There are still no winners in the AOL Wars.I have actually become used to the harassing pop-ups and consider them now to be an annoyance rather than a hindrance,which leads me to today's topic:Just how much are we willing to tolerate in order to maintain what is comfortable? I have no answer to this,but with "Minority Report" opening today,I thought it would be something to muse over.For budgetary reasons I will not see the movie until July,but with the constantly-changing alerts I can feel a part of the future here in 2002!
Bush apparently has decided that we Americans need to exercise with more regularity,and I am doing my part by maintaining a 45 minute/day routine.But I was considering taking Sunday off;so can I expect a visit from the "exercise police"?Will fat people have to stand in front of office buldings munching french fries in the cold?It's always a "slippery slope".
I've made the recent mistake of watching ABC's Nightline since September 11th,and have winced through their recent coverage of both the Middle East and the Catholic Church.What have the two in common you may ask?IMO,it's pretty much about bias.When I was in high school,and had academic aspirations(not being good in math,I had trouble putting 2 and 2 together and realizing that studying had alot to do with academic aspirations),I took a couple of journalism classes.What I remember about those classes was the emphasis upon getting the facts into the first paragraph and not permitting any bias into the article.The AtlantaJournalConstitution,our local paper,doesn't get it right,and neither does Nightline.
On the Catholic Church issue,I will admit to being what they call a "lapsed Catholic".Went about 10 times in the past 20 years,and still find comfort in some of the traditions.Of course I also find comfort in Kraft Macaroni and Cheese,but am not about to start a religion!Not being much of a joiner I was never an altar boy,and recall that our parish Priest was old enough to have actually travelled with Jesus,so probably never much bothered anyone in a physical way.I'm also gay(which may have lapsed somewhat recently as well,but that's another rant!),but am not a pedophile.In fact,the fact that that distinction needs to be made is in itself sad,but that's part of what bugs me about the media.As stories like this tend to do,it was as if a dam had broken and all these stories of Priest sex scandals came pouring out at about the same time.My problem with the coverage was that Nightline(and other news programs)had just spent months bending over backwards to disacciate the Muslim religion from the terrorism of September 11th,which seemed to me the right thing to do.But when it came to the Catholic Church,it was as if the Church itself was synonamous with pedophilia!And,yes,institutionally the Church had relocated Priests whom it knew were either accused of or guilty of,molesting children.But,though I haven't been practicing Catholicism for some time,I recall the Confessional and the idea behind it.It actually seemed to make sense that the Church might take that route considering that they have also condemned the death penalty and allow women who have had abortions,which the Church sees as murder,to absolve themselves and continue their lives.Instead of asking how the Church's traditional stances on sin and forgiveness pertained to the current allegations(allegations,I might add,which often dated back to earlier times),the news coverage focused in on whether the policy on married Priests,women Priests,and gay Priests might be changed!
To my knowledge Nightline never did a piece where they interviewed celibates and asked whether celibacy as a rule always leads to pedophilia.I'm guessing they knew that it did not,and since the outcome would not hurt the Church,it would not be worthy of considering.In the real world,married heterosexuals are often pedophiles,so why would married Priests be that much different?My guess again is that Nightline and others were not looking for logical answers,but for a way to attack an institution which spoke out against their ideals.What better way to show tha hipocrasy of the Church than to report a sex scandal(and especially one involving children!)?Of course,the fact that there were indeed Priests performing these acts made Nightline's job easier,and there are no squeaky clean individuals here(there rarely are).The problem for the Church comes down to,IMO,the fact that both the Church and the public forgot that,according to the Church,Priests were to take a vow of celibacy.It got watered down over the years(partially I believe because of how the media referred to it)into "Priests cannot marry".I also think that the amount of gay guys who entered the Priesthood has always been high due to the fact that it was one place where marriage was not only not expected but was not permitted! But this IS 2002,and the stigma involved in being gay,though not completely gone,is less than it was.Heck,now gay people are the only ones who seem to want to do the marriage thing!
My final point about the Catholic Church and Nighline involves the idea that the Church hasn't gone far enough toward zero tolerance.It goes back to the idea of the Confessional.When I was growing up,what was said between spouses,between a doctor and patient,a layperson and clergy,and a lawyer and client were all privileged.Added to that I believe was reporter and source(something I believe Nightline would agree with!).I do feel that pedophiles should be prosecuted,but what if the basis for that prosecution turms out to have been admissions in Confession?Remember what I said about "slippery slopes"?I would ask the Nightline reporters whether they believe that a reporter or a defense attorney should turn in a pedophile if they find him to be guilty.I am reasonably certain that their approach to the issue would be different(except of course if the reporter or attorney admitted to being "Pro-Life"!)
Oh,and women would,IMO,be fine Priests.Statistically they tend not to be much into the pedophilia,which would help.They were another group that I did not see interviewed on a regular basis,which I consider odd,as they would have first-hand knowledge of celibacy.My guess,cynic that I am,is that since their celibacy was not linked to pedophilia,that they would not fit Nightline's goals.I'll let the Church sort that out,as I agree that they have enough on their plate at present.
Then there's the Middle East coverage! Not as egregious,IMO,as the previous topic,but definite bias on display! Most recently I recall seeing a blurb about the school bus being bombed last week,followed by detailed reporting and footage of tanks going in to Jenin.My major gripe is that an unbiased report might actually have gone into the same detail concerning the bombing.Even typical Nightline "human interest" reporting would list who was killed,what they were doing that day,that sort of thing.The fact that this type of report occurs in almost any other violent situation around the world and violence that results in the deaths of Israelis only merits the briefest of statistics,sends up red flags of bias to me.
First day of summer!Glad to have vented somewhat.Ready for another skirmish with AOL.And hoping to eat something unhealthy,just to be subversive!