The NYTimes rightly criticizes the Catholic bishops for their assault on the first amendment in their criticism of the contraceptive rule and other recent moves.  Some excerpts:

But the real departure from the Constitution is their specious claim to a right to impose their religious views on millions of Americans who do not share them. Virtually all American women, including Catholic women, use contraceptives sometime in their lives. In essence, the bishops and their allies are arguing that they are above the law and their beliefs should be elevated over pressing societal interests.

The political ruckus over the issue has tended to obscure a central fact: the legal case against the policy is remarkably weak. The contraception benefit is plainly constitutional and a proper exercise of government power under Supreme Court precedent and a federal law dealing with exercise of religion.

Next in the colsumn comes a good analysis of existing court precendent and federal law, including Justice Scalia's Smith decision "The justices said the First Amendment’s protections do not mean individuals are free to violate valid laws simply by claiming a sincere religious objection. To 'make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land” would have the anarchic effect of permitting “every citizen to become a law unto himself,' Justice Scalia wrote."

Maybe the gist of the entire issue is here, "The rule does not interfere with church governance, prevent anyone from voicing opposition, or force anyone to use contraceptives in violation of religious beliefs."

Conclusion:

Opponents of the contraception rule claim the fight isn’t about birth control, but religious liberty. It’s about both, though they are right that the battle for religious exemptions goes well beyond birth control coverage — to employment discrimination, zoning, mandated reporting of child abuse, a pharmacist’s duty to fill valid prescriptions and that of hospitals to give life-saving emergency care. And now, the bishops and conservative religious groups are lobbying to get Congress to pass a law that would let any private employer opt out of covering any medical treatment as a matter of faith. That is an outrageous assault on the First Amendment. 

Actually I'm not going to go to the trouble of picking winners in each category (wow, how I used to get into this).  I haven't seen most of the films up for awards this year (another trend in recent years).  Not that I didn't have the chance -- most did have decent runs here -- I just wasn't interested in many of them.  I had no interest in seeing The Help, for a number of reasons, including the critique that black stories keep getting told through the lens of the white people involved.  The Descendants didn't look appealing on any level.  And so many others got bad reviews that kept me away, even The Iron Lady, which I had looked forward too (I am a big Margaret Thatcher fan and a big Meryl Streep fan, and if I decided the film didn't look appealing to spend my money and an evening on . . .).  I've already seen a fine film version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.  And War Horse looked like sentimental poop.

Among those I did see,  a handful I didn't like or thought they were overrated (In reading articles this morning, one said it was the worst Oscar season ever as far as the quality of films competing).  Hugo was simply awful and a waste of both my time and money.  And though I liked Midnight in Paris, it was not a great or strong film, and I'm puzzled by its recognition.

Despite all that, there were amazing films this year.  Tree of Life is a masterpiece.  A. O. Scott wrote that it should be compared to Leaves of Grass and Moby Dick rather than Citizen Kane or Lawrence of Arabia.  I may not go quite that far, but close.  I think it among the greatest artistic achievements in the history of film and a film that transcends is medium to become a serious philosophical and theological work.  That Tree of Life wasn't the hands-down favourite to sweep awards was mind-boggling to me.

The only competition it should have had was Melancholia which is also a truly great film.  Kirsten Dunst should be winning best actress.  Von Trier might be a dick, but that shouldn't count against his film.  When Melancholia failed to pick up any Oscar nominations, I basically wrote the Academy off this year.

Margin Call was one of my favourites from the year.  Very well written, with sharp, fine performances, nice camera work and editing.  Should have been a Best Picture nominee.  

I also liked Weekend and found it a refreshing take on romance.

Meek's Cutoff was excellent.  Why isn't Michelle Williams nominated for it?

There were really fun popular films as well that had good qualities.  Super 8 had a splendid first 2/3 and a really crappy closing, but was still overall a much better film than Hugo.  Rise of the Planet of the Apes was consistently well-done popular entertainment.  Given how little of that appears these days, maybe it deserved a Best Picture nomination.

And don't forget Deathly Hallows, which was a strong film.  I had assumed that the Academy, especially with the expanded Best Picture category which hopes to include more blockbuster films, would nominate it in recognition of the entire series (which is the biggest money-making film series in history).  In particular, I had hoped that Alan Rickman would be nominated for supporting actor.  His performance of Snape through all the films was the sort of delight which is rare in films.  Maybe my most quoted movie line this year came from it, "Just because it's in your head doesn't mean it isn't real."

