(and yes, the possessive of Jesus is Jesus', not Jesus's. Ask Lynne Truss.)
Why is it that even when I'm getting out of the shower and preparing myself for the day that I still can't turn off my mind?
Today's ruminations while brushing my sopping-wet hair: did Jesus mean to send the message that all Christians should be white, middle-class parents who are faithful consumers flying American flags while mommy is cooking and daddy is out earning a respectable living so that his male children will learn from his example and his daughters will learn why it's true that males are superior to females because, well, they have penises?
Okay, maybe I fell into the hyperbolic temptation. It's sometimes easy to confuse around 33 A.D. with 2012.
But seriously. I can't help but be mesmerized by Santorum's rhetoric in this presidential campaign season.
I think if we look in more detail at Jesus' words, by imploring us to embrace the prostitute and tax collector, by seeing Him when we see them, I think he's rather suggesting that there will ALWAYS be those who differ from "us." And he didn't necessarily mean that everyone needed to become clones or be shunned. Show love and acceptance while preaching that message. Don't judge just because, pardon the cliche, you don't see cookie-cutter copies.
Of course this also implies that I shouldn't be judging them either. It cuts both ways, which is why Jesus was 1) such a genius at rhetoric, and 2) so darn difficult to follow!
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Controlling births
What an issue.
In America, we agree that our government does not control our lives. We believe in privacy, the right to practice whatever religion we want, the right to choose the kind of education we want. It really isn't that complicated. But people make it so.
Should employers be able to limit the types of healthcare they offer to employees if that care conflicts with their religious views? Everyone should be answering no.
What if my employer, a public school district, decided it didn't believe in birth control and so I had to start paying out-of-pocket for prescription birth control? Well, wouldn't that be my employer forcing me to live by their own personal beliefs? And we don't believe in doing that here in America.
It is one thing for an employer not to believe in birth control. But when we say they legally don't have to offer insurance to cover some of those services, we have crossed a huge line. And those who want to restrict this sort of access think they are PROTECTING the rights to freedom of religion! It's so twisted and obvious.
Rick Santorum actually says things out loud that suggest the wide availability of birth control has had negative moral and social impacts on this country (NYTimes, Romney Sets Off Furor on Contraception Bill, Mar 1, 2012). Um, what? Sure, a woman can have sex now and has greatly reduced her chances of having an unplanned pregnancy. Is she a slut, then? Sorry Santorum, but you can't control the morals of each woman in America. That was called the Puritan culture, and it sort of died out. For a reason. Because we decided we didn't want to live under a theocracy. If he does, fine, but he better not bring me in with him. That's called freedom.
What is even more ironic is that contraception prevents abortions, something anyone with a pulse knows that Santorum doesn't support. It also prevents unplanned pregnancies, sometimes reducing the number of children in orphanages, foster homes, etc. Do we want to live in a modern society where everyone has twenty children because of a lack of birth control? I don't think he's thought this through in a logical way, which isn't a shock.
We cannot force our own religious beliefs onto other people. Just because you think it's the right course of life doesn't mean you can force other people to live the same way. We should be very frightened by thinking like this, particularly from a man who wants to be the President of the United States. Don't we have better problems to worry about? Like how he got this far in the presidential race to begin with?
In America, we agree that our government does not control our lives. We believe in privacy, the right to practice whatever religion we want, the right to choose the kind of education we want. It really isn't that complicated. But people make it so.
Should employers be able to limit the types of healthcare they offer to employees if that care conflicts with their religious views? Everyone should be answering no.
What if my employer, a public school district, decided it didn't believe in birth control and so I had to start paying out-of-pocket for prescription birth control? Well, wouldn't that be my employer forcing me to live by their own personal beliefs? And we don't believe in doing that here in America.
It is one thing for an employer not to believe in birth control. But when we say they legally don't have to offer insurance to cover some of those services, we have crossed a huge line. And those who want to restrict this sort of access think they are PROTECTING the rights to freedom of religion! It's so twisted and obvious.
