The Broadway Show

Alice: One Month

2012-02-02T13:45:00.000-08:00

Today (okay, so technically it was Tuesday, or if you want to go by dates, it will be tomorrow) you are one month old. It seems like only yesterday I was heading into the hospital and your dad and I were meeting you.

I'm not going to lie: we've all had to do some adjusting. For one thing, sleep! It's not that you don't like to sleep, but you tend to only do so in two hour increments (at MOST) and so mommy didn't get a whole lot of sleep that first two weeks because she was breastfeeding. I have to say though, I didn't mind. But boy, it was exhausting. And I think you were exhausted too - all that growing you've had to do and keep on doing! But now, mommy is doing a little better because she's started using the pump and that means Daddy can feed you every once in awhile.

I'm still a little nervous doing some things - like leaving you alone in your bassinet while I spend time with Daddy. Every little peep you make makes me want to leap to your side to check on you. And going out alone with you - we've made a couple of trips together: to see Daddy at work, to go to the doctor when I was worried because you were so much more fussy....slowly, we'll go out more I think....when I gain more confidence (and get that mirror up in the car!).

But we are going out more with Daddy. You've already been to the zoo on a nice day, in the Moby (something ELSE mommy needs to learn how to do by herself, so that we can go on walks - but it's complicated apparently).

But every day I get to watch you grow and change and get more used to me and your daddy and your surroundings. I keep waiting for you to smile at me - I think it happened once, when I was sticking my tongue out at you, so that you could mimic me, but I don't know if it was intentional. You're focusing on things more, including my face, which is an incredible feeling because I know you KNOW me.

You really tend to hate tummy time - but you have pretty good neck muscles already and the other day you practically pushed yourself up with your arms. Probably a fluke, but I was very impressed. And boy can you scream! It seems like every night around 9 pm, you decide you don't want to go to bed after all, no matter how tired you are, and you cry and fuss and scream even, until we're all tired and worried and occasionally even mommy has to cry because she doesn't know what is wrong. Usually it lasts less than an hour, but sometimes it's longer, with you calming down until you're juuuuussssttt asleep and then you'll suddenly realize it and wake up and cry again. It can just break our hearts. But I think we'll be okay in time.

You and I are getting used to being alone in the apartment all day too - now that Daddy is back at work. I think you miss him during the day and that contributes to your evening fussiness - after all, why would you want to sleep just after Daddy gets home?! But again, I think that will change once you get used to it and you and I start having more adventures during the day.

You've already grown so much and are becoming a chubby little baby instead of our skinny newborn (10 lbs. already: not that I'm surprised because you love the boob!). I honestly can't wait to see how you grow up and what you'll be like once you start waking up even more during the days (and hopefully sleeping more at night!). I love you, sweetheart. Happy One-Month Birthday!

Alice

2012-01-13T11:47:00.000-08:00

For my first post of the new year, I've decided to write out my birth story. Or, perhaps, Alice and I's birth story. Certainly, I've had some requests on Facebook.

Worries

I'll start by getting in a little bit of back story. That's right - I'm going to make you wait a bit before I get to the good stuff! Many of you might already know that my doctor was concerned about possible preeclampsia. I was diagnosed with gestational hypertension after several erratic blood pressure readings, right around 34 weeks. So I started doing the once a week appointments earlier than normal. There was more testing, and every week I had a biophysical profile done to monitor little MCO's (or the future Alice) movements and the level of amniotic fluid. We got a LOT of ultrasound pics actually. Anyway, because the signs of danger weren't there, my doctor's hands were tied for inducing me immediately at full-term, but she also felt that going past the safest date (39 weeks) would also be a risk; plus, I was getting tons of tests every week and was eventually on bed rest and all that. So, at my 38th week appointment she checked to see how dilated/effaced etc. I was (as is pretty standard). I had only progressed from about 1/2 cm. dilated to 1 cm dilated, and was barely effaced at all.

She thought that unless MCO came beforehand (not looking likely), she'd induce me sometime in my 39th week.

There - back story done. :-)

The Good Part

I made it to 39 weeks, and my doc told us she'd scheduled the induction for the 2nd of January. I'd go in that evening, and "ripen" and then she'd break my water and start Pitocin to get contractions going if I needed it. I should mention here that I was NOT looking forward to being induced. I did not want to be induced, although I was very anxious to meet MCO and to stop having to worry about risks. But I'd heard that inductions can make labor very long, and that Pitocin can make contractions extremely intense, meaning I'd probably end up asking for an epidural before I really wanted one. I wanted to go as unmedicated for as long as possible, in case it ended up slowing down labor.

On January 2nd, I continued my bed rest and tried to relax and not be too nervous/excited/scared....N. went into to work for a half day to make sure things were in order and then came home and made cookies for us to give to the nurses. Yes, that's right, we aren't above bribery. The afternoon seriously dragged on. But and here's the fun part - I was having contractions. They had started that morning, but weren't anything I hadn't had before so I thought it was just Braxton-Hicks or false labor. But they got progressively more frequent and intense, even painful. As we got closer to the scheduled appointment, we figured we'd make sure to mention that I thought I was in labor, but we didn't do any timing or anything until we'd left the apartment to go to dinner. We had a very quick dinner, because the contractions I was having were definitely coming faster and were more painful. Then we headed to the hospital and checked in, filled out paperwork, etc.

Our room was ready almost immediately and I got all ready. The on-call doctor checked, since I'd told them I had been having regular contractions and confirmed it - I was in labor already, dilated to 3 1/2 cm.! No induction for me after all. I was extremely excited, and both N. and I were amazed and happy. After a few hours of contractions however, I was getting more tired and really hurting. I finally broke down and had an epidural after quite a few hours. Pretty proud of myself for waiting so long, actually, but maybe it only felt really long. The epidural made everything easier and both N. and I tried to rest that night - he managed an hour or two of sleep, I dozed off and on, and basically we were just in a waiting game for me to keep progressing - pretty much on schedule actually. Around 3 am or so, it stopped. The next check actually broke my water, so we figured I'd progress more after that but not really. The nurses kept coming in to check on me, of course, and finally the doc decided that I'd start on Pitocin. Luckily, I'd already had the epidural.

