a Christian festival placed on the same date in an effort to hide its origin. May day in most peoples eyes in the UK is the "new" bank holiday that was given during the years of Harold Wilson's term as the Prime Minster of Parliament I believe that May of 1975 was the first May Day holiday in the UK.

Mayday was a custom that marked an important seasonal transition in the year. Putting a maypole up involved all the village taking a growing tree from the wood, and bringing the tree into the village to decorated in flowers and leaves to mark the season summer oncoming season of the summer.

Mayday used to be a period of great sexual licence. People would go off into the woods to collect their trees and green boughs, but once there, would enter into all sorts of temporary sexual liaisons which society did not normally accept.

Mayday as such no longer is held in this form as during the 1700 century Mayday became under attack from the Puritans and was eventually banned by Parliament in 1644 the section was called "Against May".

Mayday did return with the restoration of Charles the second in 1660, but it didn't have the same theme. It had the same old image, but the sexual elements dis-appeared. During the nineteenth century, the Victorians overlayed a moral tone on the festival, emphasising its innocence. Instead of being a celebration of fertility, it turned into a kind of commemoration of Merry England. The girls taking part now wore white and held posies.

Mayday as already mention was one of the most important days of the festival of the yester year now we are lucky if we see any of the old customs and traditions that go along with May Day. May was called "Maia" in honour of the goddess of growth by the Romans and by the Saxons "Thrimilci" which means simply the month in which cows can be milked 3 times a day. The Saxon s association with May and milk that the 'Milk Maids Dance' may have its origins.

The 'milk maids' would rise early in the morning on the first day of May and after carrying out some ritual ablutions would then dance in the streets of their village or town with as many milk containers as they could carry.

The Celts called the first day of May BELTANE which was called this as the Celts lit bonfires on the first day of May the meaning of which means BEL = bright or goodly TAN = fire, the Celtic May Day. It officially begins at moonrise on May Day Eve, and marks the beginning o+f the third quarter or second half of the ancient Celtic year. It is celebrated as an early pastoral festival accompanying the first turning of the herds out to wild pasture.
The rituals were held to promote fertility. The cattle were driven between the Belfires to protect them from ills. Contact with the fire was interpreted as symbolic contact with the sun.
The rowan branch is hung over the house fire on May Day to preserve the fire itself from bewitchment (the house fire being symbolic of the luck of the house.
In early Celtic times, the druids kindled the Beltane fires with specific incantations. Later the Christian church took over the Beltane observances, a service was held in the church, followed by a procession to the fields or hills,
It would appear that St Anne's Well Rd in Nottingham at the top was such a place where this took place, there is a well on St Anne's Well Rd hence the name but the true meaning of St Anne's Well is San meaning holy Tan meaning fire the words have been corrupted with time.

Another custom associated with the first day of May was the wide spread custom of couples to go off together into the woods on the May eve "there to make merrie sport"..

The Maypole was the focal point of many of the customs of May Day where the local villages would dance, along with the Morris Dancers. The Maypole its self would have been quite large as some old pictures show, but during the 1888 a shorter pole was introduced of which there are still some to be seen Nottingham only has one surviving permanent Maypole of any antiquity

The following places had a Maypole
Bradmore (Church SK5843115) Last known 1792
Boughton (Church SK 67856850) Last Known 1585
Clifton (Pole SK 54703476) Last known 1945
Farnsfield (Church SK 6455650) Last Known 1834
Gedling (Church SK 61814258) last known 1869
Gotham (Square SK 53603009) Last known 1937
Linby (Pole SK 53425099) Last known 1922
North Wheatley (Church SK 76198590) Last known 1884
Nottingham (Pole SK 57344008) Last Known 1780
(This is the site of the Old Corner Pin pub)
Stapleford (Pole SK 48903735) Last known 1810
Wellow (Pole SK 66956620) Still remaining
Woodborough (Pole SK 63504775) Last known 1979

As can be seen from the above many of the Maypoles where located very close to the village church, the church did not approve of the Maypole as it was an emblem of a yester year of the Pagan religion. Many of the Maypoles where destroyed by the church, in one way or another till this day there are few Maypoles left.

Mayday was and in some why's still is a popular custom, a people's day so it is not unatural that the Labour and socialist movements treated this day as part of the socialist calendar. It's only recently that the state has recognised May Day as a bank holiday (Re introduced by Haraold Wilson PM) for the first time since it had royal support back in the Elizabethan court, and there's been a big battle over this May Day which was seized upon by the Right as something foreign and left-wing.
I wonder how you remember May Day I would think not by the dancing of people round a Maypole more likely the Russian Armies displaying its war toys in Red Square in a vain attempt to display the Communist might, in years gone by.

Although Mayday means different things to different people I would much prefer to see the Maypole in the local village with the children happily dancing and singing announcing the
beginning of a new harvest in the making that Spring was here and the beginning of a new fruitful year, not the display of mankind's ability to destroy its self and take us to the final winter which nothing survives....

Saved! A movie for REAL TIME Christians ( say NO! to the fakes)

Note from Spirit and soul: The following review was copied from IMDb database, my source for movie reviews. I saw the movie Saved! today, and I think that this is a must see for any REAL Christian (no the "Jesus freaks" clowns) because it is about the complexity of been a Christian. From the perspective of people that grew up in "conservative" environments, it is less a caricature and more a documentary about these places.

Saved is very funny satire/comedy-drama on whacked-out Christian fundamentalists. Basically at a Christian High-School (which is about as narrow-minded, hypocritical and contradicting as my own was) there is this clique of girls called the 'Christian Jewels', which are not to dissimilar from 'The Plastics' in Mean Girls. Every girl wants to be a part of the Jewels, including geeky, desperate Tia (Heather Matarazazazazazo rehashing her role from Welcome to the Dollhouse). I would find her attractive if she hadn't dyed her hair an unconvincing blonde. Too bad she's er...married.After earning her way into this clique Mary (Jena Malone) is devastated when her boyfriend confesses his massive gayness. Eager to 'cure' him of this ungodly condition Mary offers up her virginity to him, only to get pregnant. Obviously this bun in the oven secret threatens to tear everyone's flimsy little world apart.Hilary Faye, the leader of the Christian Jewels is appalled at Mary's sudden lack of faith and makes it her mission to save her, whatever the method or cost. Obviously Mary doesn't appreciate this and it only drives her to further isolation.Saved is superior to Mean Girls in terms of relevance and wit. Though I'm afraid the target audience will no doubt pass this over in favor for Miss Lohan as discussion of God and the lack of pink will fail to attract as young an audience.The acting is great. Jena Malone is more of an actress than Lohan/Duff, Macaulay Culkin was effective as the wheelchair-bound Roland, Mandy Moore is so innocently evil as Hilary Faye she makes Regina George look timid and Eva Amurri is like so totally gorgeous! Seriously! Wow! Too bad she smokes. NEXT!I wouldn't hesitate to recommend Saved to anyone. It's funny and clever and outdoes all 'teen-comedies' by transcending the genre. A rarity indeed.