Rick Santorum actually says things out loud that suggest the wide availability of birth control has had negative moral and social impacts on this country (NYTimes, Romney Sets Off Furor on Contraception Bill, Mar 1, 2012). Um, what? Sure, a woman can have sex now and has greatly reduced her chances of having an unplanned pregnancy. Is she a slut, then? Sorry Santorum, but you can't control the morals of each woman in America. That was called the Puritan culture, and it sort of died out. For a reason. Because we decided we didn't want to live under a theocracy. If he does, fine, but he better not bring me in with him. That's called freedom.
What is even more ironic is that contraception prevents abortions, something anyone with a pulse knows that Santorum doesn't support. It also prevents unplanned pregnancies, sometimes reducing the number of children in orphanages, foster homes, etc. Do we want to live in a modern society where everyone has twenty children because of a lack of birth control? I don't think he's thought this through in a logical way, which isn't a shock.
We cannot force our own religious beliefs onto other people. Just because you think it's the right course of life doesn't mean you can force other people to live the same way. We should be very frightened by thinking like this, particularly from a man who wants to be the President of the United States. Don't we have better problems to worry about? Like how he got this far in the presidential race to begin with?
Sunday, February 26, 2012
It's not just chicken...
Chick-fil-A.
If you don't like it, you must be weird. Or you just prefer beef, perhaps.
That is not why I choose not to be a customer at this restaurant.
When we hear rumors, especially if they were posted on Facebook, people tend to think they are mere exaggerations. This one has teeth, though.
Performing a basic Google search shows the legitimacy of these rumors, particular rumors about Chick-fil-A's "charitable" giving.
These rumors beg the question, what does it mean to be a Christian? A consumer? A citizen? These are not questions for the nonchalant Christian, consumer, citizen. They may never be answered. But through our actions, we can make intelligent guesses.
When I read that Chick-fil-A created the Winshape foundation, which donated $1.1 million to various anti-gay groups from 2003-2008 (based on tax returns), I'm not really surprised (EqualityMatters.com). I know that Chick-fil-A is a religious foundation. I mean, nothing says "Hey, look how Christian I am!" like closing your doors on Sundays. The Southern Poverty Law Center reported that the Alliance Defense Fund, which received $5,000 from the Winshape foundation in 2006 and 2008, stated in an article that efforts by the LGBT community "[are] twofold: dilute moral values so that homosexual behavior is thought to be normal, natural, and good, while suppressing the religious and free speech rights of those who disagree. If they successfully impose their radical legal agenda, then all people - especially Christians - who do not affirm homosexual behavior could be silenced, punished, and possibly even jailed for so-called discrimination and intolerance" (EqualityMatters.com).
Why should we consider these facts when we go to buy a quite delicious chicken sandwich?
Perhaps I believe that human dignity is at stake. We study slavery, indentured servitude, Jim Crow laws, anti-immigrant rhetoric, immoral anti-terrorism laws that deliberately discriminate against peaceable Muslim-American populations. And yes, I add LBGT civil rights into this dialogue. Who do we want to be as a people?
Do not think of me as a moral crusader. I would not consider myself to be a highly ethical person. I buy items made in China, I sometimes drink coffee and eat an Egg McMuffin from McDonald's, and I throw away leftover food in my refrigerator that has gone bad. Do I choose not to give money to Chick-fil-A because it's a pretty easy form of protest? I'm sure that's part of it.
However, it's not easy to tell people why we don't eat at Chick-fil-A. Most people say I'm probably wrong about the donations, or it doesn't matter, or the Chick-fil-A corporation has a right to donate their money as they see fit. That's exactly right. And I have the right not to eat there as a form of protest.
Do people have the right to crusade against LGBT civil rights? Of course. However, do some of those groups need to fear their loss of the right to free speech and freedom from religion? Absolutely not. Rhetoric is an element of culture that we can control if we want to. And sometimes the hate is easier to believe.