When my OB finally got there, around 9, she announced I was pretty much ready to push. They started getting everything ready for the actual delivery and there was quite a flurry of excitement in the room. I was damn nervous about the actual pushing, since the labor had ended up being much easier than I expected (those epidurals are pretty awesome after all). I knew something had to be hard; they don't call it labor for nothing. After quite a few pushes, my doctor announced that I still had quite a bit to do, and left to check up on some other patients while the nurses and my incredible husband stayed with me to keep pushing. All of them commented on how wonderful a coach he was, and he was - it was amazing. I do have to say though, no matter how encouraging our great nurse was, I kept getting annoyed every time she'd say "You're so close - she's almost here!" And then I had to keep pushing. Every time she'd say that I expected the doctors and other nurses to be running into the room, with the baby's head barely getting caught. But no. After 2 hours of pushing, which felt like 20 minutes, I swear!, the doctor was back, the nurses were back and finally when she said, "you're so close" it was true. At 11:09 am, Alice Louise Regan Wyant was born.

She weighed just under 7 lbs. (they rounded it up) and was 20 inches long. They laid her down on my chest with her little hat on, and wrapped in a blanket, and we just stared at each other and at her daddy. I'll never forget that moment as long as I live.

Now, we're home, almost 2 weeks have gone by. I still can't believe that I'm no longer pregnant, except I have the evidence against my chest right now. I've been hit by the baby blues - a lot of crying spells, which is hard for N., I think, and definitely for me, since I feel out of control...but they're subsiding a lot. I'm sad to think I'll never be pregnant for the first time ever again - it was an amazing experience, one I hadn't counted on really enjoying so much as experiencing until the "real" one came along - and I had a husband who made it even more wonderful as the weeks went on. I never expected to like it so much. Despite the stress and worry of the last weeks of my pregnancy, it is one of the times I'd live over again - several times, I think. I am going to miss it and how my husband and I planned for it, and were so excited, and all that. But I now get to really look forward to getting to know Alice - who is helping me type this, by the way, and find out what she's really like. She's absolutely beautiful.

Aren't I Just Horrible

2011-12-08T12:25:00.000-08:00

I mean, it used to be I couldn't wait to write a new post. I had a folder with topics I wanted to put on my blog. But then, of course, life got in the way what with all the stuff going on, and the fact that now we don't really have a lot of people that read/comment on blogs anymore apparently (and I don't mean just my blog, but the blogs of friends of mine, which are in even more dire straits than mine - I don't think some of my friends even realize that their blogs are still out there!). But I do have things to post, and I try to post updates on my pregnancy so that later I can read them and think, shamed, 'You should have just written a pregnancy journal.'

Of course, I've never once been able to write in a journal on a regular basis, so I don't know how that would be different - but hey, at least I am ahead of the curve on mommy-guilt.

I've now progressed to weekly appointments with my doctor. I'm also having weekly ultrasounds (doctor-ordered) to check on the level of amniotic fluid and little MCO's movements and such. The doctor is being cautious and watching me for preeclampsia - my blood pressure is erratic and keeps going higher than she'd like. I'm now diagnosed with gestational hypertension in fact. Luckily, the little one kicking at my ribs is doing fine and seems healthy. It's just me and my body being frustrating and annoying.

Today it was high again, and so my doctor pulled me off work. I was due to go on maternity leave after next weekend anyway, so it isn't a huge deal, but that means I'm behind on what I wanted to finish and my co-workers have to pick up some major slack in the next week or two before my "replacement" begins in January. It does give me time to obsess about what we do or don't have done for when she gets here and to worry about labor and delivery, but hey- isn't that what life is all about?!

Christmas is almost here - or, Saturnalia or Festivus, or Winter Solstice, or Hanukkah, or... (there are a lot of holidays in the winter isn't there?!) and I'm looking forward to it and yet feel somewhat sad, as this will be the first year I'm not with my family on the actual day. It's that inevitable thing that happens in adulthood, but it's still bittersweet. I'm sure husband and I will have lots of fun together, and with his family, and with friends, but it never seems to feel the same as when you're a kid.

At any rate, I've now posted. Will try to post more as the due date gets closer, cause I really want to see if people will bet on it.

Thanksgiving and Pregnancy

2011-11-28T08:35:00.001-08:00

How was Thanksgiving for all of you? I spent the day (and the night before) in Great Bend hanging out with my family, eating too much and playing the Wii. I did feel bad because I'm not able to be as active with the nieces and nephews now that I'm all huge and I have to take it easy (more on that later) but I think we all had a good time. Definitely one of my favorite holidays - a good start to Christmas anyway. And yes, I have my tree up already and am slowly decorating with my other Christmas things. In the spirit of inclusion (and because I'm not religious so I can have the freedom to do things like this) I have thought about getting a Menorah and putting that out - but haven't so far.

Slowly, our apartment is starting to look lived in instead of chaotic - books are being put away, we're getting things in their proper places. I always forget how long that takes. Moving is always bad but I think unpacking and finding where things have to go is worse.

Pregnancy update: I am now taking if easy (which basically means not moving as much and reading on the couch more) at least until this Thursday. At my last prenatal, the doctor was concerned about the fact that I had some major swelling in my ankles and feet coupled with erratic blood pressure readings - some were higher than normal. She is worried it might be a sign of pre-eclampsia and I am now having a biophysical profile on Thursday, consisting of a sonogram to make sure there is enough blood flow to placenta and such and a non-stress test, and will probably be seeing her every week (which I would have started soon anyway). I was a little freaked, but I think it's just a precaution, since I don't have any of the other signs and little MCO is moving and kicking like crazy.

I am also about ready to start maternity leave - I plan on talking with my boss and getting my last day settled very soon (preferably this week sometime). I want to make sure I get my two programs in December done and then I think I can relax a bit about leaving my job.

So I think that's it - Happy Holiday season all of you; good luck with shopping and scheduling, and decorating, and baking, and all the rest of it! I am looking forward to all of it, plus, hopefully, an end to this pregnancy (eventually...cause geez, I'm huge!)

