From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2003 #88 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: les@jmdl.com Errors-To: les@jmdl.com Precedence: bulk Unsubscribe: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe Archives: http://www.smoe.org/lists/joni Websites: http://www.jmdl.com http://www.jonimitchell.com JMDL Digest Monday, February 3 2003 Volume 2003 : Number 088 Sign up now for JoniFest 2003! http://www.jonifest.com ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- RE: Reagan - HIV NJC ["Bree Mcdonough" ] Re: Reagan - HIV NJC ["kasey simpson" ] Re: Safe Foods, njc [Sarah ] Re: Safe Foods, njc [Sarah ] Favorite music (NJC) [Steve Dulson ] Re: NJC Why the Left is wrong on Saddam ["kasey simpson" ] Re: JMDL Digest V2003 #85 [Freddyb4@aol.com] Shuttle (NJC) [Steve Dulson ] NJC What Fred has started [Sarah ] Re: Musical tastes we'll take to the grave REVEALED! NJC [Randy Remote ] the Catholic Church NJC [dsk ] Re: Musical tastes we'll take to the grave REVEALED! NJC ["Lori Fye" ] Re: Safe Foods, njc [colin ] RE: Joni and the Catholic church (NJC) (Religious content: very long) [] Re: the Catholic Church NJC [Sarah ] Crosby, Pretenders on TV this week njc [Randy Remote ] Re: the Catholic Church NJC [colin ] avenue P!!! njc ["Wally Kairuz" ] Re: the Catholic Church NJC [dsk ] Re: the Catholic Church NJC ["Lavieri, Vince [185776]" ] how do you stop the ripening corn (njc) ["Marianne Rizzo" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 13:47:14 -0500 From: "Bree Mcdonough" Subject: RE: Reagan - HIV NJC Look..I can take a joke as well as anybody..but I think it took a lot of gull on your part to ascribe these words to me. I'll let it alone. Because this says a lot more about you than me. Bree >Well, I'll say it, I hate the Clintons. > >Bree > >Gee. What a surprise. > >Jerry _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 13:58:55 -0600 From: "kasey simpson" Subject: Re: Reagan - HIV NJC Didn't mean to shock you Jerry. Well, I'll say it, I hate the Clintons. Gee. What a surprise. JerryGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 13:02:24 -0700 From: Sarah Subject: Re: Safe Foods, njc Do you have an opinion on GM foods, Jenny? In Britain, we are very opposed to it. A few years ago, people who wilfully damaged crops, and who were definitely guilty of a criminal offence, were being found not guilty by juries, and allowed to walk free. And every supermarket advertises food as GM free - some are entirely GM free. But since I came to Canada, I haven't seen any of that, and in fact, we have a large crop near where we live, and the field is labelled Monsanto. If they did that in Europe, the crops would be ruined overnight. So there seems to be a very different attitude in North America. I'm wondering if in fact GM foods are the way ahead, because then we might bypass the need for animal manure and pesticides, eventually. What do you think? (If you have time to answer, on or off list as you choose). Regarding vegans and factory farming, the manure in Europe is bought from large farms, and these are invariably factory farms. In the UK, we have very few non-factory farms, or non-intensive as they're now called - animals are kept indoors all the time, have wretched lives, are pumped full of antibiotics as a precaution, as well as hormones for growth, and they eat badly - and as you know until a decade or so ago, they were eating each other, thanks to our insane animal feed producers, which led to mad cow disease. So in buying produce grown using manure, the organic food consumer is unwittingly contributing financially to the upkeep of the factory farmer, as well as perhaps exposing themselves to health risks (e-coli for example). For that reason, many vegans eat conventionally produced vegetables and fruit, but very reluctantly, and the debate is always going back and forth - about which is the lesser of two evils. Sarah At 10:46 AM -0800 02/03/2003, Jenny Goodspeed wrote: >Yes, if you're vegan, and do not want animals involved >in any part of the growing process, I can see that as >a problem. OG would be the lesser of two evils though >- both conventional and OG farmers use animal >products, and conventional farmers do so on a larger >scale. > >If you're a strict vegan and don't live near a vegan >organic grower (and there are very few), what on earth >would you do? > >Jenny ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 13:05:16 -0700 From: Sarah Subject: Re: Safe Foods, njc Oh, I didn't answer your question: OG farming is seen as being tied to factory farming, because there aren't enough organic farms (in the UK anyway) to produce the manure they need, so manure from factory farms is brought in. Sarah At 10:46 AM -0800 02/03/2003, Jenny Goodspeed wrote: >In my experience (my hubby was an OG grower for many >years), OG farmers don't rely heavily on animal >products and get their composted manure (if they use >any) from small local farms, not factory farms. I'd >be curious to know more about how the vegans you know >see OG farming specifically tied to factory farming. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 11:07:11 -0800 From: Steve Dulson Subject: Favorite music (NJC) My favorites change not infrequently...also there are artists that I like live whose recordings I don't like and vice versa. Here are the acts that I've seen over the last 5 years that I gave my top "5*" rating to: Bob Dylan Joni Mitchel Gillian Welch & David Rawlings Cry, Cry, Cry Dave Carter & Tracy Grammer Van Morrison James Keelaghan Katy Moffatt William Pint & Felicia Dale Jez Lowe La Bottine Souriante - -- ######################################################## Steve Dulson Costa Mesa CA steve@psitech.com "The Tinker's Own" http://www.tinkersown.com "The Living Tradition Concert Series" http://www.thelivingtradition.org/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 14:11:35 -0600 From: "kasey simpson" Subject: Re: NJC Why the Left is wrong on Saddam Sarah, Good article, fair. I can tell the author and I would not always agree tho. Kasey Another good article on the war in tomorrow's Observer: http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,887184,00.html SarahGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 13:09:51 -0700 From: Sarah Subject: Re: Safe Foods, njc Do you have an opinion on GM foods, Jenny? In Britain, we are very opposed to it. A few years ago, people who wilfully damaged crops, and who were definitely guilty of a criminal offence, were being found not guilty by juries, and allowed to walk free. And every supermarket advertises food as GM free - some are entirely GM free. But since I came to Canada, I haven't seen any of that, and in fact, we have a large crop near where we live, and the field is labelled Monsanto. If they did that in Europe, the crops would be ruined overnight. So there seems to be a very different attitude in North America. I'm wondering if in fact GM foods are the way ahead, because then we might bypass the need for animal manure and pesticides, eventually. What do you think? (If you have time to answer, on or off list as you choose). Regarding vegans and factory farming, the manure in Europe is bought from large farms, and these are invariably factory farms. In the UK, we have very few non-factory farms, or non-intensive as they're now called - animals are kept indoors all the time, have wretched lives, are pumped full of antibiotics as a precaution, as well as hormones for growth, and they eat badly - and as you know until a decade or so ago, they were eating each other, thanks to our insane animal feed producers, which led to mad cow disease. So in buying produce grown using manure, the organic food consumer is unwittingly contributing financially to the upkeep of the factory farmer, as well as perhaps exposing themselves to health risks (e-coli for example). For that reason, many vegans eat conventionally produced vegetables and fruit, but very reluctantly, and the debate is always going back and forth - about which is the lesser of two evils. Sarah At 10:46 AM -0800 02/03/2003, Jenny Goodspeed wrote: >Yes, if you're vegan, and do not want animals involved >in any part of the growing process, I can see that as >a problem. OG would be the lesser of two evils though >- both conventional and OG farmers use animal >products, and conventional farmers do so on a larger >scale. > >If you're a strict vegan and don't live near a vegan >organic grower (and there are very few), what on earth >would you do? > >Jenny ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 14:28:15 EST From: Freddyb4@aol.com Subject: Re: JMDL Digest V2003 #85 Fred AGAIN ---- if I get too tiresome, just tell me... How do you keep up with these postings and who said what???? But!!!! already, anyone who bothers to look will see names of artists we share with many others, but also just how different we can be, some names that come up I have never heard of, or at least I know nothing of their work, I suppose some just are never able to cross the Atlantic and survive ( I'll try and put together a list once the input stops) Since I started this nonsense I have other names that I could add, Clifford T Ward who sadly died last year of MS, his "Home Thoughts" was right up there in the poll for our favourite pop song, and I always liked Gordon Lightfoot, Paul Simon. Just incase you feel I'm a hopeless romantic, I do like some heavier stuff, but not heavy metal. Tell me when people talk of influences, the Beatles, Beach boys, Stones, there are all these names that get mentioned, but nobody seems to want to give "Creedence Clearwater" any credit, I have a double album and there is not a weak track, and the intro to "Up around the bend" makes my hair stand on end, or it would if I had any, and their version of "Heard it through the Grape vine" is a classic. I enjoyed the Eagles come back, I would love to hear Creedence again. Some brief replies, Mark, my Danish girlfriend was special, and we are still the best of friends, she worked for the Danish Royal family so the room full of candle light was in the "Sorrow Free Palace" in Copenhagen, and what was that about Joely Richardson and Liam Neeson, Joely is a lovely girl, and I'm about the same size as Liam, and probably as tall as well. I'll get Joely to compare ! (I can dream can't I ) The BBC videos, you've seen them in the States, I asked the BBC to screen them again, maybe invite the Artists back, but nothing, why do I pay my license fee?? Catherine, what is it that stops women wanting to be refered to as female, you could tell how innocent my statement is, so why should it offend, I have come across this when some film gal took offence at being called an actress, and insisted on being refered to as an actor, I knew a male nurse who's occupation was a "Midwife" would he have got anywhere if he demanded that he should be called a "Midhusband" lol What have I started, will it all end in tears??? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 11:31:56 -0800 From: Steve Dulson Subject: Shuttle (NJC) Michele and I got up Saturday and drove down to the beach, about 10 minutes away. We actually found a non-metered parking space (the metered spaces cost $0.25 for 15 minutes) and set out on our regular walk from Newport Pier to Balboa Pier and back, along the path people call the boardwalk, even though it's concrete. It was a beautiful morning, already warming up under the bright sun. Sand and blue ocean on our right, the beach front houses on our left. About 15 minutes into the walk I glanced into a window as we passed. On a big screen TV it said "News Alert - Shuttle breaks up over Texas". I know it's a cliche' but it stopped me in my tracks. Just then a man came out of the house, saw me and said "Bad day, huh?" All I could say was "Oh, man....." At church the next morning our assistant priest asked if I would fill in for the litanist, who had called in sick. It was a privilege - and very moving - to lead the congregation in prayers for the repose of the souls of Rick, Laurel, Michael, William, Ilam, Kalpana and David and for healing and guidance for their friends and families. "Amelia" has been running through my head all weekend. "Dreams, Amelia, dreams and false