Friday, April 28, 2006


A short biography ofMarion Davies
By Robert Board

Note from the Sprit and soul manager: Marion Davis is one of the actress of the silver screen that has made one of the most powerful impacts on me, since I was able to appreciate her acting in both silent and talked movies. Is been difficult to find information about her. More difficult is to find her movies on DVD. This post is my little tribute to her.

Marion Davies was born Marion Douras in Brooklyn, New York on January 3rd, 1897. She had strong leanings toward the stage during her school days as she watched her sisters achieve success in show business. Upon leaving school she found herself in demand as a model for famous painters of the day. By the time William Randolph Hearst, America's most famous publisher, met her she had already made a name for herself on the Broadway stage. In the years 1915 to 1917 she appeared in "Chin-Chin," "Stop Look and Listen," "Ziegfeld Follies," "Betty," "Words and Music," "Miss 1917," and "Oh Boy." Her first film was "Runaway Romany" directed by her brother-in-law, George Lederer. Supposedly she had written the script herself. "Cecilia of the Pink Roses" in 1918 was her first film backed by Hearst. She was on her way to being the most famously advertised actress in the world.
During the next ten years she appeared in twenty-nine films, an average of almost three films a year. She was a tireless worker, always trying to live up to the relentless promotional campaigns launched by Hearst.
In the early twenties, she and Hearst moved their company, Cosmopolitan Productions, to California and joined forces with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios. Marion became Hollywood's premiere hostess. Her parties at the fabulous beach house Hearst had built at Santa Monica attracted the days biggest stars. Dignitaries from all over the world were eager to accept her invitations. She never took herself seriously and was beloved by all who knew her. Studio old timers never tired of telling stories of her charities and help for those who needed it.
Marion had a slight stutter when excited and many talked of her retirement when sound came to the films. There need not have been any worry for her career hit a new high in the talkies. She became a leader in various charitable organizations in Hollywood: a member of the Motion Picture Relief Fund, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Actors Equity and the Screen Guild. Her generosity extended to a children's clinic which she established in the late twenties not far from the Metro studios. The Marion Davies Children's Clinic still stands at the UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles.
Marion's career would continue to flourish at MGM until her contract ran out in 1934. Hearst was angry with MGM for not giving Marion the lead in two upcoming productions (The Barretts of Wimpole Street and Marie Antoinette) so he relocated her eleven room bungalow to the Warner Brothers lot and Marion finished her last four films at Warner's Burbank studios. Marion filmed a total of sixteen pictures between 1929 and 1937, an average of two a year, yet she still made time for five or six radio appearances.
The Hearst Corporation was in bad straits by the late thirties. Marion's selfless act of selling some of her jewelry enabled her to give Hearst a check for a million dollars to bail his ailing company out of debt. After her retirement, Twentieth Century Fox offered her the role of Dorothy McGuire's mother in "Claudia," but Hearst refused because in the story the character died of Cancer. This was to be the disease which would eventually take Marion in 1961. Marion rests in the Hollywood Forever Cemetery.
[Bob Board resides in Hollywood and has spent most of his life researching and cataloging the life of Marion Davies. Bob had the opportunity to meet Miss Davies in the 1950's (That's him with Marion in the photo!) and currently operates a private Marion Davies Museum. Many of the photos on these pages are from Bob's vast collection for which I'm deeply grateful]


Marion Davies films, click here for a list

Thursday, April 27, 2006

What the world needs now... Punk rock













Punk rock
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Punk rock is an anti-establishment music movement which began around 1974-1975 (although transitional forms can be found several years earlier), exemplified by The Ramones, the Sex Pistols, The Damned, and The Clash. The term is also used to describe subsequent music scenes that share key characteristics with those first-generation "punks," and it is often applied loosely to mean any band with "attitude" or "youthful aggression." The term is sometimes also applied to the fashions, ideology, subculture, or irreverent "DIY" ("do it yourself") attitude associated with this musical movement.

Characteristics
Punk bands often emulate the approach of sixties garage rock bands. Punk rock emphasizes simple musical structures and arrangements. The early UK punk fanzine Sniffin' Glue in 1977 famously included drawings of three chord shapes captioned, "This is a chord, this is another, this is a third. Now form a band". Most punk songs have a verse-chorus structure and 4/4 time. Short songs are also a staple of punk rock. Songs are normally about two and a half minutes in length, but sometimes are less than thirty seconds, and on very rare occasions, a punk rock band will release a song that exceeds four minutes in length; this is common feature of songs by The Clash and the Dead Kennedys. Punk rock usually has fast tempos, especially hardcore punk.
Typical punk instrumentation includes a drum kit, one or two electric guitars, an electric bass, and vocals. The drums typically sound heavy and dry. The guitar parts are made up of highly distorted power chords à la Link Wray, though some bands, especially California punk rock bands, take a surf rock approach, with lighter, "twangier" guitar tones. Punk vocals are usually nasally, gravelly, or throaty. Production is minimalistic, with tracks sometimes laid down on tape recorders in garages. More often than not, the band themselves produce, record, and distribute the album.
In the mid-1970s, punk lyrics introduced a confrontational frankness of expression and social and political relevance that had been missing from contemporary music. Songs like The Clash's "Career Opportunities" and "London's Burning" dealt with unemployment, boredom and other grim realities of urban life; some were openly disparaging of governments and monarchies, as in The Sex Pistols’ “God Save the Queen” and “Anarchy in the UK”; and still others were decidedly anti-romantic in depictions of sex and love, such as Dead Kennedys' "Too Drunk to Fuck" and Richard Hell and the Voidoids' "Love Comes in Spurts". Other themes associated with punk rock lyricism include anti-conformity, such as in Bad Religion's "Automatic Man."