No matter how I personally feel about homosexuality, I believe that my duty as Christ calls is to extend unconditional love to every person because we are all broken. Me being heterosexual does not advance me in the eyes of God. People who are different from the mainstream are just that: different. So was Jesus. Perhaps the main issue Jesus and his followers faced was how to follow God's teachings while also living in a human society. The blending of politics and religion has always been mucky. We are to render unto Caesar what is his, but how do we live under a government that we believe is forcing to do something which our religion opposes? I believe that is the argument advanced by groups and individuals like the Alliance Defense Fund. But they would have us believe that the solution is to have the government enforce Christian beliefs. If we are choosing between the two, and we believe that freedom is our greatest concern in America, we must choose freedom. Everyone must be able to live as they choose. Even if you aren't okay with it.
Chick-fil-A would have us believe otherwise.
Reference
Allison, Tom, Carlos Maza, and Christine Schwen. "Investigation Reveals Depths of Chick-fil-A's Ties to Anti-Gay Causes." Equalitymatters Blog. Equality Matters. 22 March 2011. Web. 26 Feb 2012.
If you don't like it, you must be weird. Or you just prefer beef, perhaps.
That is not why I choose not to be a customer at this restaurant.
When we hear rumors, especially if they were posted on Facebook, people tend to think they are mere exaggerations. This one has teeth, though.
Performing a basic Google search shows the legitimacy of these rumors, particular rumors about Chick-fil-A's "charitable" giving.
These rumors beg the question, what does it mean to be a Christian? A consumer? A citizen? These are not questions for the nonchalant Christian, consumer, citizen. They may never be answered. But through our actions, we can make intelligent guesses.
When I read that Chick-fil-A created the Winshape foundation, which donated $1.1 million to various anti-gay groups from 2003-2008 (based on tax returns), I'm not really surprised (EqualityMatters.com). I know that Chick-fil-A is a religious foundation. I mean, nothing says "Hey, look how Christian I am!" like closing your doors on Sundays. The Southern Poverty Law Center reported that the Alliance Defense Fund, which received $5,000 from the Winshape foundation in 2006 and 2008, stated in an article that efforts by the LGBT community "[are] twofold: dilute moral values so that homosexual behavior is thought to be normal, natural, and good, while suppressing the religious and free speech rights of those who disagree. If they successfully impose their radical legal agenda, then all people - especially Christians - who do not affirm homosexual behavior could be silenced, punished, and possibly even jailed for so-called discrimination and intolerance" (EqualityMatters.com).
Why should we consider these facts when we go to buy a quite delicious chicken sandwich?
Perhaps I believe that human dignity is at stake. We study slavery, indentured servitude, Jim Crow laws, anti-immigrant rhetoric, immoral anti-terrorism laws that deliberately discriminate against peaceable Muslim-American populations. And yes, I add LBGT civil rights into this dialogue. Who do we want to be as a people?
Do not think of me as a moral crusader. I would not consider myself to be a highly ethical person. I buy items made in China, I sometimes drink coffee and eat an Egg McMuffin from McDonald's, and I throw away leftover food in my refrigerator that has gone bad. Do I choose not to give money to Chick-fil-A because it's a pretty easy form of protest? I'm sure that's part of it.
However, it's not easy to tell people why we don't eat at Chick-fil-A. Most people say I'm probably wrong about the donations, or it doesn't matter, or the Chick-fil-A corporation has a right to donate their money as they see fit. That's exactly right. And I have the right not to eat there as a form of protest.
Do people have the right to crusade against LGBT civil rights? Of course. However, do some of those groups need to fear their loss of the right to free speech and freedom from religion? Absolutely not. Rhetoric is an element of culture that we can control if we want to. And sometimes the hate is easier to believe.
No matter how I personally feel about homosexuality, I believe that my duty as Christ calls is to extend unconditional love to every person because we are all broken. Me being heterosexual does not advance me in the eyes of God. People who are different from the mainstream are just that: different. So was Jesus. Perhaps the main issue Jesus and his followers faced was how to follow God's teachings while also living in a human society. The blending of politics and religion has always been mucky. We are to render unto Caesar what is his, but how do we live under a government that we believe is forcing to do something which our religion opposes? I believe that is the argument advanced by groups and individuals like the Alliance Defense Fund. But they would have us believe that the solution is to have the government enforce Christian beliefs. If we are choosing between the two, and we believe that freedom is our greatest concern in America, we must choose freedom. Everyone must be able to live as they choose. Even if you aren't okay with it.
