rfmcdonald: (Default)

  • 3 Quarks Daily writes about the ways in which Cuba, and Havana, have been seen in the American imagination.

  • Antipope Charlie Stross solicits suggestions as to what he should print with a 3-D printer.

  • Crooked Timber is alarmist about the United States, making comparisons to Pakistan and to Weimar Germany.

  • The Dragon's Gaze links to a paper examining the simulated atmospheres of warm Neptunes.

  • The Dragon's Tales notes that Russians are leaving France without their Mistral carriers and that Russia is talking about building its own space station.

  • Joe. My. God. notes that an Argentine court has given an orangutan limited rights.

  • Lawyers, Guns and Money notes that transgendered workers now have legal protection in the United States.

  • Marginal Revolution reflects on the new Nicaragua Canal and is skeptical about Cuba's economic potential.

  • Personal Reflections' Jim Belshaw links to an essay examining how New Zealand set the global 2% inflation target.

  • The Search looks at one effort in digitizing and making searchable centuries of book images.

  • Towleroad looks at Taiwan's progress towards marriage equality and notes the refusal of the archbishop of Canterbury to explain the reasons for his opposition to equal marriage.

  • Window on Eurasia notes the different effects of the collapse in oil prices on Russia's different reasons, looks at language conflicts in the Russian republics, and observes the revival of Belarusian nationalism.

rfmcdonald: (photo)
Kingston's St. James' Anglican Church (10 Union Street West is located on the eastern edge of the Queen's University campus, while St. George's Cathedral--cathedral church of the Anglican Diocese of Ontario--is, at 270 King Street, much closer to the downtown. St. James' features in the first four photos, St. George's in the last.

St. James' Anglican Church, August 2003 (1)


St. James' Anglican Church, August 2003 (2)


St. James' Anglican Church, August 2003 (4)


St. James' Anglican Church, August 2003 (3)


St. George's Cathedral, August 2003
rfmcdonald: (photo)
While I was touring downtown Toronto with friends, we dipped out of the Eaton Centre to take a look at the Church of the Holy Trinity the shopping complex surrounds. In October 2012, Torontoist's Kevin Plummer posted a history of this church, which since its foundation in 1847 has played a disproportionate role in affairs as various as relief in the Great Depression and aid to the city's nascent gay community.

Church of the Holy Trinity, May 2012
rfmcdonald: (Default)
Over the weekend, Torontoist's Kevin Plummer posted a history of Toronto's Church of the Holy Trinity. The Anglican chapel that may now most famous as the church surrounded by the Eaton Centre has a long and surprisingly radical history.

Tucked beside the Eaton Centre and surrounded by high-rises stands a small church. Since its founding in 1847, the Church of the Holy Trinity’s focus on ministering to an ever-changing urban flock has regularly put it at the forefront of emerging social issues. The church reached out to the homeless and unemployed in the thirties, welcomed Vietnam War resisters and community activists in the 1960s, incubated sentiment for urban reform in the in the 1960s and 1970s, and encouraged the city’s nascent gay community to raise its voice in the 1970s and 1980s. Such stances have, over its century-and-a-half history, regularly created friction between Holy Trinity and the Anglican establishment, municipal officials, and real estate developers.

In the summer of 1845, Bishop John Strachan, head of the Anglican Church in Toronto, received a letter offering 5,000 pound sterling from an anonymous benefactress for the purpose of establishing a church. Among the stipulations attached was that it be named the Church of the Holy Trinity and that its pews be “free and unappropriated forever.” The latter was a radical suggestion at a time when Toronto’s three other Anglican churches, including St. James’ Cathedral, relied upon pew rentals as a major source of revenue. Although the anonymous donor’s intentions had never been to place limitations on the congregation’s composition, Strachan came to refer to Holy Trinity as the “Parochial Church of the Poor of Toronto.”
rfmcdonald: (Default)
The question of my relationship to religion--should I have one? what sort of ethics should undergird it? how postmodern can religiosity be while still being religious--has been perplexing me of late. One thing that get me thinking about the issue is a 1986 song by XTC, "Dear God", that I've been thinking about lately.



I'm not thinking of XTC, really, since Andy Partridge annoys me, but of the Sarah McLachlan cover version that demonstrates that she's damn good when she has bite.



The song's lyrics make the case that God's complicity in human suffering and humanity's many divergent and conflictual perceptions of God make the idea of God untenable.

I hope you got the letter, and...
I pray you can make it better down here.
I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer
But all the people that you made in your image, see
Them starving on their feet 'cause they don't get
Enough to eat from God, I can't believe in you

Dear God, sorry to disturb you, but... I feel that I should be heard
Loud and clear. We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
And all the people that you made in your image, see them fighting
In the street 'cause they can't make opinions meet about God,
I can't believe in you

Did you make disease, and the diamond blue? Did you make
Mankind after we made you? And the devil too!

I don't know if you noticed, but... your name is on
A lot of quotes in this book, and us crazy humans wrote it, you
Should take a look, and all the people that you made in your
Image still believing that junk is true. Well I know it ain't, and
So do you, dear God, I can't believe in I don't believe in


If a God does exist, that God would be the God of Depeche Mode's 1984 "Blasphemous Rumours"



People who know me have noted that I've quoted the chorus "I don't want to start any blasphemous rumours/but I think that God's got a sick sense of humour,/and when I die, I expect to find Him laughing" any number of times. It's a horrifying image, the sort of thing that makes you wish that humans really could go through a technological singularity if only to give us a chance at deposing such a tyrant.