The MONKEYS ARE HERE

2011-11-15T18:20:00.000-08:00

So I'm perusing my pregnancy website today (thebump.com - thank you for asking) and it told me I only have 53 days left until my due date. 53 DAYS! That is a month and a half (if that!). In around four weeks I will be AT FULL-TERM. I am serious - in say, four weeks, it is possible I could go into labor and actually have a newborn. I am not prepared, despite two wonderful baby showers and a host of extremely supportive people. But...

I don't have a crib set up yet.
The car seat isn't in the car.
Baby clothes aren't washed, I haven't pre-registered at the hospital/birth care center, and I haven't packed a hospital bag! Panic is starting to set in - and yet, when you say I'm due in January - well, that is sooo far away - NO, NO, IT'S NOT! That is 53 days away!!!

And I am also starting to realize I will have to actually HAVE this baby, by means of labor and you know, pushing. And pain (at least some, even if I decide to do an epidural). And probably yucky, gross, bodily fluids.
You're saying that clearly, I should have known that, I who have read the pregnancy books cover-to-cover? Who took the childbirth class and SAW the video. Who has older sisters and listened to their stories and asked questions. PLEASE -

Yes, yes, I KNEW that, you know, in a kind of "I KNOW that there are monkeys in South America, but that is so far away" way and now:
The monkeys are here and they're stealing my bananas!

The Most Boring Post in the World

2011-10-20T07:33:00.000-07:00

I seriously don't think I have a specific topic for this post. It took me like, a minute, to even start typing this incredibly random sentence. Clearly, I have a boring life. Well, boring for blog posts anyway. So I'll just go with the old, boring, dull stand-by of updating all my numerous readers on my life.

1. We are now going to prenatal appointments every two weeks, since I'm at almost 29 weeks. I keep thinking back to my posts complaining about how slow pregnancy is and wanting to kick my own ass for complaining because according to The Bump website, I only have 79 days left until the due date (I'm sure it will be more or less of course, because of the incredibly low percentage of women who go into labor and actually end up with babies on their due date)

2. The husband and I have an apartment - we move in about 3 1/2 weeks and I am so excited to finally get things organized and ready for when we bring the girl home. And to have somewhere to invite friends and family over.

3. I do not have placenta previa at all and am therefore not needing a scheduled C-section. It was definitely low-lying at the mid-pregnancy ultrasound, so my OB scheduled another one for last week and all is good. Also, definitely a girl, which was also a relief since I got lots of pink dresses and bows and things from my shower and would hate to have to put my son in a pink dress with bows.

4. I didn't think I would, but I kind of like the attention and excitement that is coming from me being pregnant. So far I haven't had tons of people rubbing my belly (family and friends). I've only had a few dirty looks when I go to Starbucks for my apple cider (apparently they thought I'd ordered the triple mocha espresso or something). I get tons of hugs and the feeling of contentment knowing people are thinking about me and I almost feel selfish and greedy. So far, no old-wives tales have been told about how I'm endangering my child by doing some random thing; I haven't had a bunch of strangers tell me their labor horror stories (thank goodness, because I already have a bunch in my head that I just made up!)

5. There will soon be a puppy here, which I'm excited about, because they're just so adorable. I think that will be the pet we choose when we finally have a yard and the kid is old enough.

6. I am so much busier at work nowadays and it's so nice. For awhile I honestly thought I was being paid to just sit and not do much, but my ideas are taken seriously and I'm now running programs, and getting ready to do story times and of course, they will miss me when I'm on maternity leave.

7. It is finally autumn! There was frost last night. The nights are chilly and mean I sleep better and just enjoy the season. I love this kind of weather and it's so nice to not have the heat.

8. I am really looking forward to Thanksgiving this year. Because we'll be so close to the due date at Christmas Nick and I won't be traveling to see my family for Christmas (my family will celebrate on our own and then have a family Christmas later) we're focusing on seeing my family for Thanksgiving. We're having a deviled egg contest. We're having tons of delicious food - family favorites and new recipes I'm sure. We've rented a small rec center so we'll be playing games and hanging out and talking and just having a good time together. I love the holidays and I love my husband's family so Christmas should be pretty fun too, even though I'm so sad not to have my family closer. This should give me a good dose of Regan for that.

I really could keep going with more updates: I'm craving more sugar, which annoys me, I find it hard to tie my shoes or put on socks, etc. But I think I'll just end this post.

Trick Or Treat?

2011-10-04T09:46:00.000-07:00

Since I'm now addicted to parenting websites and advice, especially the kind that makes me go - "Seriously? You think that's GOOD parenting?!" in my head. But I was reading Yahoo! Shine and there was an article about the age of trick-or-treating. And whether there should be a maximum age - ie. Should teenagers still be allowed to go trick-or-treating? Personally, I fell within the no category. I figured that at a certain age, say, 14 they would be considered too old and should find other ways to celebrate the holiday. There is no underlying reason for my attitude except that I stopped trick-or-treating at like, 13 and I didn't go the complete opposite (as some people suggested in the comments section was the only thing teens did - go trick or treating or end up committing vandalism and horrible party choices) and become a juvenile delinquent. My friends and I had fun in other ways: haunted houses, scary movies, etc.

But after reading the article, I'm wondering if maybe I have the wrong approach? Is there an actual reason for saying that teens SHOULDN'T trick or treat? Why is it only for younger kids under a certain age (whatever arbitrary age people think is okay). After all, we certainly want to encourage kids to be kids for as long as possible, and some teens do still want to be creative and dress up and trick or treat. Obviously, if they show up in jeans with no costume that shouldn't count. And usually by the "right" age for them, teens will choose other options: they won't WANT to trick or treat, they'll want to go to a party, watch scary movies with friends, make their own haunted house, or visit a haunted house.

I am starting to wonder if maybe this is part of the whole demonization of teens in our culture, where we assume that they aren't good kids because of their age. Certainly there are teens out there that would fall under that category. But is it right to assume that once they reach a certain age they are 1) not allowed to enjoy some childish things, within reason and 2) would rather be partying and vandalizing the town rather than having more innocent fun?