Chick-fil-A would have us believe otherwise.
Reference
Allison, Tom, Carlos Maza, and Christine Schwen. "Investigation Reveals Depths of Chick-fil-A's Ties to Anti-Gay Causes." Equalitymatters Blog. Equality Matters. 22 March 2011. Web. 26 Feb 2012.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
And another poem!
March 20, 2004:
Untitled
should absence be malevolent?
Joe tells us it is, but should not be.
Problems with color, sex, religion,
life
not knowing his own place
predicts chaos and violence
but knows no boundaries
he feels pulled neither way
instead of the proper way.
to be undefined
***
I think this poem is unfinished in my journal, but maybe it works ending this way...I may have to reread Light in August by Faulkner to decide! I like this poem, if I may admit that, because I'm imagining and alternate interpretation of that novel, apparently other than that which my professor at the time presented. And of course being untitled and ending with undefined fits the theme...
Another poem I like
I wrote this poem on Oct. 3, 2003:
Night is falling
back when men seemed noble
and loftier purposes pulled them,
I wonder if that loft was reached
by ladders or by flying rope.
were there words, whisperings,
rails that jutted out into the fine night
and pierced it through its top?
or were there shouts, clashings,
arm against arm to make sure
the night had an identity?
back when land smelled fresh
with renewing earth and earth
was a place in itself, was
there such a thing as
man and beast?
minds reflect--I see no evidence
of the men who seemed noble
and the land that smelled fresh.
But I have heard of it,
strictly from imagination,
where Dawn was rosy,
the sea grabbed speckles of sunlight,
and the earth was never robbed
of its innocence.
Yes, I have heard of that.
But the earth cracks and trembles
under tremendous pressures.
the sea can't reach the sun,
and Dawn is late and rushed.
I do not imagine this.
It seems easier to fight for the lofty sky.
***
I have to admit I like this poem. I think The Iliad may have had some influence here, but I think at the time I was taking a medieval lit class...nevertheless, I enjoy the literal vs. fantastical imagery at work here, and I seemed to be contemplating the different motives that move men. I also appreciate the irony I tried to state: something fantastical may seem easier to grasp or to fight for versus literal or earthly.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Poetry from my teenage years
I recently found a journal that I kept during my junior and senior years of high school as well as my freshman year of college. I think I'm going to spend some time posting some of the poems that I wrote during these transformative years of my life. Some poetry is much too embarrassing to share with anyone; yes, it's that self-involved and hyperbolic! But here is one that I think is particularly deep:
(untitled)
I will not fight
your arm on shoulder
your assurring smile,
gentle rising faith
how can I turn that away?
but I will fight
your persecuting air,
dogmatic lips
and vocal repressions.
you can't mold me
or shape me
so don't waste time
I will fight for myself
but I will not fight you.
I do not remember writing it, so I can only vaguely guess what may have inspired it. I wrote it in the fall of my senior year, 1998.
(untitled)
I will not fight
your arm on shoulder
your assurring smile,
gentle rising faith
how can I turn that away?
but I will fight
your persecuting air,
dogmatic lips
and vocal repressions.
you can't mold me
or shape me
so don't waste time
I will fight for myself
but I will not fight you.
I do not remember writing it, so I can only vaguely guess what may have inspired it. I wrote it in the fall of my senior year, 1998.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Church and Gaga
Yeah, they go together. Just stay with me on this one...