alarms..." - -- ######################################################## Steve Dulson Costa Mesa CA steve@psitech.com "The Tinker's Own" http://www.tinkersown.com "The Living Tradition Concert Series" http://www.thelivingtradition.org/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 13:35:53 -0700 From: Sarah Subject: NJC What Fred has started Fred, I don't know what you've started, but yes, it will definitely end in tears. ;-D Sarah At 2:28 PM -0500 02/03/2003, freddyb4@aol.com wrote: >Catherine, what is it that stops women wanting to be refered to as female, >you could tell how innocent my statement is, so why should it offend, I have >come across this when some film gal took offence at being called an actress, >and insisted on being refered to as an actor, I knew a male nurse who's >occupation was a "Midwife" would he have got anywhere if he demanded that he >should be called a "Midhusband" lol > >What have I started, will it all end in tears??? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 11:41:22 -0800 From: Randy Remote Subject: Re: Musical tastes we'll take to the grave REVEALED! NJC Lori Fye wrote: > started smoking dope at age 15, but didn't discover Joni until I was > almost 19. What can I say? I had a sheltered childhood. (Btw, I will > be 45 in July.) > Oh the other hand, my grandma bought me Donny Osmond's first solo LP > (along with a Roy Clarke album - ???) one xmas, and Pink > Floyd's "Meddle" the next. I guess you know what year Grandma started smoking dope! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 11:46:24 -0800 From: "Lori Fye" Subject: RE: Reagan - HIV NJC > I think it took a lot of gull on your part Jonathan Livingston Sea.... ? ; ) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 14:49:10 -0500 From: dsk Subject: the Catholic Church NJC Sarah Gibb wrote: > > The Catholic Church teaches that there is a god, that heaven and hell > are real, that individuals can have no direct relationship with god > but must commune via a priest, that the pope is infallible, that > abortion is a sin, that sex outside marriage is a sin. These beliefs > are false in my view, and exceptionally damaging to individuals and > to society. So - I can't think any good of it. Are you saying we have > to respect something just because lots of people are involved in it? Yes, the decent thing is to respect other people's paths, even if you don't understand them. To use the simpler example you gave, if I met someone who loved Celine Dion, I'd be curious about why that is. I'd probably not ever love her music as that person does, but after the conversation would have a fuller understanding than I do now, not only of Celine Dion, but also of that person and, if I'm willing to do some self-reflection, of myself, too. From what you've written, I imagine you'd treat that person with disdain and miss that connection and all of that learning. Your loss. As far as your description of the Catholic Church goes, it's an incomplete understanding, and some of the items in your list are not even correct. There is now communal confession, for example, and people are urged to pray wherever, whenever, and to cultivate their relationship with God in many different ways, very few of which include a priest. On the issue of infallibility: In the history of the Church the Pope has spoken "ex cathedra" only once and that was on a matter of dogma concerning Mary that most Catholics believed already anyway, so he is not "infallible" except under extremely unusual circumstances. Such circumstances have existed ONCE. I could take each of the items you've mentioned and show the discrepancy between the publicized "official line" you've read and the experience of the people in the pews, which will eventually lead to change. Since you give the impression that your mind is made up, I won't go into any of that, except to say that there are many things about the Church that I (and many Catholics) disagree with and some teachings I completely ignore (bet you didn't think a Catholic could do that!). I pay most attention to the one Church rule that overrides all others: that I follow my conscience. That rule has been part of the Church since its beginnings and the one that consistently makes the most sense to me. It's of no consequence to me whether you find any value in the Church or any organized religion. I find it interesting and rather humorous to see that it's not only people of faith who can become rigid and dogmatic in their beliefs. I'm reminded of the value of humility and how important it is for one's own humanity to always remember that no one person (or path) has all the answers. Debra Shea NPIMH: Heart and humor and humility he said will lighten up your heavy load... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 11:47:57 -0800 From: "Lori Fye" Subject: Re: Musical tastes we'll take to the grave REVEALED! NJC > I guess you know what year Grandma started smoking dope! LOL! Actually, now that I consider it ... it explains a lot. ; ) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 14:56:38 -0500 From: dsk Subject: Re: NJC P.J. Harvey SCJoniGuy@aol.com wrote: > > If you feel you must get a p.j.harvey, stick with "Stories From The City, Stories From The Sea". > It's her only record so far that doesn't majorly suck. Wow, Bob, that's hard! I disagree and think you're completely missing the boat on this one. I don't like everything she's done, in the same way I don't like everything Joni's done, but she's adventurous and unique and I look forward to hearing what she does next. Debra Shea NP: TV news... with a report saying that Phil Spector has just been arrested for murder... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 20:05:38 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: Safe Foods, njc Sarah wrote: > > > I'm wondering if in fact GM foods gm has already croosed over and now we have weeds we can't kill.... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 14:07:34 -0600 From: Subject: RE: Joni and the Catholic church (NJC) (Religious content: very long) Sarah wrote: "The Catholic Church teaches that there is a god, that heaven and hell are real, that individuals can have no direct relationship with god but must commune via a priest, that the pope is infallible, that abortion is a sin, that sex outside marriage is a sin. These beliefs are false in my view, and exceptionally damaging to individuals and to society. So - I can't think any good of it. Are you saying we have to respect something just because lots of people are involved in it? Lots of people love Celine Dion. You're right that individual Catholic priests and nuns have done good things, but good people do good things regardless of whether their goodness has been institutionalized. The Catholic church is responsible for a lot more evil in the world than good." Sarah, I've always enjoyed your posts, even when I didn't agree with them. Your positions are almost always well thought out and well-articulated. However, some of the conclusions you reach here are vast overgeneralizations, and others are downright false. As such, I just can't let them slide by. The Catholic church is responsible for more evil than good? That conclusion is based on--WHAT, exactly? I am reminded of an interview I saw of the noted British historian Sir Martin Gilbert just last night on C-Span. Gilbert, in speaking of his latest book (which coincidentally, details the actions of ordinary good people, including Catholics, during World War II) stated something to the effect that we always pay more attention to evil than to good. It grabs our attention. We see it before anything else in our field of vision. More bluntly put, shit stinks. Yes, the Catholic Church has been responsible for more than its share of especially pungent shit. There's the Inquisition. There's the Church's controversial action (or, more properly put, inaction) while millions of Jews and others were murdered during the Holocaust. More recently, there are the pedophile priests, and the institutional church's inexcusable coverup of their actions. If there is a God, as Catholics believe there is, and if there is any punishment in the afterlife--self-imposed, or originating elsewhere--then the souls involved in these atrocities should receive theirs, and it should be far more severe than than for any of the "sins" you've listed. If there is indeed a hell, an especially horrific ring of it should be reserved for these faithless ones. But what of all that nameless, faceless good, carried out both by individuals, AND BY THE CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTION? What about the nuns who taught me in high school, who first alerted me to the abuses of farmworkers by the Gallo wine company in California, and who, in a more general sense, heightened a political awareness which has lasted and informed me for the better part of a lifetime? What about the brave Catholic priests and nuns and laypersons who have taught people and healed people and been present for indigent people, like Joni in 1965, when no one else was willing to be, in cities and remote locations to which no one else wanted to go? What about the systematic establishment of health care and education in the United States that Debra mentioned? What about the U.S. bishops' pastoral letter of circa 1983, which spoke passionately in favor of economic justice, and which warned, if memory serves, of the danger of nuclear proliferation? And what of the stance in r! ecent weeks by many identified with the Catholic church against the all-but certain war with Iraq, which will all but certainly take many lives, innocent or not? (You may not agree that church opposition in that last example constitutes a good, but that only serves to illustrate how murky this business of labeling good and evil can sometimes get). And I could go on and on, but you get the idea. You might say, as you implied, that the individuals involved did good almost despite their Catholicism, or at least, incidentally to it. I beg to differ. Some of the actions described above were, indeed, taken by the institutional church. However, of those that weren't, how many individual actors engaged in the good they did, sometimes at great personal risk to themselves, precisely because they believed that acting in that manner was a direct outgrowth of their Catholic faith? Quite a lot, I venture to say. At least, I know quite a lot who fall in that category from my own personal experience. They are anonymous in the eyes of the rest of the world, but their number is vast, and we see them every day. You presented a list of what Catholicism is and isn't, from the vantage point of one who is not a member of that church or, as I understand it, of any church. I would agree with some of your characterizations, vehemently disagree with others, and qualify still more. For example: yes, Catholics believe that there is a God. No, we do not believe that individuals can have no direct relationship with Him/Her, but must "commune" through a priest: the priest can be a mediator, especially through the sacraments, but certainly, isn't necessary for direct communication with the divine. If you believe that that is so, the what do you make of the great Christian/Catholic tradition of prayer through the ages, and even direct mystical union, as exemplified by saints Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, and Julian of Norwich, not to mention prayer in the lives of millions of ordinary Catholics today? Yes, the Church teaches that certain kinds of papal pronouncements are infallible, ! but that doctrine is of recent origin, and only applies if the pope speaks under carefully delineated circumstances, not to every word that leaves his lips, or even every pronouncement on church doctrine that he makes. Yes, the church teaches that sex outside marriage and abortion are sins. It also teaches that excessive "collateral damage" in war; harsh, inhumane social welfare policies, nuclear proliferation, bone-crushing poverty, and racial discrimination are sins. You may or may not agree with every item on this list. I myself part company from the church on several (notably, the two that you mentioned). However, the common thread that I find running through all, as misguided as some of us believe