Waiter, there's a baby in my soup

Tried the new restaurant from the owners of Postino, this one is called Windsor. Its in central PHX, which is really starting to show signs of an indie vibe now that the economy is taking a turn for the positive. Its attached to their other place, an ice cream shop called Church. The food is good, think really upscale bar food. The servers have mohawks, Buddy Holly glasses, sleeves of tats and a general hipster vibe. Gay couples openly hold hands there without fear of retribution. Get the bacon burger, with its amazing carmelized onions, sharp cheddar, stacked on a pretzel bun. My only complaint? That they would take more of a stand about patrons bringing their babies. There's no kid menus or booster seats yet that doesn't deter parents who fill their toddlers with ice cream from Churn next door and then bring them to Windsor while they eat and drink and just generally ignore their children who are by then, hopped up on sugar. 

It was last Friday night at a bar/restaurant and the kids were BORED but full of sundaes. I know this because I watched them eat it at the outdoor patio. Next to the other family who brought their (wait for it) triplet toddlers, also filled with ice cream. The place was loud, filled with adults and not at all child-friendly. The parents were miffed there was no family-style seating. Really? What about 'wine bar' sounds like a place to take children? 

And while I'm on the topic of inappropriate settings, there was a woman who was drinking while pushing her stroller. I was horrified until I got closer to the stroller and this woman also had triplets... but they weren't human, they were identical King Charles spaniels, adorned with matching pink bows. She brought her puppies to the bar in a stroller and then wheeled said stroller into the restaurant and really hampered servers from doing their job because the stroller was in the way. 

To recap, I love babies and puppies. I love baby mammals in general. In their appropriate setting. A bar is not it. Just like I don't show up at Chuck E. Cheese and complain that there's no ashtrays and what's a girl gotta do for a shot of Jack?! Because that's the the proper setting for such things. 

I like that NYC is now slowly passing laws that make it illegal to bring young children into bars. Apparently patrons strap on their papoose and drink with their kid strapped to their chest because its difficult to find a babysitter. I'm empathetic to the situation and I'm sure the cost of a babysitter can add up quickly.

Football as a Religion

Explain it to me: John 3:16 - By Eric Marrapodi, CNN.com

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/10/explain-it-to-me-john-316/

Summary

Due to the approaching Super Bowl this weekend, it seemed most fitting to tackle this article. Being an avid football fan, I was always curious why fans would hold up signs proclaiming John 3:16 in their team’s colors. First used in the late 1970s by a man in a rainbow afro wig, the Christian Biblical reference was printed on the man’s tee shirt. He’d attend sporting events and other very public occasions and manage to get in front of the television cameras, spreading his (or rather, His) message. This man eventually took a hotel maid hostage, held her in a hotel room for nine hours with the windows covered in his Biblical message until SWAT was able to rescue her. The man was ultimately sent to prison but his message had taken hold among football fans.

The origins of John 3:16 in the New Testament of the Christian Bible are considered a very succinctly abridged version of what a Christian believes: God’s love for mankind was so intense that he sacrificed his only son Jesus to avert mankind’s perpetual punishment for sinning and whoever believes in Jesus will have eternal life. This gets right to the heart of what Christians believe and it was through the actions of a religious zealot that the verse came to be so widely known.

Analysis

This is also why I assumed if the Biblical reference shown on posters in team colors and held by fans was meant to inspire fellow fans. To be perfectly honest up until I read the exact definition of this verse, I thought it was maybe a Biblical reference meant to bolster the spirits of a losing football team. Being an avid football fan, this made perfect sense because religion and football went hand in hand long before Tebow-ing was made a verb. Some receivers take a knee in the end zone after every touchdown completed. A few players simply look up and point to the sky. Like evangelical Christians in the Florida Panhandle, we allow other folks to give recognitions as they see fit. For me religion and football were intrinsically linked long before I learned what John 3:16 meant. Football is viewed by many to be just as relevant and unifying as any other dogma that is faith-based.  It is just as significant to some supporters because it gives a direction, a sense of community and a purpose like a God-based religion. Christianity has the liturgical cycle; football followers have preseason (rebirth like Easter), regular season, playoffs (similar to Advent) and the Super Bowl (like Christmas Day). Catholics have the Pope, football fans have the NFL commissioner; we do not always agree with what he says but we have to believe it is for the greater good.

After reading the definition I thought that specific Biblical verse could be applied to the quarterback, seen in most circles as the Chosen One, to whom others flock for guidance in the huddle. Of course God would bequeath us with a savior who has a good long game and can stay in the pocket, o ye of little faith!