All that said, I enjoyed The Artist.  It is probably the third best film I saw this year.  It rises to some high artistry, particluarly in the Fellini-esque nightmare scene.  So, if it wins big, I won't mind. 

Therefore, I'm not really all that interested in the show this year, and am not even sure I'll care to watch.

Fifty years from now people will shake their heads and wonder why 2011 gave the award to How Green Was My Valley and not Citizen Kane.

Here is a fascinating analysis of trends in the right, especially focused on why Protestant Evangelicals are suddenly aligning themselves with Roman Catholics.  Here is an excerpt:

To understand what is going on, we need to move from the role of Catholic individuals to a broader, more metaphorical idea of a Catholic style of political reasoning. "Catholic" in this exercise means responding to leadership; focusing on outcomes (think "doctrine of works"); and a Manichean view of the world in which the Church -- as opposed to mere churches -- stands as a bulwark against equally great opposing forces, so that outside the Church there can be only chaos. In this sense a Catholic Republican voter would be someone looking for a commanding general to lead Christian soldiers on a crusade, would care about a candidate's policies rather than his soul, and respond to a call to view the Republican Party as the last bastion of civilisation in a howling wilderness. Extending the metaphor, a "Protestant" conservative should reject the idea of leaders in favour of grass roots communalism; local self-direction in the congregationalist model; care about character and personal values more than specific stances or doctrines; and see the world as a mass of sinners who are to be judged individually by the quality of their soul rather than by their enlistment in one party or the other.

In this metaphorical sense, the "Catholic" political style is strongest among evangelical Protestant voters, not actual Catholics. The eagerness of Catholic bishops to jump into a fight over contraception, for example, does not reflect that attitudes of their parishoners, but it gets strong support from evangelicals. Similarly, in one recent poll more than two-thirds of Catholic voterssupported some sort of legal recognition of gay couples' relationships, with 44% favoring same-sex marriage; in very sharp contrast, an outright majority of evangelical voters said there should be no legal recognition of a same-sex relationship.

In political terms, the evangelical Protestant Right has become Catholicized. 

Maybe this also helps to explain why I ultimately had to leave the GOP myself?

As we approach a conversation on eschatology this Sunday in our First Forum at 9:15, you might enjoy this great piece, one writer's thoughts on what the kingdom of God is. 

This choice sentence from an article by Hilton Als in the New Yorker on the South African playwright Athol Fugard (why has he never won a Nobel?):

Language not as a tool of self-definition--who am I, and what can I be to you?--but as an instrument for categorizing others, and thus shaping them for one's use.

On another note, the essay opened powerfully.  I wish I could write an opening sentence as good as this one:

The two men look as though they'd crawled out from under a rock into a landscape of broken glass and shit.

Saying it out loud is even more fun.  The sounds of the words have evocative appeal.

This from theologian Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki

Because I see resurrections all the time, and experience them within my own life, I can talk about resurrection confidently.  If you push me to say that all the molecules in Jesus' body were summoned together and the processes of death reversed and Jesus just got up out of that grave and went through a few walls and that's what resurrection is all about, I think you're missing the point.  I can't tell you how God raised Jesus within history.  I, like most theologians -- process or not -- am convinced that resurrection is something utterly different from resuscitation.  Resurrection cannot be reduced to molecules revivifying!   Resurrection is the power of God to overcome evil, to bring hope to otherwise hopeless situations, to make creative transformation possible no matter what.  Womanist theologians say that "God makes a way out of no way," and this is what I think resurrection is all about.  The resurrection of Jesus is like a great shout telling us that no evil is  greater than God, or can overcome God's power of resurrection.  Because of this revelation -- however God brings it about -- we know we can trust God no matter how bleak situations may seem.  God is there, offering us a future that can change history -- whether our own or the whole world's -- toward the good.  Resurrection tells us that hope is grounded in the reality of God.

Note: Because of my reading in Moltmann I'd probably change "reality" in that last sentence to "righteousness."

LB 912, which was an attempted end run around Omaha's Equal Employment Ordinance has been stopped in legislative committee.  Now on to the ordinance itself.