the thought process behind inclusion of certain items may be, is concern for the dignity of the human person at all stages of life. The church sees itself as protecting human dignity and self-esteem, not taking it away. Does it fall short of the mark sometimes, both in its institutional pronouncements, and its the actions of individuals claiming to act in its name? Absolutely. Does it often actually succeed in protecting human dignity? Just as certainly: yes. In conclusion: is the church, or are those who represent her, perfect? Not by a long shot. So often, "the church" nothing more than a muddle of ordinary, flawed men and women, muddling about, trying to do the best they can in a very imperfect world. And some of the examples of its most grievous failures have been stunning in the lack of compassion, or even, unadulterated evil, involved. For those affected by that lack of compassion and that evil, I hope and pray for healing, and, where appropriate, for justice, including criminal and monetary sanctions. But the heights reached by the church and its followers have also been stunning, in a wholly different way. And in the middle, a lot of faith-filled people, inspired by what they believe, are doing their best to do, and be, good. My two cents (OK, a lot more than that!). Mary P. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 14:17:05 -0700 From: Sarah Subject: Re: the Catholic Church NJC Maybe you're right about respect. But - just as an example - I haven't seen a lot of respect , on this list, from people who are opposed to the war for people who support the war. And I don't see much respect in your post either. I think if a person is very opposed to something, and if you believe that something is completely false, it's hard to respect people who choose that thing. Or rather, you might respect the person, but you can't respect the choice. Whenever I discuss something, I try to argue with facts, not insults, and I try to hear the other side, and find some merit in it, and I try not to talk about things if I know nothing about them. As I see it, this is doing precisely what you advocate - being willing to see the other side and staying open-minded to some extent. But open-mindedness must have its limits. If someone insists that 2 plus 2 equals 5, I can't nod respectfully and try to see it from their point of view. Similarly, in my opinion, if someone insists there is a god, and the pope has special access to him, and priests possibly too, and the church as a whole is capable of infallibility, and abortion is a sin, and Copernicus was evil to say the earth moved round the sun, and god sent his son down and this son was born of a virgin. . . Yes, of course you're right to say that things change, things progress, and some of this might change too (some has already changed), but nevertheless, there comes a point when you just have to wonder. . . for me, it becomes like 2 plus 2 equals 5, and all I can do is shrug and wonder "why would anyone believe that?" If you then add the evil that the Catholic church has committed over the last few decades (not to mention, centuries), then it really is very hard to find the merit in it. My mother was a catholic, as were both her parents, so I know that individual catholics can be good people, as can individual protestants, Jews, Moslems, humanists, whatever. But the institution is something else. You expect me to respect your Catholicism and your criticism, but you won't respect my atheism or my criticism. And I don't know what you mean when you say the pope has only spoken ex cathedra once in the history of the church. I couldn't tell whether you meant this pope or other popes. Anyway, the point is that the CHURCH, through its agents, considers itself capable of infallibility, and they define this as excluding even the possibility of error, which is nuts, unless you're talking about 2 plus 2 equals 4, which is the kind of thing where error isn't possible i.e. matters of definition. In all other matters, error is ALWAYS possible. Sarah At 2:49 PM -0500 02/03/2003, dsk wrote: >. . .the decent thing is to respect other people's paths, even if you >don't understand them. > >To use the simpler example you gave, if I met someone who loved Celine >Dion, I'd be curious about why that is. I'd probably not ever love her >music as that person does, but after the conversation would have a >fuller understanding than I do now, not only of Celine Dion, but also of >that person and, if I'm willing to do some self-reflection, of myself, >too. From what you've written, I imagine you'd treat that person with >disdain and miss that connection and all of that learning. Your loss. > >As far as your description of the Catholic Church goes, it's an >incomplete understanding, and some of the items in your list are not >even correct. There is now communal confession, for example, and people >are urged to pray wherever, whenever, and to cultivate their >relationship with God in many different ways, very few of which include >a priest. On the issue of infallibility: In the history of the Church >the Pope has spoken "ex cathedra" only once and that was on a matter of >dogma concerning Mary that most Catholics believed already anyway, so he >is not "infallible" except under extremely unusual circumstances. Such >circumstances have existed ONCE. > >I could take each of the items you've mentioned and show the discrepancy >between the publicized "official line" you've read and the experience of >the people in the pews, which will eventually lead to change. Since you >give the impression that your mind is made up, I won't go into any of >that, except to say that there are many things about the Church that I >(and many Catholics) disagree with and some teachings I completely >ignore (bet you didn't think a Catholic could do that!). I pay most >attention to the one Church rule that overrides all others: that I >follow my conscience. That rule has been part of the Church since its >beginnings and the one that consistently makes the most sense to me. > >It's of no consequence to me whether you find any value in the Church or >any organized religion. I find it interesting and rather humorous to see >that it's not only people of faith who can become rigid and dogmatic in >their beliefs. I'm reminded of the value of humility and how important >it is for one's own humanity to always remember that no one person (or >path) has all the answers. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 12:29:51 -0800 From: Randy Remote Subject: Crosby, Pretenders on TV this week njc All times are Eastern TUES FEB 4 Biography Channel: 8pm&midnite Biography: David Crosby (these are reruns) 9pm&1am Biography: Janis Joplin 10pm&2am Biography: Jimi Hendrix WED FEB 5 8pm&11pm Trio Network Sessions@W.54th Ani Difranco 11:15pm HBO Stones @ MSG rebroadcast THU FEB 6 10am&4pm Trio Network - Cream (?) David Letterman (new) - Pretenders FRI FEB 7 8pm&11pm Trio Network Sessions@W.54th Fiona Apple 10pm TCM New Orleans (1947) Billie Holliday, Louis Armstrong SAT FEB 8 PBS Austin City Limits - Stevie Ray Vaughn SUN FEB 9 2pm Biography: David Crosby (these are reruns) 3pm Biography: Janis Joplin 4pm Biography: Jimi Hendrix ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 14:43:57 -0700 From: Sarah Subject: RE: Joni and the Catholic church (NJC) Mary, I don't have time to respond properly to your post right now, but it deserves a full response, so I'll try to later, and thanks for sending it. Briefly, there's a book and film called Lamb, can't remember the author. A strange and simple story: Catholic priest in Ireland, works in a boy's home, a home for orphans, where the boys are dreadfully abused by the priests - not in a sexual sense, but oppressed, disrespected, bullied. Maybe sexual too, although that wasn't brought out. This priest feels very sorry for a young boy who catches his eye as being particularly miserable. The boy suffers from epilepsy and tells the priest that in the moments before his convulsions, he feels happier than anyone could imagine, and that it's like he's dying and going to heaven. And that this is the only time he's ever happy. The priest decides to run away with him, and off they go, they escape together. This is an act of madness on the priest's part, of course, because he's kidnapping a child, and in Ireland where the church is all powerful (and I think this was set in the 50s, so even more so). And he has no job, the boy's too young to work (as I recall, he's about 12), they have barely a change of clothes, and an older man and young boy stand out together in the Irish countryside. So it's only a matter of time before they get caught. To make things worse, the boy runs out of medication. As the police close in on them, the boy has an epileptic fit. They are on a beach when it happens. The priest picks the boy up, rushes into the water with him, and holds his head under the water until he drowns. And so the boy dies in ectasy, as he previously described. Dies and goes to heaven. The priest then tries to drown himself. He spends several minutes in the water, thrashing around, weeping, wailing, begging god to take him, to help him kill himself. But he can't do it. Too weak or too strong, depending how you look at it, or not good enough, and now a murderer, so god doesn't take him. The police find him and he's led away. What's my point? That film summed up catholicism for me. The individual good priest and the wicked institution, ostensibly doing a good, charitable job, but doing it miserably, making people's lives a misery, breaking people's spirits, oppressing them. And the idea that maybe death is better than life, than heaven is better than earth, that maybe the best thing you can do to a young innocent boy is to kill him while he's happy, so he'll be happy forever. Like the 9/11 hijackers preferring the next life to this one, and choosing that for others too, just as the priest chose heaven for the boy, and had no right to. And I suppose this is my bottom line - the imposition on people often unable to defend themselves intellectually (because they're usually children) of ideas that are, in my opinion, wholly false or, even if you disagree with me, definitely questionable, and which can have such terrible effects (e.g. Catholic gult - my mother is a Catholic so I know all about that). Anyway, I'm going on too long, and I'm not sure I'm making sense. Sarah ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 20:46:06 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: the Catholic Church NJC Sarah wrote: > you might respect the person, but you can't respect the choice. > Not specific to this thread, but i agree in general with this statement. I know people I love and respect but I do not respect some of their thoughts or beliefs. Although, I respect their right to hold them as they must accpet others right to disagree. People must be willing to take responsibilty for their belfiefs and the effaect that may have on others. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 17:50:25 -0300 From: "Wally Kairuz" Subject: avenue P!!! njc really rosie!!!!! i have the vinyl and it was so hard to get on cd. i had to order a japanese import at that time! the video is also marvelous. the words are by maurice sendak, whose books i have always loved. so scary, so intriguing. wallyK, oh nuts to all this sufferin'! gimme a bufferin... - -----Mensaje original----- De: owner-joni@jmdl.com [mailto:owner-joni@jmdl.com]En nombre de Christopher Treacy Enviado el: Lunes, 03 de Febrero de 2003 01:09 p.m. Para: Aerchak@aol.com CC: joni@smoe.org Asunto: Re: joni mitchell Taming the Tiger poster - -Chris NP: Carole King - Avenue P ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 15:55:33 -0500 From: dsk Subject: Re: the Catholic Church NJC Sarah wrote: > > You expect me to respect your Catholicism and your criticism, but you > won't respect my atheism or my criticism. Have I said I do not respect your atheism? Have I ever said you must believe as I do? No, I haven't. I don't feel that way. On the contrary, I've said each person has her or his own path to find, and each path deserves respect, even when it cannot be understood. Even when it seems nuts. It might just be my lack of knowledge that