History

Origins

UK Punks, circa 1986
The phrase "punk rock" (from "punk", meaning a beginner or novice[1]) was originally applied to the untutored guitar-and-vocals-based rock and roll of United States bands of the mid-1960s such as The Standells, The Sonics, and The Seeds, bands that now are more often categorized as "garage rock".
The term was coined by rock critic Dave Marsh, who used it to describe the music of ? and the Mysterians in the May 1971 issue of Creem magazine[2], and it was adopted by many rock music journalists in the early 1970s. For example, in the liner notes of the 1972 anthology album Nuggets, critic and guitarist Lenny Kaye uses the term "punk-rock" to refer to the Sixties "garage rock" groups, as well as some of the darker and more primitive practitioners of 1960s psychedelia. Shortly after the time of those notes, Lenny Kaye formed a band with avant-garde poet Patti Smith. Smith's group, and her first album, Horses, released in 1975, directly inspired many of the mid-1970s punk rockers, so this suggests one path by which the term migrated to the music we now know as punk.
In addition to the inspiration of those "garage bands" of the 1960s, the roots of punk rock draw on the snotty attitude, on-stage and off-stage violence, and aggressive instrumentation of The Who; the snotty attitude of the early Rolling Stones; the abrasive, dissonant style of The Velvet Underground; the sexuality, political confrontation, and on-stage violence of Detroit bands Alice Cooper, The Stooges and MC5; the UK pub rock scene and political UK underground bands such as Mick Farren and the Deviants; the New York Dolls; and some British "glam rock" or "art rock" acts of the early 1970s, including David Bowie, Gary Glitter and Roxy Music. Influence from other musical genres, including reggae, funk, and rockabilly can also be detected in early punk rock.
Punk rock was also a reaction against tendencies that had overtaken popular music in the 1970s, including what the punks saw as superficial "disco" music and bombastic forms of heavy metal, progressive rock and "arena rock." Punk also rejected the remnants of the hippie counterculture of the 1960s. Bands such as Jefferson Airplane, which had survived the 1960s, were regarded by most punks as having become fatuous and an embarrassment to their former claims of radicality. Eric Clapton's appearance in television beer ads in the mid-1970s was often cited as an example of how the icons of 1960s rock had literally sold themselves to the system they once opposed.

Cover of the Sex Pistols album Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols.
The cultural critique and strategies for revolutionary action offered by the European Situationist movement of the 1950s and 1960s were an influence on the vanguard of the British punk movement, particularly the Sex Pistols. Pistols manager Malcolm McLaren consciously embraced situationist ideas, which are also reflected in the clothing designed for the band by Vivienne Westwood and the visual artwork of the Situationist-affiliated Jamie Reid, who designed many of the band's graphics.
The British punk movement also found a precedent in the "do-it-yourself" attitude of the Skiffle craze that emerged amid the post-World War II austerity of 1950s Britain. Punk rock in Britain coincided with the end of the era of post-war consensus politics that preceded the rise of Thatcherism, and nearly all British punk bands expressed an attitude of angry social alienation.


Early emergence
The first ongoing music scene that was assigned the "punk" label appeared in New York in 1974-1976 centered around bands that played regularly at the clubs Max's Kansas City and CBGB. This had been preceded by a mini underground rock scene at the Mercer Arts Center, picking up from the demise of the Velvet Underground, starting in 1971 and featuring the New York Dolls and Suicide, which helped to pave the way, but came to an abrupt end in 1973 when the building collapsed. The CBGB and Max's scene included The Ramones, Television, Blondie, Johnny Thunders (a former New York Doll) and the Heartbreakers, Richard Hell and The Voidoids and the Talking Heads. The "punk" title was applied to these groups by early 1976, when Punk Magazine first appeared, featuring these bands alongside articles on some of the immediate role models for the new groups, such as Lou Reed, who was on the cover of the first issue of Punk, and Patti Smith, cover subject on the second issue.
At the same time, a less celebrated, but nonetheless highly influential, scene had appeared in Ohio, including The Electric Eels, Devo and Rocket from the Tombs, who in 1975 split into Pere Ubu and The Dead Boys.
During this same period, bands that would later be recognized as "punk" were formed independently in other locations, such as The Saints in Brisbane, Australia, The Modern Lovers in Boston, and The Stranglers and the Sex Pistols in London. These early bands also operated within small "scenes", often facilitated by enthusiastic impresarios who either operated venues, such as clubs, or organised temporary venues. In other cases, the bands or their managers improvised their own venues, such as a house inhabited by The Saints in an inner suburb of Brisbane. The venues provided a showcase and meeting place for the emerging musicians (the 100 Club in London, CBGB in New York, and The Masque in Hollywood are among the best known early punk clubs).
While the London bands may have played a relatively minor role in determining the early punk sound, the London punk scene would come to define and epitomize the rebellious punk culture. After a brief stint managing the New York Dolls at the end of their career in the US, Englishman Malcolm McLaren returned to London in May 1975. He started a clothing store called SEX that was instrumental in creating the radical punk clothing style. He also began managing The Swankers, who would soon become the Sex Pistols. The Sex Pistols soon created a strong cult following in London, centered on a clique known as the Bromley Contingent (named after the suburb where many of them had grown up), who followed them around the country.

Cover of The Clash album London Calling.
An oft-cited moment in punk rock's history is a July 4, 1976 concert by the Ramones at the Roundhouse in London (The Stranglers were also on the bill). Many of the future leaders of the UK punk rock scene were inspired by this show, and almost immediately after it, the UK punk scene got into full swing. By the end of 1976, many fans of the Sex Pistols had formed their own bands, including The Clash, Siouxsie & the Banshees, The Adverts, Generation X, The Slits and X-Ray Spex. Other UK bands to emerge in this milieu included The Damned (the first to release a single, the classic "New Rose"), The Jam, The Vibrators, Buzzcocks and the appropriately named London.
In December of 1976, the Sex Pistols, The Clash, The Damned and Johnny Thunders & the Heartbreakers united for the Anarchy Tour, a series of gigs throughout the U.K. Many of the gigs were cancelled by venue owners, after tabloid newspapers and other media seized on sensational stories regarding the antics of both the bands and their fans. The notoriety of punk rock in the UK was furthered by a televised incident that was widely publicised in the tabloid press; appearing on a London TV show called Thames Today, guitarist Steve Jones of the Sex Pistols was goaded into a verbal altercation by the host, Bill Grundy, swearing at him on live television in violation of at the time accepted standards of propriety.
One of the first books about punk rock — The Boy Looked at Johnny by Julie Burchill and Tony Parsons (December 1977) — declared the punk moment to be already over: the subtitle was The Obituary of Rock and Roll. The title echoed a lyric from the title track of Patti Smith's 1975 album Horses.
During 1977, a second wave of bands emerged, influenced by those mentioned above. Some, such as The Misfits (from New Jersey), The Exploited(from Scotland), GBH (from England) Black Flag (from Los Angeles), Stiff Little Fingers (from Northern Ireland) and Crass (from Essex) would go on to influence the move away from the original sound of punk rock, that would spawn the Hardcore subgenre.
In the UK, punk interacted with the Jamaican reggae and ska subcultures. The reggae influence is evident in much of the music of The Clash and The Slits, for example. By the end of the 1970s, punk had spawned the 2 Tone ska revival movement, including bands such as The Beat (The English Beat in U.S.), The Specials, Madness and The Selecter.
Gradually punk became more varied and less minimalist with bands such as The Clash incorporating other underground musical influences like ska and rockabilly and even jazz into their music, but the message of the music remained the same; it was subversive, counter-cultural, rebellious, politically incorrect and often anarchist. Punk rock dealt with topics such as problems facing society, oppression of the lower classes, the threat of a nuclear war, etc. Or it delineated the individual’s personal problems, such as being unemployed, or having particular emotional and/or mental issues, i.e. depression. Punk rock was a message to society that all was not well and all were not equal.