So now I'm left wondering: for my own child, will there be an age cut-off that I enforce? Will I leave it up to her and just talk to her about it? Why does it make me feel uncomfortable to think of a 17 year old trick or treating rather than say, a 15 year old? And now I think I have an answer - we hope, that as the years go on, our kids eventually start to assume more adult characteristics. Within reason, of course, but by 17 they are almost adults and should be acting more mature, whereas at say, 15, it's sort of up for grabs. More maturity and responsibility, yes! But a balance between that and innocent, childhood fun.

So, would you give candy out to a teenage who was still trick or treating? I think I would. And how about your own kids or future children? Thoughts? I'd love to have a discussion about this, so if anyone is still reading - seriously, comment!

September Is Technically the 7th Month

2011-09-29T16:53:00.000-07:00

What a week (and okay, yes, I realize it's not over yet)! You know how you start off thinking one way about something, and then are blind-sided by the fact that you are completely wrong? It occurs just often enough for you to realize that life, despite having organizing principles, must deep down just LOVE chaos? Well, my blog post title describes that kind of thing. September, in the Roman Calendar, was the 7th month (septum meaning "seven" and septimus "seventh" - in Latin).

Well, this week has been like that. I started off Monday with the thought that this would be a boring and annoying week to get through until this weekend, when I had fun plans with friends. And that next week would be way more fun and exciting, because I start childbirth classes, had a dentist appointment, have a baby shower, won't have to work Thursday evening and can watch my shows, etc.

Then on Monday, my dentist's office called - they had a cancellation, would I like to come in tomorrow at 9 for my appointment instead. Naturally, I said yes, because at that point I was totally ready to just get that particular event over with.

So on Tuesday, I go to the dentist (anyone who knows me KNOWS how much I loathe this particular appointment. I am a big wuss, and it's because I hate the sounds at a dentist's office - drills, hooks scraping on teeth, those air nozzles they use. Plus I usually have a cavity or two that needs to be filled). All is fine - I am temporarily reprieved from the whole cavity thing because they don't feel comfortable with x-rays on a 6 months pregnant woman, and don't notice any teeth specifically ready to fall out from rot - so that can wait. Instead, I get a nice cleaning, which wasn't so bad.

I go to work, dreading the soreness my gums will feel later and already looking forward to next week. And then I get this email from my husband saying to call him either at home or on his cell. I already know this is bad, because he NEVER tells me to call him while I'm at work, especially on his cell because he uses that only for traveling and emergencies - he doesn't usually have it with him, even! So I immediately leave the desk and go outside to call. I notice my sister-in-law has also called and kick myself for not setting up voicemail on my phone yet.

He tells me that my dad passed out and they're taking him to the hospital, they think it's his heart. He doesn't have a lot of details, but they're going to St. Theresa's and he'll be going there. I tell him I'll be meeting him there, because there's no way in hell I'm going to NOT be there if Dad has had a heart attack or something. I tell my boss who immediately tells me to take a deep breath, calm down, drive safely, and "Go." Those were her words.

Luckily, I call my sister-in-law back and learn that no, dad's doctor said to take him to Wesley and that my brother is going to be on the way soon.

I realize my husband doesn't know this information. I have forgotten my husband's cell number.

I call my father-in-law, ask him if he has it and could he please call his son and let him know the change. I attempt to drive like I'm in some kind of control, but apparently it was old-man-with-hat driving time and they are all on the same road driving about 20 mph. I do in fact get to the emergency room - and I am the only one there with him, besides doctors. I learn basically nothing, because he has just got there and doesn't really know anything himself.

We wait. My husband gets there with my stepmom (he picked her up). We wait. Finally, we learn it's not his heart, it's not clotting, he passed out because his blood pressure dropped due to an infection. His white count is through the roof and they think it's skin infection turned septic. He gets admitted to Wesley. My brother gets there and stays the night, my older sister is on the way the next day.

My stepmom leaves early because, and I kid you not, she had JUST GOT OUT OF THE HOSPITAL that weekend after having a hysterectomy. She still has staples and is weak. My husband is worried about me getting an infection - or little MCO, which would be worse.

Dad is still in the hospital. I've missed hours of work, not that anyone at my job cared, but still. He is doing better now, but still in pain, still with a fever and a high white count (but dropping), still weak. His leg is swollen and inflamed. My husband is tired (and we're both annoyed with my OB/GYN, though that's another story), I'm tired, my siblings are tired. My dad is tired. And it's only Thursday - the day I normally have off, but because this is a crazy week and chaos reigns, I volunteered to work and have Friday off instead.

So you see - September MEANS 7, but it's the 9th month. And this week began, in my head, meaning 7 (metaphorically) but was really 9. Aren't I clever?

Waning Days of Summer

2011-09-22T14:41:00.001-07:00

And let's all just thank nature and/or whatever deity you believe in for the end of all that heat!! Crap it was hot this summer. Things so far are rather good, thank you for asking. I just went to the doctor today for a four-week prenatal exam. I'm already at 25 weeks. Remember when I was complaining about how slow things were going? Yeah, I think that came back to bite me in the butt. Not that I'm complaining now. Anyway, everything looks good. I've gained 7 1/2 lbs. in the four weeks since my last appointment, so clearly MCO is getting fed. N. says that it must all be belly, because from behind I don't look pregnant. He might just be saying that so I don't cry, but I don't think so. Anyway, everything looks good. Next visit is in 3 1/2 weeks and that's when I get my yummy (or disgusting) glucose screening, along with my regular check-up.

It's also when we have our fourth ultrasound. In this case, it's not just us checking for abnormalities - the doctor wants to check to see if my placenta has moved: in the mid-semester ultrasound, we found out it was in front (or anterior) and low-lying. We're hoping it will have moved up, since I really don't want to have a C-section. Like, really, really, don't want a C-section! But I'm trying not to worry about that.

I am doing more at work (and wish I had my own desk - Ha!) and that's really fun. So far, I've come up with two programs - one for parents and one for kids, that are both inexpensive and not too draining. I have to start planning the story times for next year, especially the ones that will happen when I'm on maternity leave. This week, we're focusing on Banned Books week. Then I'll work on Halloween displays and such. I'm also going to be collaborating with a school librarian and going on school visits to let kids know what resources we have at the public library.