In some households, football is the religion practiced every Sunday. In my own home the altar is a large entertainment center, emanating the soft glow of HD quality pictures and surround sound louder than the Georgia Mass Choir. We gave thanks and praise for the Detroit Lions and cried out in exaltation when the team made it to the playoffs. Praise Jesus and pass the Cheetos!  This religion is full of saints (of the New Orleans variety), sinners (of the Pac-Man Jones variety), apostles spoken of in reverent tones (Kurt Warner), and Satan in the form of Tom Brady. Football even has traitors; the most obvious that comes to mind being Brett Favre who was actually referred to as Judas on former devotees’ jerseys.

Followers of football are no different than most Christian-based religions. We pray and beg, usually for extra yardage, we ask for forgiveness for whatever trespasses we committed against the ref who continuously calls fouls against us. We marvel at the miracle that is Larry Fitzgerald flying through the air and we have eternal hope that divine intervention will be with the kicker to tie the game and send it into overtime. And when all else fails, our Chosen One can still go for the Hail Mary. Amen.

Holy Rollers

Florida Evangelicals a different breed of voter than brethren in Iowa, South Carolina

By John Sepulvado, CNN..com, http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/28/florida-evangelicals-a-different-breed-of-voter-than-brethren-in-iowa-south-carolina/

Summary

This article is dated January 28, 2012 and the FL primary results were announced this morning, February 01, 2012. But for the purpose of this article I will not reference the results as they were not part of the chosen article.

It seemed fitting to read this article just as the Florida primary results were being tallied last night. Republican presidential possibilities Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich were both looking to secure the conservative vote by courting the religious right. But this is not just any religious right; it’s the non-denomination Christian evangelical bloc, in a state that bases much of its economy on tourism.  Because of the tourism, coupled with Catholic Cuban immigrants and New York Jewish retirees, the state of Florida, particularly the Panhandle area, is in fact a fairly open-minded area. This could also be due to the number of college educated voters and the Megachurches evangelicals are members of promote a broad message of acceptance not seen in other regions of the country.

This is a different type of religious right that faced the politicians. In previous primaries the voters were either of the Southern Baptist variety (South Carolina primary) or the mature, rural Iowan version. Both are conservative but neither is noted for an “all are welcome” attitude like Floridians of the Panhandle.

Both GOP politicians attempted to make inroads with the non-denomination Christian evangelical base by speaking with their church leaders and advocates. The evangelicals were concerned with Romney’s moderate stance on gay rights and abortion and less concerned with Gingrich’s two divorces, the direct result of extramarital affairs. 

Analysis

This open door policy fostered by the Florida evangelicals is refreshing. Because the state is made up of such diverse groups, it makes sense that all of those beliefs would be welcome. Jewish, Catholics and non-denomination Christians have learned to cohabitate quite well in Florida and regardless of religious affiliation are prepared and comfortable with the idea of a Mormon potential president.

This ability to accept a candidate’s religious association or even separate it from a candidate’s message is a clear indicator of how far Romney could go with Florida voters. I would even suggest it’s a wonderful example of a separation of church and state at the collective individual level. This would have been a great civic lesson when Kennedy was running for president decades ago and some were fearful a Catholic president equaled Popery interference at the uppermost level, but I digress.

The tolerant approach by the evangelicals is something many constituents could learn from. This group has set aside their personal religious associations, is willing to hear a candidate’s message and cast their ballot based on nothing more than the pertinent information. However Florida isn’t the only state that has tourism, a large immigrant population, many recognized nationalities/religions and Megachurches. Arizona comes to mind as does California. What is it about the Floridians that they are able to remain cohesive despite their differences and other states are unwilling or unable? It could be worth exploring.  

Also worth exploring is why the evangelicals, for all their broad-mindedness, questioned Romney’s position on abortion and gay rights but did not question Gingrich for being twice divorced and marrying his last mistress. Do the evangelicals feel there is a fundamental difference between adultery and the subsequent fallout when compared to two current hot button issues? Does the evangelical tolerance not extend to equality for gays and women’s reproductive decisions? Are these two topics that even the college educated, progressive evangelicals cannot concede and if not, what is the difference? Would that mean adultery and divorce are more acceptable sins than homosexuality and abortion to that target audience? Perhaps socially those are more acceptable transgressions to evangelicals and the latter are beyond justification.

If I’m reading the piece correctly, the non-denominational Christian evangelical voters are progressive enough to not dismiss Mitt Romney from the presidential race simply because he is Mormon any more than they would dismiss Newt Gingrich as a potential candidate for his extramarital affairs. But their sticking point with Romney is that he too is progressive in his moderately conservative view of gay rights and abortion.

Religious Awakening

I've had the pleasure of taking a Comparative Religion & Religions class. From time to time I'll be posting some of my papers.