makes it look that way. Humility humility humility. You seem to be confusing respect with agreement. I don't agree with your view on the war. However, I show my respect for your opinion by not complaining about, for example, the biased opinion pieces you keep posting and labeling as "articles", which implies in journalistic terms it's objective writing; commentaries are not articles as you well know. However, post away! So I think you've been shown a much greater amount of respect (not agreement, RESPECT) than you appreciate. You obviously have little understanding of the Catholic Church. I said infallibility has been used ONCE in the history of the Church and that is exactly what I meant. So why you keep arguing as though you know all about it is a mystery to me. And you continue to not listen when people who do have first-hand knowledge have something to say about it all. It is not your lack of agreement with me that bothers me, it is your disdain for something you only know the surface of that does bother me. A lot. To the point where I'm angry about it. If your disdain for something you know little about is your way of expressing the value of your atheism, well, surely there's a more positive way for you to do that. Trashing something you don't even know about in order to prove your position just makes you look fearful of the value of your position. And why do you need to explain your atheism anyway? Who other than you cares about it? My mention of the Catholic Church is to counter the inaccurate information being posted. Otherwise, really, I have no need to give speeches about what it means, for me, to be a Catholic. So sputter and spit if you wish, that's all I have to say about it. Debra Shea ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 15:54:37 -0500 From: "Lavieri, Vince [185776]" Subject: Re: the Catholic Church NJC Sarah wrote to Mary: I haven't seen a lot of respect , on this list, from people who are opposed to the war for people who support the war. Vince replies: I haven't seen respect the other way, and I think you have been accorded a great deal of respect. Sarah wrote to Mary: And I don't see much respect in your post either. Vince comments: You are just plain wrong. If anyone on this board is always respectful of others, it is Mary P. I suppose that living with that chip on your shoulder makes standing up tough. Mary P. was very respectful of you - she happened to disagree with you. I suppose when people disagree with you, you take that as disrespect . Living with the martyr's complex that you have, you never have to examine the treuth of what you believe, do you. Sarah wrote to Mary: But open-mindedness must have its limits. Vince observes: this from the same person who demanded rthe roight to doismiss peoples and cultures "out of hand" and attacked verious other peoples' religions. Sarah wrote to Mary: My mother was a catholic, as were both her parents, so I know that individual catholics can be good people... Vince sighs with relief: thank you we were all awaiting your judgment on whether individual catholics can be good people. Sarah wrote to Mary: You expect me to respect your Catholicism and your criticism, but you won't respect my atheism or my criticism. (the Rev) Vince replies: Bullshit. First of all, Mary P. respects people fully. I know her, and I read what she wrote to you. Atheists, including you iof you are one, have always been respected in the JMDL. In fact, it is some of us deep believer types that have taken to task anyone who has dis-respected the validity of atheism. Sarah wrote to Mary: And I don't know what you mean when you say the pope has only spoken ex cathedra once in the history of the church. Vince, M.Div., replies: what Mary meant was that the pope has only spoken ex cathedra once in the history of the church. A little research in the history of what yopu talk about what reveal something you could learn. Sarah: the pope has only spoken ex cathedra once in the history of the church. Matter of historical fact. It happened in 1950. Sarah wrote: In all other matters, error is ALWAYS possible. (Bishop) Vince, M.Div. comments: your description in a prior post as to the nature and purpose of the Reformation was in error, as is much of how you categorized Roman Catholics. As a protestant, I found much, much to disagree with in how you spoke of the Reformation. As a Christian, I found your desciption of Roman Catholics very lacking in substance. As a long time member of the JMDL, I found your attack on the faith of others just one attack that you have made on the faiths of other peoples. And in my many years in the JMDL, I still wince what that happens, because you are the only persopn to disrespect other peoples' faiths. First islam, now Roman Catholicsm. Who do you attack next? Hiundus? Protestants? Buddhists? Animists? One waits with great reluctance... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 15:59:54 -0500 From: "Lavieri, Vince [185776]" Subject: Re: Joni and the Catholic church (NJC) Sarah writes: Briefly, there's a book and film called Lamb, can't remember the author. That film summed up catholicism for me. Vince replies: who needs 2,000 years of accumulated materials when one book telling one story (and who knows if fiction or nonfiction) can "sum up" everything. Too bad Aquinas wrote his Sumna, for this story eliminates all need for knowing anything else. All the dogmatic theologies, all the history, can be tossed for this one story - which is after all a book and a movie. However, as a nonRoman, I will match your one story of a prisst and boy with Mother Teresa and raise you with Dorothy Day. Sarah writes: Anyway, I'm going on too long, and I'm not sure I'm making sense. Vince replies: No, where you are coming from is perfectly clear. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 15:09:56 -0700 From: Sarah Subject: Re: the Catholic Church NJC Look, this is degenerating into personal abuse, and I can't see the purpose of that. The articles I send are biased opinion pieces, and not really articles? Oh come on. . . Read what I have said about infallibility. The Catholic Church believes it is capable of infallibility. What does it matter whether it has "used" this capability once or a thousand times? It believes itself capable of knowing absolute truths, and of pronouncing them. And, with respect, you have written posts about the Middle East, but appear not to be an expert, and you have a right to. Similarly, I have a right to express a view about the Catholic Church without having to be a specialist. At 3:55 PM -0500 02/03/2003, dsk wrote: >Have I said I do not respect your atheism? Have I ever said you must >believe as I do? No, I haven't. I don't feel that way. On the contrary, >I've said each person has her or his own path to find, and each path >deserves respect, even when it cannot be understood. Even when it seems >nuts. It might just be my lack of knowledge that makes it look that way. >Humility humility humility. > >You seem to be confusing respect with agreement. I don't agree with your >view on the war. However, I show my respect for your opinion by not >complaining about, for example, the biased opinion pieces you keep >posting and labeling as "articles", which implies in journalistic terms >it's objective writing; commentaries are not articles as you well know. >However, post away! So I think you've been shown a much greater amount >of respect (not agreement, RESPECT) than you appreciate. > >You obviously have little understanding of the Catholic Church. I said >infallibility has been used ONCE in the history of the Church and that >is exactly what I meant. So why you keep arguing as though you know all >about it is a mystery to me. And you continue to not listen when people >who do have first-hand knowledge have something to say about it all. It >is not your lack of agreement with me that bothers me, it is your >disdain for something you only know the surface of that does bother me. >A lot. To the point where I'm angry about it. > >If your disdain for something you know little about is your way of >expressing the value of your atheism, well, surely there's a more >positive way for you to do that. > >Trashing something you don't even know about in order to prove your >position just makes you look fearful of the value of your position. > >And why do you need to explain your atheism anyway? Who other than you >cares about it? > >My mention of the Catholic Church is to counter the inaccurate >information being posted. Otherwise, really, I have no need to give >speeches about what it means, for me, to be a Catholic. > >So sputter and spit if you wish, that's all I have to say about it. > >Debra Shea ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 16:23:31 -0500 From: "Marianne Rizzo" Subject: how do you stop the ripening corn (njc) Lori wrote >What IS up with that? What's all this adoration of Reagan about? I never, >ever got it. The man completely scared the shit out of me the >entire 8 >years he was in >office. I'm still pissed off at Mary for voting for him both times (her >only reason was that he would do good things for the military - she was in >the AF too - but that's no excuse). From: Susan Guzzi >I don't know how you did it Lori. I would have stayed mad for eight > >years if >that was my girlfriend! LOL! I don't understand people who are together >and have such >different politics - >bring it on Bree - splain this to me! I hope she converts you! Peace, >Susan Bree writes: >Carville and Matlin? Not only is it possible...it makes things quite >interesting. (you should try somebody different...that IS Not in lock-step >with you..it heats things up a bit ;-)) test of wills. It >could be that >it is I that is converting her? :_) The best way I can splain it is that >Joni can bridge anything. Me now: regarding, "I don't understand. . . being together and having such different politics. "comes love. . . . . nothing can be done." Marianne _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 21:27:13 +0000 From: John Sprackland Subject: CD v Vinyl I have to add my vote to the 'Joni-on-vinyl' camp - it's the whole sensual experience of LPs that I could never give up. Even putting the infinitely superior packaging to one side for a moment, just consider the vinyl - it has that 'weight' and substance, it has that gloss (don't you love that shiny vinyl that has that sort of petrol-spill rainbow sheen...), it even has a distintive smell to it - I could recognise a lot of my records blindfold from the smell alone. (I once had an ELP triple album; the music was terrible but it smelled great!). Then there's the whole experience of sliding the record out of the liner - sorry, we're getting into fetish territory here but does no one else find that sensation at least mildly erotic! I own all Joni on vinyl up to Chalk Mark (I maddeningly jealous now of those who have NRH on vinyl) and I always turn to the vinyl out of preference (though I admit STAS on vinyl is a sonic disaster and I will consider getting a CD copy to listen to while I fondle the LP...). Double albums are best of all - I so agree with Walt about the loss of the side one/two structure of the move from LP to CD; a whole artform has been lost - and when you've got side 3 & 4 as well, that's heightened. For that reason (plus weight, gloss & smell), I think Shadows & Light is the Joni-vinyl experience par excellence (hell, the CD version even has tracks missing). But the idea of 'Blue' not being at the end of side one, but instead stuck in the middle of a CD - it doesn't bear thinking about! Infact, here's a game for those of you with programmable CD (ok, CD wins hands down on some scores), how about reordering the Blue album for straight thru CD play - I'm sure the old LP ordering can't be right for CD. (I'm gonna play too... if I can manage it without scratching my precious vinyl with all that lifting on and off...) John - -- John Sprackland ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2003 #88 **************************** ------- Post messages to the list by clicking here: mailto:joni@smoe.org Unsubscribe by clicking here: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe ------- Siquomb, isn't she? (http://www.siquomb.com/siquomb.cfm)