Basically, things are pretty awesome right now.

Paranoia and Book Banning

2011-09-12T16:11:00.001-07:00

I got all paranoid today that maybe I was talking too much about pregnancy, parenting, and all that. I never wanted to be THAT woman who can't shut up about herself. Obviously, because I'm talking about it now I'm failing again. But I swear, this post won't all be about the pregnancy, because other than the fact that I'm now craving Cheetos and root beer (caffeine free, made with real sugar, what's not to love?) there really isn't anything new. Well, except that I feel HUGE. That I'm feeling her kick a lot and I think she's learning to kick my bladder, ON PURPOSE, so that I have to get out of bed more often at night. But there really isn't anything new, so I'll settle for talking about all the little things I'm experiencing with the bestie or the husband and go on for now.

We're getting ready for Banned Books week here at the library. I've already started working on the list of kids books to display - the ones that have been challenged. And I realized that maybe my faithful readers (reader?) might like to see some of the ones on the list that people have challenged. Many have been the attempts of banning in schools not public libraries, but there's a fair number that have been challenged in general and I am always surprised because I've never actually had anyone come up to me and complain, even though I try to be prepared for something like that (I live in Kansas, after all). So, here's the list I have (it is by no means complete, I'm just choosing five random titles):

1)Adventures of Huckleberry Finn: Mark Twain
2)The Lorax: Dr. Seuss
3)A Light in the Attic: Shel Silverstein
4)Harry Potter: J.K. Rowling
5)A Wrinkle in Time: Madeleine L'Engele

So, new post...light on the pregnancy stuff. Better or no?

It IS September, and OHMYGOD I Didn't Post

2011-09-07T17:22:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the second week of September. I really wanted to post, I did. But I forgot and then got lazy. Will you forgive me?

So here's something fun that I obsess over every. single. day. Pregnancy math. By calendar months (4 weeks each month) I am 2 weeks away from being 6 months pregnant. BUT, each month is actually measured differently, so technically I'm 5 months pregnant - or rather, I'm IN my fifth month.

Then, I get to the fun stuff....in 17 weeks, I will be finished. In 14 weeks, I will be considered full-term. In 5 weeks, there is a 9 out of 10 chance that if I went into labor, the baby could survive albeit with tons of medical intervention. If I do this in months - ie. 4 months, 3 1/2 months - it sounds a lot longer until I'm all full-term and stuff. That must be why people measure pregnancy in weeks.

I also obsess over what to take to the hospital. What I will eat when I actually deliver the girl. What people will think about whatever name we choose. When will I actually go into labor? All of this, every day, and I'm only what? halfway through the second trimester. Oh, deity help me!

This past weekend I actually had off because it was Labor Day weekend. Oh unions, how I love you. N. and I went to Lawrence on Sunday and had cheeseburgers and really yummy fries and extremely yummy root beer. Preferred the cheeseburger I get at Free State and the fries I got at this place (the name escapes me). But oh, yum, the root beer....*drool*...

We went to the zoo on Monday. The temperature was perfect. Thank goodness for fall temperatures. I can actually sleep more comfortably. I can walk again, thus, hopefully, preventing me from turning into an actual cow instead of just preparing to be milked (HA!) And now, I am at work. Clearly, I am working hard - I hope you readers are grateful for my boredom and love of you that I am blogging instead of say, shelving.

And there - my first, and hopefully not only, September post.

It's Almost September

2011-08-28T18:14:00.000-07:00

What a boring title...but I honestly couldn't think of anything else. I'm looking forward to the (hopefully) cooler weather, because now that I'm getting bigger and feeling more extreme temperatures, this heat is really starting to bother me. Plus, it'll be nice to go for walks outside without worrying so much about overheating and feeling horrible.

Doctor's appointment went well, I'm gaining weight right on schedule (and luckily not too much so far!), heartbeat was strong, and I only had one complaint about backaches. We reviewed the ultrasound results and found out some semi-worrying news, but only because I'm neurotic lately. The ultrasound itself was great - we've taken every test we could for any anomalies and abnormalities, so we weren't expecting anything like that. But the placenta is anterior (which is why I haven't been feeling a lot, or any, movement/kicks yet) and it's also very low. So far, my doctor isn't worried: she said it's common and will probably move as I get bigger. But it means good news: we get to have another ultrasound in about 8 weeks! We're definitely getting a good collection of sonograms for the baby book.

We're also really starting to talk about parenting and decisions to make: names to choose, for example. Our policy on tv (none until the age of 18 months or so and a strict policy even after that), bedtimes, picky eating (I hope we don't have one but it's pretty probable), traveling (where we want to take her on vacations), babysitters and daycare, school (Montessori if we can afford it), vaccinations and pediatricians (like we'd endanger society by NOT doing vaccinations or listening to our pediatrician) etc. I'm starting a list of parenting books to read or re-read: Parenting Beyond Belief, Happiest Baby on the Block, Dr. Sears' books, etc. I've even got recommendations from friends and even perfect strangers! LOL...

We're both looking forward to moving out in November to our own place and getting a nursery ready and packing for the hospital. We have childbirth class to look forward to and baby showers too. I think both sides of the family are getting more excited - just like we are.

Hopefully, any September posts will be less about pregnancy and more about, well, who knows. But I am glad I've started trying to keep up with my blog again.

Woes of Adulthood

2011-08-19T05:56:00.000-07:00

I made a comment a few weeks, maybe a month ago. Being an adult is not as fun as I thought it would be when I was six. Or ten. Or 16. Granted, eventually I learned that I would have to go to school to get a degree, work hard, etc. I was prepared, by 16, of that concept. But all the other things that nothing but life can prepare you for - not just work, but the hours you work (I don't have weekends off and my schedule is not 9-5 - although I chose that, being in the field I love) the pay you get (less than I thought, considering the vital service I do and the fact that we are supposed to be such a prosperous country) all the things you need (or want) that takes more money than you make (and no, I'm not talking about my own jet or exotic vacations...well, okay, maybe the exotic vacations). Bills. And figuring out where to live. And I'm supposed to know how to do all this so that I can actually be a parent!!! I don't think I know enough about being a grown-up to you know, be the actual grown-up. I sometimes still can't believe I'm no longer in high school. Except I look older, bigger, and I don't get up at 6 am every morning to make sure my hair looks good (I don't care anymore).