Last week, one of our new pastors came to visit us at our home. I feel like we were honest and straightforward with him when we discussed what we were looking for in a church: a place where we wouldn't have to "try" to be anything. We could just be who we are, which is a bit shy at first until we feel comfortable. We don't do anything to impress, and we just want to be with people who want to be friends, let our children be friends, and enjoy life. And being the people we are with the luck that we've had, we find that desire to be epically difficult to fulfill. I'm sure it is our own fault in some way, but still...some desires are as old as time. And some of us are better at fitting in than others. And that has never been one of my talents. But I do believe in those times when the universe steps in, perhaps by the hand of God, perhaps by strange coincidence (or is there a difference?), and you can suddenly see something clearly (hence the name of my blog). During today's sermon, when we officially became members of St. John's Lutheran Church, the pastor's sermon addressed issues of fitting in and being ourselves and how that relates to being part of Christ's work in the world. He made a connection between being ourselves and being genuine, and I have thought about that a lot today. Being genuine, having no false pretenses...those phrases describe where most of the conflict in my life has come from and continues to come from. I have always majorly failed at playing the world's games. And in today's age of electronic communication, I am even worse at it. Sometimes when I would have been better off bluffing or hiding or being disingenuous, I voted instead to just lay all of my cards out on the table and quickly became burned. It rarely has happened the other way around. Being genuine means that we have to step away from what the world wants of us, which is extremely tough. It means we put everything on the line. Everything. And the pastor even pointed out that being ourselves often leads to rejection. The rejection that I fear the most is hidden rejection, the kind that, if you even ever find out about it, is embarrassing and impossible to erase or to mend. However, if we invest in being genuine, it could lead us to how God uses us to help others embrace God's love. Christ loves us in spite of ourselves. That is huge. And I believe these are also points that Lady Gaga makes quite frequently and in different ways. I find it interesting that people find her new Judas song to be offensive mostly because Judas is such a universal literary symbol. The song, to me, is all about being pulled toward that which will betray us every time, and we still do it. Such a human theme, and I think it's actually so fitting that people misinterpret it. I believe that is exactly why she created the song. Of course, that's a guess seeing as how I don't actually know her in any way. :) But her entire new album is entitled "Born This Way." Let's stop apologizing and get on with this world.
Last week, one of our new pastors came to visit us at our home. I feel like we were honest and straightforward with him when we discussed what we were looking for in a church: a place where we wouldn't have to "try" to be anything. We could just be who we are, which is a bit shy at first until we feel comfortable. We don't do anything to impress, and we just want to be with people who want to be friends, let our children be friends, and enjoy life. And being the people we are with the luck that we've had, we find that desire to be epically difficult to fulfill. I'm sure it is our own fault in some way, but still...some desires are as old as time. And some of us are better at fitting in than others. And that has never been one of my talents. But I do believe in those times when the universe steps in, perhaps by the hand of God, perhaps by strange coincidence (or is there a difference?), and you can suddenly see something clearly (hence the name of my blog). During today's sermon, when we officially became members of St. John's Lutheran Church, the pastor's sermon addressed issues of fitting in and being ourselves and how that relates to being part of Christ's work in the world. He made a connection between being ourselves and being genuine, and I have thought about that a lot today. Being genuine, having no false pretenses...those phrases describe where most of the conflict in my life has come from and continues to come from. I have always majorly failed at playing the world's games. And in today's age of electronic communication, I am even worse at it. Sometimes when I would have been better off bluffing or hiding or being disingenuous, I voted instead to just lay all of my cards out on the table and quickly became burned. It rarely has happened the other way around. Being genuine means that we have to step away from what the world wants of us, which is extremely tough. It means we put everything on the line. Everything. And the pastor even pointed out that being ourselves often leads to rejection. The rejection that I fear the most is hidden rejection, the kind that, if you even ever find out about it, is embarrassing and impossible to erase or to mend. However, if we invest in being genuine, it could lead us to how God uses us to help others embrace God's love. Christ loves us in spite of ourselves. That is huge. And I believe these are also points that Lady Gaga makes quite frequently and in different ways. I find it interesting that people find her new Judas song to be offensive mostly because Judas is such a universal literary symbol. The song, to me, is all about being pulled toward that which will betray us every time, and we still do it. Such a human theme, and I think it's actually so fitting that people misinterpret it. I believe that is exactly why she created the song. Of course, that's a guess seeing as how I don't actually know her in any way. :) But her entire new album is entitled "Born This Way." Let's stop apologizing and get on with this world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)