Genres of Punk

The Swedish punk band Ebba Grön, a poster from 1981
While it is thought that punk had a decline in the 80s, many sub-genres branched off playing their own interpretation of “punk rock”.
The United States saw the emergence of hardcore punk, which is known for fast, aggressive beats and political lyrics. Early hardcore bands include Dead Kennedys, Black Flag, Bad Brains, The Descendents, early Replacements and The Germs and the movement developed via Minor Threat, Minutemen and Hüsker Dü, among others. In New York, there was a large hardcore punk movement led by bands such as Agnostic Front, The Cro-Mags, Murphy's Law, Sick of it All, and Gorilla Biscuits. Other styles emerged from this new genre including skate punk, emo and straight edge.
In the UK, meanwhile, diverse post-punk bands emerged, such as Joy Division, Throbbing Gristle, Gang of Four, Siouxsie & the Banshees & Public Image Ltd, the latter two bands featuring people who were part of the original British punk rock movement.
Although most the prominent bands in the genre pre-dated the 1980s by a few years, it wasn’t until the 1980s until journalist Garry Bushell gave the sub-genre “Oi!” its name, derived from the Cockney Rejects song “Oi! Oi! Oi!”. This movement featured bands such as Cock Sparrer, Cockney Rejects, Blitz, and Sham 69.
Bands sharing the Ramones' bubblegum pop influences formed their own brand of punk, sporting melodic songs and lyrics more often dealing with relationships and simple fun than most punk rock's nihilism and anti-estalishment stance. These bands, the founders of pop punk, included the Ramones, Buzzcocks, The Rezillos and Generation X.


Legacy and recent developments
The underground punk movement in the United States in the 1980s produced countless bands that either evolved from a punk rock sound or simply applied its spirit and DIY ethics to a completely different sound. By the end of the 1980s these bands had largely eclipsed their punk forebearers and were termed alternative rock. As alternative bands like Sonic Youth and the Pixies were starting to gain larger audiences, major labels sought to capitalize on a market that had been growing underground for the past 10 years.
In 1991, Nirvana achieved huge commercial success with their album, Nevermind. Nirvana cited punk as a key influence on their music. Although they tended to label themselves as punk rock and championed many unknown punk icons (as did many other alternative rock bands), Nirvana's music was equally akin to other forms of garage or indie rock and heavy metal that had existed for decades. Nirvana's success kick-started the alternative rock boom that had been underway since the late 1980s, and helped define that segment of the 1990s popular music milieu. The subsequent shift in taste among listeners of rock music was chronicled in a film entitled 1991: The Year Punk Broke, which featured Nirvana, Dinosaur Jr, and Sonic Youth; Nirvana also featured in the film Hype!
The resurgance of punk's mainstream visibility in the early and mid-1990s was characterized by the scene at 924 Gilman Street, a venue in Berkeley, California, which featured bands such as Green Day, Operation Ivy,Rancid and later bands including AFI, (though clearly not simultaneously, as Rancid included members of the defunct Operation Ivy). This scene emphasized a return to punk's melodic roots with a strong adherence to punk principles in its lyrical messages. Epitaph Records, an independent record label started by Brett Gurewitz of Bad Religion, would become the home of the "skate punk" sound, characterized by bands like The Offspring, Pennywise, NOFX, and The Suicide Machines, many bands arose claiming the mantle of the ever-diverse punk genre -- some playing a more accessible, pop style and achieving commercial success. The late 1990s also saw another ska punk revival. This revival continues into the 2000s with bands like Streetlight Manifesto, Reel Big Fish, and Less Than Jake.
The early commercial success of alternative rock also gave way to another style of punk success in the mainsteam called punk pop. Examples of pop punk bands include Simple Plan, Good Charlotte, and Sum 41. By the late 1990s, punk was so ingrained in Western culture that it was often used to sell commercial bands as "rebels", amid complaints from punk rockers that, by being signed to major labels and appearing on MTV, these bands were buying into the system that punk was created to rebel against, and as a result, could not be considered true punk (though clearly, punk's earliest pioneers also released work via the major labels). This debate continues among young punk acolytes (who, as do most new generations, seek a sense of originality or authenticity) amid the popularity of modern punk in the early 2000s, including the emo trend of recent times, and the Grammy success and superstar status in 2005 of pop-punk band Green Day.
There is still a thriving punk scene in North America, Japan and Europe. The widespread availability of the Internet and file sharing programs enables bands who would otherwise not be heard outside of their local scene to garner larger followings, and is in keeping with the DIY ethic championed by some earlier punk bands. Many punk bands retain the political streak of their forebears. The political ascendency of George W. Bush and Tony Blair have inspired both songs and political action, such as the Rock Against Bush movement, that can be compared to the original rage at Reagan and Thatcher.
There is a new brand of punk called "Lo-Cash" or "Crack Rock Steady." With bands from New York such as Leftover Crack, the main band, Choking Victim, INDK and No Cash. These bands combine elements of punk, ska, death metal, hardcore and rap into their songs.


Punk rock
Stylistic origins:
1950s R&B, rock and roll, country, and rockabilly, 1960s garage rock, frat rock, psychedelic rock, pub rock, glam rock, and proto-punk
Cultural origins:
Mid 1970s United States, Australia and United Kingdom.
Typical instruments:
VocalsGuitarBassDrums
Mainstream popularity:
Chart-topping in the UK, less success elsewhere. Some success for pop punk, especially ska punk and Two Tone
Derivative forms:
Alternative rockEmoGothic rockGrungeMath rockNew WavePost-punkpost-punk revival
Subgenres
Anarcho-punkChristian punkCrust punkGarage punkHardcoreHorror punkOi!Pop punk
Fusion genres
Anti-folkDeath rockFunkcoreJazz punkPsychobillyQueercoreSka punkTwo Tone
Regional scenes
Punk rock in BelgiumBrazil
Other topics
HistoryCassette cultureDIYPioneersFirst waveSecond wavePunk citiesPunk moviesFanzineFashion

On Daria


"Daria" epitomizes ironic ingenuity, 4 January 2006
Author: morphion2 from Australia

The self-defeating world of MTV began as a spark in the mind of one perceptive demographics adviser or another, but soon it grew to epidemic proportions, numbing and sugarcoating all things rebellious in a depressingly successful attempt to convince the masses that nonconformity is all about styles and fads. Any sensible teenager will tell you that it is an unwitting mockery of the things it believes it is making available to an already converted audience, but amongst the throngs of bright colors and loud-but-not-too-loud noises that essentially is MTV, you will occasionally find a gem; an intelligent, insightful, informed show of independent thought, sincerity and sardonic subtlety. "Daria" is one such example.Anybody who used to watch "Beavis and Butthead" (no comment) will recognize Daria already, as the plain girl with glasses and the monotone voice that would often foil the titular duo's moronic and half-baked plans. When the show began to think about packing it in, MTV approached the creators with the offer of giving Daria her own show. And thank heavens for that. Not only is "Daria" up there with "Frasier" as one of the greatest spin-offs of all time, but it threatens to take a place as one of the greatest stand-alone shows of all time.Daria Morgendorffer, our bland anti-heroine, is not your average teenage girl. Smart, sarcastic, opinionated but highly unmotivated, her life revolves around observing the actions of others with her best friend Jane Lane, a misfit artist from a family of unconventional thinkers. Together Daria and Jane see fit to mock the sea of stereotypes that is their suburban hometown of Lawndale, mainly the student body of their high school. Daria's deep loathing of all things superficial is regularly tested by the presence of her shallow and materialistic sister Quinn, while her workaholic lawyer mother Helen and her perpetually stressed out and slightly unbalanced father Jake struggle to do the right thing by their daughters in the interactive jumble that is life in Lawndale.At a mere glance, one might perceive "Daria" to be a children's show, due to its animation. However, even the slightest exertion of further examination would reveal that it is no more a children's show than "The Angry Beavers" is a sophisticated portrayal of American Wildlife. Where a lot of shows sell their credibility for cheap laughs and mold their characters on popularity polls, "Daria" is firm in its subtlety, never wavering in its belief that, given time, its audience will get the joke. Some may take longer than others, but all that do never turn back.The genius of the show lies in its ironic reflection of a culture that would never allow a show like this to get off the ground. Surrounded on all sides by the trivial and materialistic values she lives to hate, Daria takes refuge in the companionship of Jane, the isolated safety of her own room and the glow of the television (which will probably be tuned in to dissocial ironathon news program 'Sick Sad World'), emerging now and again for a futile attempt to significantly impact the alienating world around her. And perhaps the experience might be alienating to us, the audience, if it weren't for the shows strategic and successful ploy to get us to see the world through Daria's eyes. Once there, we're completely hooked, and all the rest of the show's intrinsic jokes fall into place.Arguably the most enviable quality of animation is its freedom to let characters be exaggerated without being unrealistic. The most brilliant thing about this is that eventually, characters that are truly only meant to serve as tired clichés perversely become beloved, unique personalities. Trent, Jane's lazy soft spoken musician brother with delusions of future stardom with his garage band Mystik Spiral, Kevin and Brittany, quarterback of the football team and head of the cheerleaders respectively, two blissfully ignorant airhead lovers with no aspirations beyond their current high school status, Mr. O'Neal, the hypersensitive English teacher, balanced in the extreme by the borderline psychopathic Mr. DeMartino, an irate History teacher who has lost the will to educate. Even the unbearably shallow and conceited Fashion Club, four fashion-victimized teenage girls who believe their undeservedly elitist circle is doing the world around them a world of good, gradually grow on you until, like it or not, you couldn't imagine Lawndale without them.It is because of this paradoxical attachment to the characters that serious plot developments towards the end of the series are able to engage the audience on a level that is more than just honesty for the sake of mockery. Once we've grown accustomed to Daria's detached and cynical attitude, the show begins to admit that perhaps it has been having us on a little bit, at least concerning the rigid personalities of our beloved caricature personas. Therefore, once Daria has opened up a smidgeon , so does her/our view of her world, in an event suspiciously symptomatic of personal growth. And from there it's a small step to actually caring about the students, teachers and residents of Lawndale as we farewell them in the "Daria" movie finale "Is It College Yet?", in which we see our little high-schoolers graduate and move on. It says a lot about the show that it is able to gradually soften its bite enough to let us feel for the characters without ever feeling inconsistent.If one were to only catch a few episodes of "Daria", then they might like what they see, and they'd be well justified. But they'd ultimately be missing out. Because as entertaining as the self-contained half-hour segments of the show can be, the world of Daria is not about separate jokes, separate characters, separate stories or separate anything. Everything within the show works to build to a greater understanding about teenage life, indeed about life in general, and everything it entails; a simple masterpiece that's value only increases when put into social context.

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

God is still speaking...UCC


About the UCC

See the (forbiden) comercial!

Spanish
Intelligent dialogue and a strong independent streak sometimes cause the United Church of Christ (UCC) and its 1.4 million members to be called a “heady and exasperating mix.” The UCC tends to be a mostly progressive denomination that unabashedly engages heart and mind. And yet, the UCC somehow manages to balance congregational autonomy with a strong commitment to unity among its nearly 6,000 congregations—despite wide differences among many local congregations on a variety of issues.
While preserving relevant portions of heritage and history dating back to the 16th century, the UCC and its forebears have proven themselves capable of moving forward, tying faith to social justice and shaping cutting edge theology and service in an ever-changing world. Affirming that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church, the UCC claims as its own the faith of the historic church expressed in the ancient creeds and reclaimed in the basic insights of the Protestant reformers. Yet the UCC also affirms the responsibility of the church in each generation and community to make faith its own in reality of worship, in honesty of thought and expression, and in purity of heart before God. It looks to the Word of God in the Scriptures, and to the presence and power of the Holy Spirit to prosper its creative and redemptive work in the world. One of the UCC’s distinguishing characteristics is its penchant to believe that ... God is still speaking, ... even when it puts us out there alone. History has shown that, most often, we’re only alone for a while. Besides, we receive so many gifts from our ecumenical partners, being “early” seems to be one of ours.
The UCC recognizes two sacraments: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion.Want to know more? Find more in-depth information and learn about the rich history of the UCC on ucc.org.

Rev. John H. Thomas

Our Core IdentityThird Sunday after PentecostJune 20, 2004Galatians 3:23-29
From the time of our founding, the United Church of Christ has struggled to articulate its identity. The names of predecessor denominations identify important elements: Evangelical suggests a piety shaped by personal encounter with the Gospel. Congregational reminds us of the centrality of the local church for discipleship and mission. Reformed teaches us that church and society are subject to sin and must therefore be reshaped by the prophetic word. Christian connects us to those who cherish the simplicity of a commitment to Jesus who invites all to the Table.
Since 1957 other phrases have helped us articulate our distinctive vocation: We are a "united and uniting" church seeking renewal through the vision of Christ's prayer "that they may all be one that the world might believe." We are a "just peace" church committed to overcoming violence and oppression. We are a "multi-racial, multi-cultural church" yearning for the day when our congregations more fully reflect the vision of Pentecost. We are an "open and affirming" church where no one's baptismal identity can be denied because of his or her sexual identity. We are an "accessible" church cherishing the gifts of all regardless of physical or mental abilities. More recently we have been thinking about what it means to call ourselves "the church of the still speaking God," a church that believes God has yet more light and truth to break forth from the Word.
Each of these phrases captures an important dimension of our life together. But Paul also tells that our core identity transcends human categories. In Christ we are all children of God through faith, heirs according to God's promise. In the end identity is about belonging, and it is to Christ that we belong before any party or agenda. As we celebrate the birthday of the United Church of Christ this week, we give thanks for those distinctive gifts that mark our unique contribution to the Christian witness in the world. But even more, we give thanks that through this church we have received our inheritance with all others who are one in Jesus Christ.
Rev. John H. Thomas
General Minister and PresidentUnited Church of Christ

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

May Day, a day for prayer and action



Network for Immigrants Rights is calling for A Day of Actions on May 1, 2006 and
will make known its activities in a Press Conference:

A National Day of Action on May 1st that includes:
-A call to wear a white blouse or shirt with a green ribbon.
-Restrain from shopping May 1st. (If you must shop, shop on the weekend).
-Five minutes of prayer, meditation, reflection at 12:16 PM in hospitals, nursing homes,
places of business, workplaces, and homes.
-Candlelight vigils throughout the five boroughs. Please light a candle in your house,
apartment building, or apartment.
-Educate co-workers on the importance of immigration reform.
-Gathering or rallies in all the communities around the city.

On May 1st, all members of the NYC Mobilization for Immigrant Rights and other organizations and individuals are strongly encouraged to promote the above activities and to help educate the public and bring justice to immigrant working communities.

The NYC Mobilization Network for Immigrant Rights is calling for:

-Stop the anti-immigrant House resolution 4437
-Stop all immigration raids
-Stop all attacks against all immigrants
-Stop criminalization of immigrant communities

We demand comprehensive immigration reform, including:

-A path to citizenship, not a temporary guest worker program
-Family reunification measures
-Worker protections
-Full rights for all immigrants!

Friday, April 21, 2006

John Boswell: The Church and the homosexual, an historical perspective.

Excerpts from the keynote address made by Prof. Boswell to the Fourth Biennial Dignity International Convention in 1979.