I've learned though, through mistakes (hard ones to correct) and hopefully that will help in the long run. I'm still young, and so there's time to find that perfect house/condo/apartment. There's still time to save up enough money to climb Mt. Kilimanjaro and swim with dolphins. And adulthood isn't horrible - I mean, I get to have a baby - I'll have one in less than a year! I get to eat ice cream or fast food for lunch if I want to (but sadly, my parents have sort of spoiled that for me, because I end up feeling guilty and then want salad or have a stomachache and then they turn out to be right *the horror!!!*).

Now, does anyone have any ways I can make more money from just sitting on my computer, writing a blog? Or something?

It's A........!!!!!!!!!

2011-08-11T13:12:00.000-07:00

Most of you read Facebook posts more often than blogs anymore. But I'm still posting, because this is one of the ways that I can chronicle my pregnancy without having to resort to keeping a journal (I wish I could, but even with time I still don't do it. Call me lazy or inconsistent, I just can't seem to keep one up continuously).

This morning N. and I headed to the doctor's office for the mid-pregnancy sonogram. We've had all the tests they offer (NT and maternal serum testing), including two other sonograms: one at my first prenatal appointment, very quickly just to see if my calculated due date was correct (it was). Then another at 13 weeks (the NT) to check for increased fluid at the back of the neck.

Both were normal and healthy. And then today was the big day - the day they measured everything, checked the amniotic fluid, and the organs, and we got even more pictures and found out the sex.

It's a GIRL!!!!! We're both excited and everything looks healthy. So, in another 21 weeks I will be the mother of a baby girl. I know the family, and close friends, are excited - even if they guessed boy. And at this point we're just in the growing bigger stage.

I can't seem to drink enough milk or eat enough cheese. Last night I craved fish (particularly smoked salmon, which is off limits, but still sounded so good). I'm starting to really show which is nice. And I'm still waiting for movement or a kick. The sonographer said she was moving like crazy - and we could see some of it - but so far I haven't felt anything.

The name will still be a surprise. And I'm looking forward to hearing all the guesses on due dates. Friends are already planning baby showers and mommy-pampering showers.

And I've told my boss and I'm so, so lucky to be working where I am. Libraries are usually more family-friendly than other places to work, but she was so excited for me (even though I haven't worked there that long) and she's going to work with me about scheduling and maternity leave so I don't feel rushed back to work or anything like that. All in all, it's been a pretty good week. Except for a few hormonal outbreaks of emotion. Which I presume is normal.

Anyway, that's the update. I am so excited for this second half of pregnancy. It's finally starting to really sink in that I'm going to be a mom. I just hope I do a good job.

July Closing Post

2011-07-28T12:49:00.000-07:00

Summer, it's winding down: school starts in two-three weeks, summer library programs are ending, my vacation is over. I'm ready for fall, to be honest, and not just because being pregnant in 111 degree temperatures is unpleasant. But it is my favorite season.

So let's see....some things that have happened:

1) South Dakota vacation! - Let's face it, it was awesome. My niece Alyssa tagged along, which gave us an extra driver and conversational partner. The first day we took it easy driving and then saw the Buffalo Bill Ranch in North Platte, Nebraska. It was closed due to flooding, but we walked around a bit and then we saw the Golden Spike where the Transcontinental Railroads met. My sister and her fiance and their boys, my dad and stepmom, and the three of us had a nice meet-up and the new future grandparents started with the spoiling: the little Grandavocado got some outfits and a cute toy. We all went to dinner. It was great.

Day two was spent driving and then we got into South Dakota and unpacked the car. We all saw Grandma Regan, which was great because she just looks so much better than she did and was doing so well. The evening was spend relaxing together at the cabins.

Day three was a free day: we all split up and saw different things. Nick, Alyssa, and I drove through Custer State Park, did some hiking, and saw a herd of bison up close and personal - close enough to touch. Then we spend the afternoon at the lake with relatives and I floated around a cool, clear lake on an inner tube.

Day four we spent the day in Spearfish Canyon, hiking up to Roughlock Falls. We had lunch with Grandma and the rest of the relatives - almost everyone - at the Latchstring Inn. Then we became tourists and walked a bit around Deadwood.

Day five was wonderful - it started out at about 50 degrees (we needed sweatshirts) and spend the day at the park, walking in freezing cold water and watching the kids build a dam, go tubing down the creek, and throwing rocks. Grandma managed to spend quite a bit of time there with everyone - it was the true family reunion day.

We spent the last day just hanging out together, relaxing, and talking. Quite frankly, everything went too fast. We spent Monday driving all day which was terribly exhausting.

So there - a not so quick rundown (not that anyone reads this anymore anyway...)

I had a doctor's appointment today and scheduled the diagnostic ultrasound. Heard the grandfruit's heartbeat. Everything is healthy for me and for the fruit. We'll know in two weeks how the growth is going, and hopefully find out the sex. The gambling going on should subside until we get to the due date countdown. Ha!

I Am So Sad

2011-07-07T19:54:00.000-07:00

That I didn't get any comments. I think, thanks to Facebook, that blogs have sort of slipped by the wayside. Oh well. I'll still keep writing. Maybe I'll accidentally say something controversial and people will start yelling again.

My sister-in-law has spurred me on and so I've started baby registries at Target and Babies 'R Us. Since we don't know the sex yet, it's a big difficult but I'm working on neutral things anyway, for the future. Other than clothes, I'm hoping to have things be able to work for a boy OR a girl.

So far, I haven't been craving anything weird but I'm looking forward to the day when I start craving chocolate chip cookies and pickles or something like that. I do miss my chocolate chip cookies. And well, that's really it for my post. I had a day off today and walked around the zoo, which was nice and so fun - I got to pet a baby goat, see a tiger swim, and see the red panda pretty close up. It was nice exercise too, which I am sorely in need of since I know how good that is for me and little bean.

