[HPforGrownups] OT, political, but not Bush (wow)

[Amanda Lewanski]

No: HPFGUIDX 5521

Demelza wrote:

>  Seeing how the Supreme Court voted against school prayer before school
> football games (which seems awfully anti-Religious Right to me), I'm
> not to worried about the "Religious Right's" influence on the Supreme
> Court.

We're in Texas, home of the prayerful football fans. Most of the people I
know are heartily sick of this whole issue and don't really give a rat's
patoot. I didn't know the background of this case until the latest issue of
Texas Monthly (a tremendously yuppie publication which focuses mainly on
Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, and Austin; the subscription was a gift). Their
summation seems fairly well-done and supposedly is objective. But that whole
town comes across as Pleasantville, and the pack behavior is scary. The
football prayer thing was only one of nine things cited in the original case
filed by three parents--another was Gideon bibles being given away on the
high school campus (!). Apparently students who refused them were verbally
abused by other students. Ye gods. WE ARE NOT ALL LIKE THIS.

I'm concerned that the media tends to use "religious" and "fundamentalist"
interchangeably, and that perception is creeping into most people's
concepts. I'm religious, I like nativity scenes in store windows, etc. But I
also believe in evolution, liked comparative religion, can see that Wicca
has a point in wanting to be recognized, and don't think considering the
bible as a great work of literature is blasphemous. But then, I'm Catholic,
and most of the religious right probably think I'm going to hell anyway, for
acknowledging other moral authorities than the bible. Oh, well, I can party
down with the Jews, witches, Buddhists, Harry Potter readers, and all the
people who slow-dance. I think people who sell beer are going there,
too--should be good.

> I'm more worried about the non-"Religious Right" groups that
> want to ban books such as "Huckleberry Finn" and "Catcher in the
> Rye" due to their un-"Politically Correct" content.

I'm with you there. I really dislike the current trend of judging the past
by the standards of the present--books *or* people. Once you start judging
works of literature according to what's acceptable or "good" at the present
moment, it's that "slippery slope" thing.

On the other hand, I'd rather they be banned than changed. I remember my
father being irate that he could not find a copy of Kipling's Just So
Stories that had not been altered--in "How the Leopard Got His Spots," what
the Ethiopian says when the Leopard asks why he doesn't go for spots, too,
is, "Plain black's best for a nigger." All modern versions (that we could
find) have this changed to "Plain black's best for me." I'm sorry, I know
the word's explosive now, but that's what the man wrote, and I emphatically
don't believe in that sort of posthumous alteration. The literature of the
past, like its artwork, is a window on that time and perspective. Starting
to "fix" things like this is a slow creep to Orwell. Sigh. They put fig
leaves on pictures of Michelangelo's David, too, don't they.

> (I'm neither a Republican nor Democrat and I believe both parties
> successfully prostitute themselves to special interest groups and
> ignore Average Joe and Jane American.)

Well put. I wonder, though, sometimes, if there is any such animal as the
"average" person.

--Amanda