"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god­like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair­haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
If this is an accurate picture of the ancient world the social structure from which Western culture is derived-then where did the negative ideas now common regarding homosexuality come from? The most obvious answer to this question, and the one which has most generally been given in the past, is that Christianity is responsible for the change. There is an historical coincidence that seems to lend some credence to this idea- namely that when Christianity appears on the scene that this tolerance spoken of earlier disappears and that general acceptance of homosexuality becomes much less common.
It should be obvious, however, that Christianity alone is not likely to be responsible for this change. (One notes, for instance, that the places in the world today where gay people suffer the most violent oppression happen to be the very places where Christianity is also least welcome.) First of all, I would like to dispose briefly of the notion that the Bible had something to do with Christian attitudes toward gay people. From an historical vantage point, it is easy to do so, but I realize that for people who live by the Bible more must be said about it than what an historian can observe. An historian can simply note that there is no place in the writings of the Early or High Middle Ages where the Bible seems to be the origin of these prejudices against gay people. Where any reason is given for the new hostility. sources other than the Bible are cited. As a matter of fact, from an historical perspective, the Bible would be the last source one would look at after examining growing hostility toward gay people, but so many people have a feeling that the Bible is somehow involved that its teachings on the subject matter must be addressed in detail.
Most serious biblical scholars now recognize that the story of Sodom was probably not intended as any sort of comment on homosexuality. It certainly was not interpreted as a prohibition of homosexuality by most early Christian writers. In the modern world, the idea that the story refers to the sin of inhospitality rather than to sexual failing was first popularized in 1955 in Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition' by D.S. Bailey, and since then has increasingly gained the acceptance of scholars. Modern scholars are a little late: almost all medieval scholars felt the story of Sodom was a story about hospitality. This is indeed, not only the most obvious interpretation of it but also the one given to it in most other biblical passages. It is striking, for example, that although Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned in about two dozen different places in the Bible (other than Genesis 19 where the story is first told), in none of these places is homosexuality associated with the Sodomites.
The only other places that might be adduced from the Old Testament against homosexuality are Deuteronomy 23:17 and Kings 14:24, and­-doubtless the best know n places Leviticus 18:20 and 20: 13, where a man's sleeping the asleep of women" with men is labelled ritual impurity for Jews. None of these was cited by early Christians against homosexual behavior. Early Christians had no desire to impose the levitical law on themselves or anyone else. Most non­Jewish Christians were in fact appalled by most of the strictures of the Jewish law and were not about to put themselves under what they considered the bondage of the old law. St. Paul says again and again that we must not fall back on the bondage of the old law, and in fact goes so far as to claim that if we are circumcised (the cornerstone of the old law), Christ will profit us nothing. The early Christians were not to bind themselves to the strictures of the old law. The Council of Jerusalem, held around 50 A.D. and recorded in Acts 15, in fact took up this issue specifically and decided that Christians would not be bound by any of the strictures of the old law except for which they list - none of which is related to homosexuality.
In the New Testament we find no citations of Old Testament strictures. We do, however, find three places­-I Corinthians 6:9, I Timothy 1:10 and Romans 1:26­27­­which might be relevant. Again, I'll be brief in dealing with these. The Greek word malakos in I Cor. 6:9 and I Tim. 1 :10, which Scholars in the 20th century have deemed to refer to some sort of homosexual behavior, was universally used by Christian writers to refer to masturbation until about the 15th or 16th century. Beginning in the 15th century many people were bothered by the idea that masturbators were excluded from the kingdom of heaven. They did not, however, seem to be too upset by the idea of excluding homosexuals from the kingdom of heaven, so malakos was retranslated to refer to homosexuality instead of masturbation. The texts and words remained the same, but translators just changed their ideas about who should be excluded from the kingdom of heaven.
The remaining passage - Romans 1:26-7 - does not suffer by and large from mistranslation, although you can easily be misled by the phrase "against nature." This phrase was also interpreted differently by the early church. St. John Chrysostom says that St. Paul deprives the people he is discussing of any excuse. observing of their women that "they changed the natural use. No one can claim, Paul points out, that she came to this because she was precluded from lawful intercourse or that because she was unable to satisfy her desire....Only those possessing something can change it. Again he points the same thing out about men but in a different way? saying they 'left the natural use of women.' Likewise, he casts aside with these words every excuse, charging that they not only had legitimate enjoyment and abandoned it, going after another but that spurning the natural, they pursued the unnatural." What Chrysostom is getting at, and he expounds on it at great length, is the idea that St. Paul was not writing about gay people but about heterosexual people, probably married who abandoned the pleasure they were entitled to by virtue of their own natures for one to which they were not entitled. This is reflected in the canons imposing penances for homosexual activity, which through the 16th century were chiefly directed toward married persons. Little is said of single people.
Perhaps the most significant element of the passage is that it introduced into Christian thought the notion that homosexual relations were "against nature." What Paul, however, seems to have meant was unusual not against natural law, as it is so often interpreted The concept of natural law was not fully developed until almost 1,200 years later. All that Paul probably meant to say was that it was unusual that people should have this sort of sexual desire. This is made clear by the fact that in the same epistle in the 11th chapter, God Himself is in fact described as acting "against nature" in saving the Gentiles. It is therefore inconceivable that this phrase connotes moral turpitude.
One may well ask whether the thundering silence on the subject in the New Testament does not indicate something about the attitude of early Christians toward homosexuality? As an historian, I would say no. Most of the literature of this period, especially legal and moral guidance, is silent on the purely affective aspects of human life. In the New Testament Jesus, St. Paul, and the other writers are generally responding to questions regarding social and moral problems posed to them by a predominantly heterosexual society. People asked them questions about divorce, widows, property, etch and they answered these questions. Most of Jesus' moral commentary, especially about sexuality is in response to specific questions put to him. Jesus does not appear to be giving detailed guidelines on all aspects of human life, especially not affective life, but rather to be offering general principles. There is almost no comment anywhere in the Bible about loving your children; there are few comments about friendship; and there is not a single comment about what we know as "romantic love," although this is the basis of modern Christian marriage in our own church as well as the entire Christian community.
There are some reasons for the hostility toward homosexuality which now seem characteristic of the Christian community, and I want to mention them. First of all, I want to dispose of what might seem the most likely primary reason for hostility toward homosexuality-namely, general opposition to non-procreative sexuality. There was indeed on the part of many early Christians a feeling of hostility toward any form of sexuality which was not potentially procreative. This cannot, however, be shown to stem from Christian principles. Among other things, there is not a word within the Old Testament or the New about non-procreative sexuality among married persons, and, indeed, most Jewish commentators have agreed that anything was licit between husband and wife. It is a well-established principle in several social science disciplines that there is, however, a class­related prejudice against non-procreative sexual acts, and one would expect to find this among lower class Christians as among any lower class group of the society. Among theologians, explicit rejection of all non-procreative sexuality, does not relate directly to attitudes toward gay people. The theologians of the early church were attempting to impress on all Christians that they had to see every act of heterosexual intercourse as the potential creation of a child. No effective means of birth control was known in this world (except for abstinence)-not even the rhythm method. The only way to avoid having children was to kill or abandon them. Theologians therefore wished to persuade Christian parents that they had to be responsible for the creation of a child every time they had sexual pleasure. The only other alternatives in their world-the world in which the early theology of the church was formulated-were morally unacceptable. Now the original aim of this approach, it appears, was only to protect children. It was not to attack homosexuality. Indeed, it was a very long time before this notion spilled over into homosexuality, but it eventually did.
As late as the eleventh and twelfth centuries, there appears to be no conflict between a Christian life and homosexuality. Gay life is everywhere in the art, poetry, music, history, etc. of the 11th and 12th centuries. The most popular literature of the day even heterosexual literature, is about same­sex lovers of one sort or another. Clerics were at the forefront of this revival of the gay culture. St. Aelred, for instance, writes of his youth as a time when he thought of nothing but loving and being loved by men. He became a Cistercian abbot, and incorporated his love for men into his Christian life by encouraging monks to love each other, not just generally, but individually and passionately He cited the example of Jesus and St. John as guidance for this. 'Jesus himself," he said, "in everything like us. patient and compassionate with others in every matter, Transfigured this sort of love through the expression of his own love. for he allowed only one - not al l- to recline on his breast as a sign of his special love; and the closer they were, the more copiously did the secrets of their heavenly marriage impart the sweet smell of their spiritual chrism to their love."
After the twelfth century Christian tolerance and acceptance of gay love seems to disappear with remarkable rapidity. The writings of St. Aelred disappeared because they were kept locked up in Cistercian monasteries until about eight years ago, when for the first time Cistercians could again read them. Beginning about 1150, for reasons I cannot adequately explain, there was a great upsurge in popular intolerance of gay people. There were also at this time violent outbursts against Jews, Muslims, and witches. Women were suddenly excluded from power structures to which they had previously had access-no longer able, for example, to attend universities in which they had previously been enrolled. double monasteries for men and women were closed. There was suspicion of everyone. In 1 180 the Jews were expelled from France.
The change was rapid. In England in the 12th century there were no laws against Jews and they occupied prominent positions, but by the end of the 13th century, sleeping with a Jew was equated with sleeping with an animal or with murder, and in France Jews, according to St. Louis, were to be killed on the spot if they questioned the Christian faith. During this time there are many popular diatribes against gay people as well, suggesting that they molest children, violate natural law, are bestial? and bring harm to nations which tolerate them. Within a single century. between the period of 1250 and 1350, almost every European state passed civil laws demanding death for a single homosexual act. This popular reaction affected Christian theology a great deal. Throughout the 12th century homosexual relations, had, at worst, been comparable to heterosexual fornication for married people, and, at best, not sinful at all. During the 13th century, because of this popular reaction, writers like Thomas Aquinas tried to portray homosexuality as one of the very worst sins, second only to murder.
It is very difficult to describe how this came about. St. Thomas tried to show that homosexuality was opposed to nature in some way, the most familiar objection being that nature created sexuality for procreation and using it for any other purpose would violate nature. Aquinas was much too smart for this argument. In the Summa Contra Gentiles he asks, "Is it sinful to walk on your hands when nature intended them for something else?" No, indeed it is not sinful, so he shifted ground. This is obviously not the reason that homosexuality is sinful; he looks for another. First he tried arguing that homosexuality must be sinful because it impedes the reproduction of the human race. But this argument also failed, for, Aquinas noted in the Summa Theologica, "a duty may be of two sorts: it may be enjoined on the individual as a duty which cannot be ignored without sin, or it may be enjoined upon a group. In the latter cases no one individual is obligated to fulfill the duty. The commandment regarding procreation applies to the human race as a whole! which is obligated to increase physically. It is therefore sufficient for the race if some people undertake to reproduce physically." Moreover, Aquinas admitted in the Summa Theologica that homosexuality was absolutely natural to certain individuals and therefore inculpable. In what sense, then, could he argue that it was unnatural? In a third place he concedes that the term "natural" in fact has no moral significance, but it is simply a term applied to things which are strongly disapproved of. "Homosexuality," he says, "is called 'the unnatural vice' by the common people, and hence it may be said to be unnatural." This was not an invention of Aquinas'. It was a response to popular prejudices of the time. It did not derive its authority from the Bible or from any previous tradition of Christian morality, but it eventually became part of Catholic theological thought. These attitudes have remained basically unchanged because there has been no popular support for change in the matter. The public has continued to feel hostility to gay people and the church has been under no pressure to re­examine the origins of its teachings on homosexuality.
It is possible to change ecclesiastical attitudes toward gay people and their sexuality because the objections to homosexuality are not biblical, they are not consistent, they are not part of Jesus' teaching; and they are not even fundamentally Christian. It is possible because Christianity was indifferent, if not accepting, of gay people and their feelings for a longer period of time than it had been hostile to them. It is possible because the founders of the religion specifically considered love to transcend accidents of biology and to be the end, not the means. It may not be possible to eradicate intolerance from secular society, for intolerance is, to some extent ineradicable; but I believe the church's attitude can and must be changed. It has been different in the past and it can be again. Plato observed of secular society nearly 2,400 years ago that "wherever it has been established that it is shameful to be involved in homosexual relationships, this is due to evil on the part of the legislatures, to despotism on the part of the rulers and to cowardism on the part of the governed."
I don't think we can afford to be cowardly. We have an abundance of ecclesiastical precedent to encourage the church to adopt a more positive attitude. We must use it. As a gay archbishop wrote in the 12th century, "it is not we who teach God how to love, but He who taught us. He made our natures full of love." A contemporary of his wrote, "Love is not a crime. If it were wrong to love, God would not have bound even the divine to love." These statements came from the Christian community, from Christian faith. That community can and must be reminded of its former beliefs, its former acceptance. And we must do the reminding.

Cuestion de tiempo


Que dificil tiempo para amar,
Heredando miedos Donde sueño libertad.
Tengo que callar una vez mas,
Mis palabras sobranDonde hablan los demas.
Me falta edad y sin embargo
No soy solo la mitad de un sentimiento,
Soy capaz de mi destino,Soy un punto en el camino,
Lo que fuiste alguna vez.

Mirame, siénteme,
Soy de carne y huesos,
No soy un reflejo, y no es malo lo que siento,
Mira soy cuestión de tiempo.
Mirame, siénteme,Soy de carne y huesos,
No soy un espejo, oye soy mi propio vuelo,
Mira soy cuestión de tiempo.

Que dificil tiempo para amar,
Si me obligas miento, No te quiero lastimar.
Tengo que callar una vez mas, Solo pensamientos,
No es momento para hablar.
Me falta edad y sin embargo No soy solo la mitad de un sentimiento,
No soy eco soy sonido,Soy un punto en el camino,
Lo que fuiste alguna vez.

Mirame, siénteme,Soy de carne y huesos,
No soy un reflejo, y no es malo lo que siento,
Mira soy cuestión de tiempo.
Mirame, siénteme,Soy de carne y huesos,
No soy un espejo, oye soy mi propio vuelo,
Mira soy cuestión de tiempo.
Mirame, siénteme.

Thursday, April 20, 2006

Peligro (Danger)


Aléjate, de ti si que podría enamorarme.
Aléjate, que el juego del deseo está que arde.
Que hay leña en el fogón, fuego en la leña,
y si te acercas ya no podría dejarte.

Aléjate, me acaba la intención de ser cobarde.
Aléjate, que la distancia hacia tu piel quiere robarme.
Que ciertas ataduras prohiben nuestro encuentro.
Aléjate, aún es tiempo.

Peligro de enamorarme de ti,
peligro de ser feliz,
peligro de perderme entre tus brazos,
y hacerle daño a quien vive junto a mí.

Amparo rubin

Artist of the day: Steve Walker


Drawing is one of Steve Walker's earliest childhood memories. He recollects drawing pictures from about the age of three or four years old. Drawing came naturally to the Toronto artist, and his love of the art form continued into his adulthood. As a self taught artist, Walker only began painting after a trip to Europe when he was 25 years old. During the trip, he spent much of his time in Europe touring the great galleries and museums. In his words it was the first time he was exposed to great painting, and the first time he recognized the potential power of the art form. "I was moved by something that I was capable of doing," he said. His first paintings were done in a somewhat secretive way, as he had no intention of exhibiting or selling, and had no aspirations of becoming a professional artist.
Producing art about his life and the lives of those around him is as natural to Walker as his first childhood drawings. As a gay man, Walker is acutely aware that he is living during a periodof history that is both the bestof times and the worst of times. There is more freedom and acceptance for gay men and women, while at the same time AIDS has devastated the gay population.
But Walker's paintings are not about gay people or homosexuality. He describes his art as being about love, hate, pain, joy, touch, communication, beauty, loneliness, attraction, hope, despair, life and death. His art includes universal themes regardless of race, gender, socio-economic class, culture or sexual orientation. However, his work is unique because he conveys these themes through the subjects in his paintings, young gay men. "Remove the gender of the painting's subjects and what we have is human relationships in general, and oneís relationship to the world itself," he said. "As a homosexual I have been moved, educated, and inspired by works that deal with a heterosexual context. Why would I assume that a heterosexual would be incapable of appreciating work that speaks to common themes in life, as seen through my eyes as a gay man. If the heterosexual population is unable to do this, then the loss is theirs, not mine."
If Walker were an abstract painter or a landscape artist, he says his sexual orientation wouldn't matter. But since his paintings are about gay life, his sexual orientation becomes more important than his cultural background, age, or nationality.
The focus of his paintings often depict sadness and loneliness to reflect the reality that much of anyone's life is sad and lonely. Walker often portrays people in relationships as separate entities because that is the way he views them. He also uses a small and consistent palette of colours because he is comfortable with them and the colours provide the desired results. "Colour is very powerful and a little can go a long way if used effectively," he said. "Some colours are very exciting to me, while others are quite offensive. Painting flesh is very exciting because of the huge variations possible within a very small colour range."
Walker's artworks are very large, always measuring 36" by 48". He creates large paintings because he believes that a large image is more appealing than a smaller one. "Whether it's a television screen, cinema screen, or an image in a magazine, the size of the image connotes a degree of importance," he said. Walker said belonging to an oppressed minority group has been a driving force in creating his art. "Any minority wants and needs to find artistic voices that reflect their own personal situations, and, in doing so, validate and record their lives and cultures for themselves, and for the larger world," he said.
Walker said he experiences many small rewards during the creative process. "After hours of painting, I stand back and look at something that wasn't there before -- a hand, face, or piece of fabric will exist where there was once a blank canvas," he said.
As an artist, Walker said it's exciting to be working at a point in history where there is an audience ready to appreciate and consume his creations. "It is very rare to find success as an artist in your lifetime," he said. "My work will be around long after me, but seeing it affect people at the time that I am creating it is very rewarding."
In recent years Steve Walker's work has been exhibited in galleries in Toronto, Montreal, New York, Philadelphia and Key West.
The gay community of North America has responded very positively to Walker's art. "I am very aware of the appreciation from a group of people who recognize the time, energy and talent devoted to a body of work that speaks specifically to them but at the same time exists in the larger world that we all live in," he said.

About Me

I am a 35 yo Latino, Episcopalian living in NYC. Love all kind of books about religion and Spirituality. I love to play guitar regardless of how good I am.