English-Language Catholic Masses to Get New Translation - By Tim Padgett Thursday, Apr. 14, 2011, Time.com

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2064991,00.html

Summary

There have been no significant changes made to Catholic Mass since the 1960s. In an effort to make the Church more appealing and draw in parishioners, Vatican II dictated Mass would be spoken in the local dialect, much to the chagrin of traditionalists. After that time, no other major changes took place again until the mid-1990s when, though unsanctioned by the Vatican, females were allowed to serve at the altar. The Vatican tolerated this but did not promote this newer, more gender equal stance.

In the millennium there is a regression taking place. While Latin is not being re-introduced, a more heavy-handed language is. Vatican scholars have spent the last three decades translating the Catholic Missal from the Latin into literal, word for word English. The finished product was distributed to coincide with Advent 2011. The new Roman Missal is considered to be a response to the “liturgical liberals” (Tim Padgett Thursday, Apr. 14, 2011, CNN.com) of the 1960s, who were looked down upon by the “fire and brimstone brigade” for their gentler, accessible approach to Catholicism.  

The result of this seemingly pointless power struggle is a disjointed, non-user friendly Missal that appeases neither camp due to its complexity.  Latin was difficult for many parishioners to begin with and by relegating that to the past and allowing local dialect to instead be used, allowed believers to grasp the message the priest was attempting to convey. Both the laity and priests are having a difficult time with the language changes. The exact translations do not flow well and some words are not at all common unless read by a theological scholar. The move is being seen by some as a way to undo what was accomplished by Vatican II.

Analysis

Is this return to a stronger use of the more traditional language a move on the part of the Church to reassert itself in people’s lives and remind them of the past? Is this a way to remind Baby Boomers with their donating dollars of their childhood? Is the use of such austere, clumsy language necessary to move forward or is the Church trying to move forward at all? Vatican II’s dictates didn’t sit well with many in the Church and perhaps this is a way of restoring what they feel is the “right” way to worship.

As was pointed out in the piece, some Jewish services involve the use of Hebrew (Tim Padgett Thursday, Apr. 14, 2011, CNN.com), so it would not be such a stretch to add Greek or Latin into the Mass. The author of the piece suggested this addition could in fact be a welcome way to connect to Catholic roots (Tim Padgett Thursday, Apr. 14, 2011, CNN.com). I would agree to an extent but is reverting to the old language necessary to achieve this or is this merely a power grab by a popery that is fed up with touchy-feely Catholicism? Surely the Pope and his hierarchy have access to media coverage as they occasionally comment on current events (sometimes even in a timely manner) if for no other reason than to refute the scandal they’ve been mired in over the years. Certainly these men must know there has been a seismic shift in beliefs. Society still believes in God it’s just that they are more open to various forms of worship. This shift in attitudes cannot sit well with a group that has dedicated their lives to scholastic theology and spreading the word of God from a distance. From the perspective of the Vatican, the world might seem to indeed be in the express lane to Hell. Gay rights, women’s rights, legalized abortion and just last week the President of the United States announced artificial birth control would be required by all employers insurance plans without copay, meaning faith-based hospitals, parochial schools staff, dioceses’ staff, etc., would be effected.

By moving to a literal translation of the Missal, this could serve to reestablish in the minds of believers a simpler time when the Church was the main focus in many lives; rules, structure and a distinct right and wrong dictated by the Church were followed. Gays were closeted, women knew their place in the home and errant priests hid their proclivities towards young boys.

Of course this is speculation on my part, as the Church plays things very close to the vest; they’ve had centuries of practice. These men who have dedicated their lives to God are no doubt some of the most learned and holy of people. They are also grossly out of touch and are so far removed that the things they choose to focus on are almost laughable (e.g. commenting in 2012 a pop star shouldn’t wear rosaries in their 1984 Like a Virgin world tour or that the Beatles were not Jesus-like simply because they had just as large a following as the son of God).

At times the Vatican reminds me of the European Christians from the early years of North America, with the belief that their religion is universal truth (Albanese – 20) for the masses, not just the Masses. It is a shame that for all the education and dedication to their religion, these men are disconnected from the very people they have been called to lead. The world is now more technologically advanced than ever before and this would be a wonderful moment for the Church to reach out to all followers and spread their message on a global scale, promoting peace and tolerance for humanity. Imagine “friending” the Pope on Facebook or following his Tweets that speak of charitable works and encourage goodwill towards all. Instead we have antiquated, old men grasping at straws and taking one giant step backwards. Now that the season of Advent has passed with the newer Missal, will the Pope be making more changes? Will Catholic Mass return to Latin? Should the faithful prepare for more changes? In the words of comedian Dane Cook, “your move, holy man”.