Thankfully, the "Dear God" argument is risible. In a universe with free will (I chose to believe in that or a close simulacrum thereof, many-worlds interpretation or not), there's no reason why bad things can't happen without the explicit direction of God (assuming for the sake of this argument that the Christian trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost really is what's up/out/thataway there). The argument that I first ran into in Paradise Lost, that compelling people to believe strips their humanity from them, makes perfect sense to me: everyone knows how I like my Ernest Renan, and it's not a stretch at all to go from there to the idea that a religion like any other philosophy has to be actively chosen and embraced, in a daily even hourly referendum, if it's to be meaningful. That said, religious or philosophical systems which discriminate against people who don't belong to the community--who, to name an extreme example, could countenance punishing Cacique Haguey for refusing to accept the religion of the people who massacred his?--makes me wish, again, for a technological singularity that would let such a system be dealt with accordingly.

All this brings me to my concern. My relationship to the Anglo-Catholic tradition of Toronto's St. Thomas's over the past few months has been motivated by desires to approach the institution and the religion sincerely: I've taken my lesson from Emma Bovary's deathbed impression of the incense of her last rites as nice. But what is sincerity? I think that the Rolling Stones' "Sympathy for the Devil" could make a great hymn ("I shouted out,/Who killed the Kennedys?/When after all/It was you and me") and perceive Jésus de Montréal as one of the most compelling religious dramas ever made. My approach to religion--to this particular religion--has been driven by my desire to active choose something, but how many choices can I make before I make too many?

All this brings me to the [FORUM] question of the day. Are you at all inclined towards religion, or were you? How do you approach your particular denomination? How many specific choices have you made, to embrace one element of your faith or to embrace an idiosyncrasy? What is an idiosyncrasy for you? My apologies if this [FORUM] post is confused somehow, but then I'm confused so I'm not sure whether I can help out on this front.

Thoughts?
rfmcdonald: (Default)
This article, written by Richard Owen and published in the Times, of London, neatly states one point where the Roman Catholic Church's attempt to assimilate disaffected Anglicans into its structure could destabilize its own theologies.

When asked last week about admission into the Catholic Church of married Anglican priests under the new rules, Cardinal William Levada, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, replied that requests would be judged "on a case by case basis".

The row has been exacerbated by the decision to disclose Pope Benedict's approach to Anglican traditionalists before the final text was ready, thus risking another of the "diplomatic gaffes" that have occasionally marked his pontificate so far.

The Pope is understood to have wanted the announcement to be made only when the text was finalised, in order to avoid a public relations disaster like that which followed his rehabilitation in January of Richard Williamson, an excommunicated arch-conservative bishop, before he became aware that Bishop Williamson was a Holocaust denier.

However Cardinal Levada announced the Anglican move prematurely because he had just briefed Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Catholic Bishops of England of Wales — neither of whom were consulted — and was concerned that the news might leak out unofficially, Mr Tornielli wrote in Il Giornale.

A number of Catholic commentators have pointed out that allowing Anglicans to bring their "traditions and practices" with them could end up altering the traditions and practices of the Catholic Church — including celibacy — as much as undermining the Anglican communion.
rfmcdonald: (Default)
As I walk home from another enjoyable and mysteriously meaningful church service earlier today, carefully holding the coffee cake and nectarine jelly that I bought at the bake sale, I considered how lucky I was to attend a congregation in a denomination that I had no problems with: no homophobia or gender bias of especial note, no exclusiveness, certainly none of the anti-intellectualism that would prompt me to flee. I'm lucky.

Right now in Canada, the biggest scandal in organized religion involves Raymond Lahey, a priest and former bishop of the Diocese of Antigonish in northern Nova Scotia who was found, during the sort of random check that Canada Customs performs on single men returning from Thailand, to have a laptop full of child pornography. He disappeared before surrendering himself to police, resigned, and is now in an Ottawa monastery awaiting trial. The information that has come out of the case is dire and jaw-dropping, with news that the Church knew as early as 1989 that he had shown pornography to a teenage boy, more reopening its files on the rape- and abuse-filled Mount Cashel Orphanage (apparently Lahey hadn't been investigated because there were too many cases on the go and showing teenagers porn wasn't actually illegal), and a report that one of Lahey's files featured a naked boy wearing only rosary beads. Did I mention that in August, Lahey approved a multi-million dollar settlement between the Church and abuse victims?

It's a horror. Parishoners in his former diocese and abuse victims have been quoted as saying that this rocks their faith. This event likely has ramifications stretching across Canada, as Roman Catholics react to yet another abuse scandal. (Even if he didn't do anything in Canada, why would he have gone to Thailand?) The overwhelming majority of Catholic priests, of course, aren't abusers, but the higher moral standard expected of these officials makes these violations all the more appalling, to say nothing of the hierarchy's documented complicity in many of these cases. I know of people who left the Church because of abuse in the past; I'm sure more people will leave in the future.

Faith is important to very many people, the overwhelming majority of people around the world, in fact, but even though faith is supposed to be immune to worldly conditions it most certainly is affected. An individual's faith can be weakened by proof that the figures of authority are behaving in criminal way, for instance. Other reasons are as various as the treatment of women and queers, the relationship to other denominations and other religions, the openness of the hierarchy to peoples' voices, the relationship to science and rationality, the existence of a community, the importance of faith versus good works, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. What made me leave Trinity United Church, with my sister and mother, was the realization that we were getting nothing out of a church that didn't bother to engage its members.

This brings me to my Sunday [FORUM] question. Many of the people reading this, on Livejournal or on Facebook, are either religious to one degree or another, or have been religious. What would it take to make you break from your faith? What did make you break from your faith? Is the break permanent?
Page generated Apr. 14th, 2026 05:43 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios