loading

Katholische Realsatire

Christian Wulff at Sachsenhausen

Sie müssen leider sitzen bleiben
By ashleighb77,
used under cc license

Nimmt solche Äußerungen eigentlich noch irgendjemand ernst? Für mich klingt das einfach nur nach Realsatire. Wie weit an der Realität kann man eigentlich vorbeileben, ohne es zu merken?

Nach den derzeit geltenden Regeln sind geschiedene Katholiken vom Abendmahl ausgeschlossen. Es gehe darum, Menschen zu helfen, “deren Leben in wichtigen Dingen unglücklich verlaufen ist”, sagte [der Freiburger Erzbischof] Zollitsch … Dazu gehöre auch eine gescheiterte Ehe.
“Ich glaube …, dass wir in der Frage der wiederverheirateten Geschiedenen weiterkommen werden – zu meinen Lebzeiten”, sagte Zollitsch. Das sei eine Frage der Barmherzigkeit. Als Beispiel nannte er den katholischen Bundespräsidenten Christian Wulff, der nach einer Scheidung zum zweiten Mal verheiratet ist. “Er ist für mich ein Katholik, der seinen Glauben lebt und darunter leidet, wie die Situation ist.”

Ok, ich wette 10-1, dass der Herr Wulff seit seiner Scheidung schon mehr als einmal wieder am Abendmahl teilgenommen hat. So wie mein geschiedener Onkel auch und wie wahrscheinlich auch 99% aller anderen gläubigen und geschiedenen Katholiken. Glaubt der Bischof wirklich, dass all die geschiedenen Katholiken immer traurig in der Bank sitzen bleiben, wenn es zum Abendmahl kommt? Solche Aussagen zeigen doch nur, dass die Kirchenvertreter selbst bei der Deutung der Lebenswirklichkeit Ihrer Anhänger unter noch mehr Realitätsverlust leider als ohnehin schon. Mal im Ernst, wann hat ein Bischof das letzte Mal etwas gesagt, das nicht völlig bizarr klang?

What’s the meaning of winning

The one and only Joe Posnanski asks these two questions:

In sports, there is winning … and there is losing … and there are the intense emotions tied to each. The term “moral victory” is used more often in mockery than in celebration. The idea of winning ugly trumps the concept of losing with honor. Ask yourself the question: If your favorite team can win the Super Bowl on a bad call or lose on the correct one, which would you choose? Is it even a choice?

You play to win the game. Ask yourself the question: If your favorite team can have a .01% better chance of winning World Series Game 7 by intentionally walking Josh Hamilton or Ryan Braun, well, what would you do? Would you challenge him? Would you try to win the hard away, by beating the other team’s best hitter? Or would you choose the tiniest statistical advantage no matter how boring and apathetic it might be [he’s talking about the intentional walk, of course]? What would you choose?

Is it even a choice?

For me, those two questions are miles apart. I actually would not want my team to win on a blown call. It diminishes the victory, taints the joy.

Intentionally walking the star hitter though? No problem. Why not? May be best team win, not the team with the best hitter. 🙂

Pop-Lyrics XVI

Well, I’ve been afraid of changing
‘Cause I’ve built my life around you
But time makes you bolder
Children get older
I’m getting older too

Yes I’m getting older too
Fleetwood Mac – Landslide

Sweet Thing – Change of Season

Officially, summer is beginning in a few days (though you would not know it from looking out of the window), so here is my official Feel Good Summer Song for 2011:

Sweet Thing – Change Of Seasons -2010 found on Pop

Cheerleader did not cheer for her rapist, dropped from squad, lost court case, must pay $45,000 legal fees

Cheerleader did not cheer for her rapist, dropped from squad, lost court case, must pay $45,000 legal fees

Via the Guardian:

HS was 16 at the time she complained she was raped in 2008. Her attacker was charged with sexual assault, but after a plea deal, admitted misdemeanour assault and got a princely sentence of no time served. She was told to keep a low profile at school to avoid attracting attention, because obviously when high-school students are assaulted, the appropriate response from the school district is to tell them to hide while their perpetrators enjoy accolades. HS, with the support of her family, told the school district to get stuffed, and was put to the test in 2009 when she attended a basketball game as a member of the cheerleading squad and was ordered to cheer for her attacker.Understandably, HS refused,  […] Instead, she chose to stand silent through the cheer for R. B.’s free throw, folding her arms across her chest instead of shaking the pompoms. For speaking, as it were, her mind, HS was suspended from the cheerleading team, but the victim who staunchly “didn’t want to encourage anything he was doing” chose to take the case to court, rather than accept her suspension. The initial court ruled against her, an appellate court upheld that decision, and the supreme court refused to hear the matter (it exercised its right to silence and did not comment on the refusal).

And as a lovely parting gift, the girl’s family must now repay the school $45,000 in legal fees for what a lower court termed as a frivolous lawsuit.  (Last part from NBCSports)

A thoughtful comment from the Huffingtonpost:

Now, as a recovering attorney, I admit it’s a fair legal question whether or not the plaintiff actually had a court case against the high school for forcing her to cheer for her alleged rapist or for being kicked off the cheerleading squad when she refused. I’m sure my strict constructionist friends are fuming at the idea that somehow there’s a Constitutionally protected right to bear pom-poms. But the issue here isn’t about school spirit or cute uniforms. There’s a larger theme running through the events of this story — if you’re a school girl who’s been raped or sexually assaulted, don’t expect any support.

Apparently, that’s how things are done in Texas. A recent New York Times story about the alleged gang rape of an elementary school girl in another Texas town suggested that some in the community believed the fifth-grade victim brought the attacks upon herself, expressing sympathy for the alleged perpetrators and their futures, especially the ones who were high school athletes. The physical and emotional injuries the 11-year-old girl will live with the rest of her life were given little thought until weeks, and much criticism, later, when the Times ran a more thoughtfully researched piece.

The way these stories are reported gives the sense that the important issues to be discussed involved the legal system or internal school rules. The important nugget of what’s really going on is missing, though — these stories are about power and control, where authority figures push troubling actions under the carpet and put school athletics and the interests of sports boosters ahead of the physical and mental welfare of our daughters.

A similar theme played out in the coverage of journalist Lara Logan’s brutal sexual attack while reporting on the recent uprisings in Egypt. Many people raised the question of whether Logan had brought the rapes on herself by daring to be a woman reporter — and a very attractive one — in a Muslim country, implicitly suggesting that women who dare to step outside of certain boundaries should be prepared for whatever negative consequences come their way.

You’d think things would be a little better in 2011 for women and girls who try to put their lives back together after they’ve been raped. Whether you’re a girl who won’t cheer for the boy who raped you or a woman who dares to be a journalist covering an important, but dangerous, story, there’s scant support from institutions of authority. Of course, as one friend only half-seriously quipped, if that Texas cheerleader had said it was against her religion to cheer for her rapist, she’d be standing victorious on the Supreme Court steps today.

If you want to help the girl with her court costs, you can do it here.