Summer of Taking Forever

2011-07-02T12:20:00.001-07:00

I'm sure everyone has felt this way at some point or many points in their lives. But this summer seems to be taking freaking FOREVER. Granted, I have a new job and you'd think that with all the hours I'm there it would make time go faster, but amazingly no. Maybe it's because I have so much stuff to look forward to in the future that I'm not enjoying my time now, which is something I really hate doing, but I can't seem to help.

See my list of complaints. Who can help me out? Who wants to sympathize? Anyone. Is anyone still reading this?

1) I'm sick of this heat. Yesterday my car temperature gauge read 111 degrees. And it's barely July.

2) I'm ready for my vacation in South Dakota with my family. I want the attention from everyone and to talk about my little future Regan (and Wyant). I want to have fun with my cousins and their kids and my dad and stepmom. I want to see how my grandma is doing. And I want the cooler temperatures!

3) I'm ready for morning sickness to stop. Only for me, it's more like evening sickness, and sometimes all day nausea. I hate feeling both starving and nauseous at the same time. I hate feeling yucky. And that's the best word for it. Of course, I've just started my first week in the second trimester, so hopefully this will go away pretty quickly.

4) I'm ready to start feeling MCO (the nickname we came up with that fits all the stages: embryo, fetus, baby) move and kick. I'm ready to find out if it is a boy or a girl so I can announce it and get more hugs, and start buying cute little baby clothes and figuring out how we're going to decorate the nursery. And no, I am not really a girly-girl, totally boy kind of person, but I would like to be more prepared - I feel like I'm floundering right now.

5) I've got a movie marathon night planned with Kay, and Beth, and Nate (I hope) again at the end of July or beginning of August. I'm ready to hang out and laugh and talk over movies and feel glad about moving to Kansas (because quite frankly, except for family and friends I am NOT loving this state - and that's a whole other post)

6) I'm ready to move. I love my in-laws but I'm ready for Nick and I to have our own place, even if it's some tiny apartment. I want to put my books up and my couch out and watch tv in my own living room, and cook dinners in my own kitchen, sitting down at a table with my husband.

7)I'm ready for fall. I romanticize fall. I imagine myself, all cutely pregnant, wearing an adorable sweater and hat, walking in falling leaves with my husband. I love Halloween! I want to trick or treat with my nieces and nephews.

8) Holiday season. Why does it take so long to get here and go so fast! Plus, that means we'll be waiting each day for MCO to appear. Taking bets on the date. Enjoying yummy food and family and friends. Presents, and baking, and Christmas lights and music.

And finally, somehow, I'm not enjoying pregnancy as much as I was determined to - I'm finding it an unreal situation that is both awesome and yet strangely slow and fast at the same time and it's freaking me out. I never really romanticized the whole pregnancy period,I've never been one to be like "I can't wait to feel pregnant and experience it" but I always told myself that once I got pregnant I was going to enjoy each freaking moment of it. And there are some I really have enjoyed: telling my family and friends about MCO. Talking about names. Talking about parenting and what we'll be emphasizing and what we don't want to do if we can help it. Seeing how humans develop in the womb, and starting to feel a connection to the future little person, wondering what he/she will be like. Seeing sonograms at the very beginning and at our first diagnostic ultrasound. Worrying about being a good mom (which I think means I'll be okay). But it just doesn't seem real yet.

I'm ready for us to have an actual baby or maybe just for it to seem more real, for the second and third trimesters to get here (I know, I know, it already has- the 2nd anyway). I'm fast-forwarding in my head and not enjoying the moment. So yeah, it's the summer of taking forever. If I had to label it, that's what it would be. And I don't know why I can't just enjoy the moments I have, to be really present.

You'll Forgive Me the Long Absence When You Read My Post

2011-05-31T07:54:00.000-07:00

Has it really been more than a month since I posted? I haven't even been that busy! It's not like I had a full-time job and kids to take care of, and yet time has gotten away from me. But one of the perks of actually not writing a new post every week means that I have stuff to actually write about - isn't that great, oh loyal and bored readers?

First off, I have a new job. While it's not a perfect position (say, head of youth services with a great salary and awesome benefits) it IS a step in the right direction and I'm so excited about it. I'm going to be working at the Haysville Public Library doing, well, a bunch of stuff: cataloging, circulation, children's librarian duties, etc. It's not a full-time position with benefits, but I'll be learning about every department, getting ideas to improve things and hopefully presenting those ideas, and well, basically, working in my chosen field. I had kind of despaired at getting the chance here in Kansas, so I'm really excited. And nervous too, of course, since my first day is today. I'm just so glad that my persistence paid off, and it's such a nice library and the people seem nice and friendly.

Second off, and in much bigger news: I'm pregnant! The hubby and I tried to wait to tell the news -okay, I said at first I wanted to wait 13 weeks to tell people - about 9 weeks since we found out right away at 4 weeks - but of course, being me, I couldn't. We waited until after I had my first prenatal appointment and learned that everything was progressing just fine and had a quick ultrasound. Then the fun began honestly, because I got to tell my family and he got to tell his.

I went to my dad and stepmom's first, on the pretense of delivering cans (it only sounds weird if you don't know my dad). I'm tricky like that. I handed over the bag and then followed my dad into the kitchen and said, "by the way, I have something to show you." I handed him the sonogram showing my little MCO (multi-celled organism) and he's all "ARE you?!" Then of course, I got hugs and kisses and congratulations and questions about how far along, and due dates, etc. My stepmom guessed just from hearing our conversation and I got hugs again. I think they're excited about being grandparents.

I called my younger sister next, expecting to get voice mail cause she's insanely busy - but I actually got her in person and asked if she wanted to be an aunt again. I am pretty sure hugs were exchanged over the phone, lol, and of course, she's very excited.

And then I got lucky - I called my sister-in-law, and found out that the rest of my siblings: older brother and sister, along with nieces and nephews - were all together. I asked her if she wanted to be an aunt again, and I swear, there was shocked silence and then she was all - "You're on speakerphone, say that again." Which of course, I did - "I was just wondering if you guys would like to be aunts and uncles again?" The excitement came through the phone in screams and congratulations, and it was so much fun, I wish I'd had a camera. My youngest niece came on and told me I didn't have to buy her a birthday present because the cousin-to-be would be enough (her birthday is right around my due date).

I will say, knowing I can call my big sister or sister-in-law and ask them questions about pregnancy and what I will need when the baby comes, and knowing how excited they are is just awesome. Not having my mom around is hard, but since I have them, I know I'll get good advice and answers to questions. Waiting would have been too hard. So the family all knows the good news.

In answer to other questions:
I'm doing well. Yes, I'm nauseous and tired, but I have trouble sleeping at night (weird dreams, restlessness, etc). Nothing set, but it's usually evening sickness and sometimes I just feel queasy all day. I've been fairly lucky though, so far. No vomiting and I can usually head it off with certain foods. I am having cravings (just ask the hubby!) but it's actually kind of nice because they're for healthy things: fruit, smoothies, spinach, cereal and milk. I'm apparently avoiding sugar - including chocolate, except occasionally and coffee and tea both turn my stomach. I'm also completely off caffeine, so no worries about weird developmental problems from that.

Yes, we're going to find out the sex. We don't care either way, we both have a theory (I think it's a boy) and we'll see who's right at 16-20 weeks. The name is a surprise to all - including us, though we have favorites. But no one will know until the birth.

My due date is January 9, but it could be a New Year's baby or even a Christmas baby. Or of course, it could go later, as most of you know. We'll just see. I'm really hoping NOT to go into labor on Christmas eve or Christmas day, though I suppose if I could guarantee that I wouldn't have to buy anyone gifts for this year..... LOL.

The Tooth Fairy

2011-04-28T07:51:00.000-07:00

I just read an article on Yahoo: Finance about how much the tooth fairy should leave for kids. I have to admit - I was kind of appalled. Apparently, teeth are now going for $5 (the first one) and $1-3 for the subsequent ones. Does anyone else think this seems rather high for teeth that will eventually, probably, be thrown away? I mean, you might save the first lost tooth for a keepsake right, but all the other ones?

And isn't a quarter or fifty cents a better price for that? I just keep thinking that if and when I have kids, I don't want to put a $5 bill under a pillow for a tooth! Am I being crazy? Cheap? I just don't see the value in that? I would want my kids to be excited, of course - but can't they save up from all the teeth? Add it to a coin jar? Don't kids still like to dump out and count their coins to see how much they've saved?

So parents (you know, real ones, not like me, a parent-in-mind-only and doting aunt to my ten nieces and nephews (YES I DO include my honorary niece Nora here!) what do you think? Am I being cheap? What do you do about lost teeth, if you've dealt with it? For non-parents, do you have an idea of what you'd do if you're planning on having kids? What's the trend here?

Weekend Redux

2011-03-21T08:23:00.000-07:00

I just wanted to put Redux in the title. It's such a cool word, you know? What a weekend it was too! Highlights include:

1) Reconnecting with my mom's family, specifically my cousins. How nice was that?! And how weird to think that at the age all of us cousins (kids) are now was the age that our parents were back when we were young and hanging out together, swimming at Uncle Mike's during his yummy barbecues. I'll miss that cooking!!

2) Kite flying - it's just so much fun and makes you feel so young. Plus, kites are pretty.

3) House hunting. Granted, we can't really afford a lot of the houses, but it's just so fun to get an idea of what we like and don't like, even just on the outside.

4) Zoo going. We have a membership so we get to go whenever we want. All we need is some kiddos to really appreciate how much fun feeding the goats can be and how cute baby chimps are (okay, we don't really need kiddos to appreciate that)

5) A new book. We don't normally buy books, but I got a new one to read!

To Redirect but I'll get to Part II in a minute

2011-02-20T14:29:00.000-08:00

Go Wisconsin, right? Apparently, our country is headed in a way that I think a lot of people don't really like. Oh, I'm sure people are truly concerned with deficits, but I find it truly interesting that it's only now that so many are, when we were sliding rather quickly into them with Dubya. Best quote from this article:

"Democrats help conservatives by not shouting out loud, over and over, that it was conservative values that caused the global economic collapse: lack of regulation and a greed-is-good ethic."

http://www.truth-out.org/what-conservatives-really-want67907?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Read this article. Maybe you'll agree with some of it, all of it, or none of it - but when was it that in our society, greed was good and helping others bad. When was it that a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" suddenly became the enemy? Because see, out government is US - well, it's supposed to be. So when did it become the enemy?

I found something! Part 1

2011-02-14T09:12:00.000-08:00

This particular post is really long, so I'm going to chop it up into, hopefully workable pieces. I was so excited when I found this. It's something I first encountered during a history class, and then re-encountered during a sociology class, and then lost for about six years or so. Now that I've found it, I can't wait to share it. For those who don't want to wait to read the whole thing, feel free to use the link below.

For those unable to wait
www.msu.edu/~jdowell/miner.html

The anthropologist has become so familiar with the diversity of ways in which different people behave in similar situations that he is not apt to be surprised by even the most exotic customs. In fact, if all of the logically possible combinations of behavior have not been found somewhere in the world, he is apt to suspect that they must be present in some yet undescribed tribe. The point has, in fact, been expressed with respect to clan organization by Murdock (1949: 71).[2] In this light, the magical beliefs and practices of the Nacirema present such unusual aspects that it seems desirable to describe them as an example of the extremes to which human behavior can go.

¶ 1
Professor Linton [3] first brought the ritual of the Nacirema to the attention of anthropologists twenty years ago (1936: 326), but the culture of this people is still very poorly understood. They are a North American group living in the territory between the Canadian Cree, the Yaqui and Tarahumare of Mexico, and the Carib and Arawak of the Antilles. Little is known of their origin, although tradition states that they came from the east.... [4] ¶ 2

Nacirema culture is characterized by a highly developed market economy which has evolved in a rich natural habitat. While much of the people's time is devoted to economic pursuits, a large part of the fruits of these labors and a considerable portion of the day are spent in ritual activity. The focus of this activity is the human body, the appearance and health of which loom as a dominant concern in the ethos of the people. While such a concern is certainly not unusual, its ceremonial aspects and associated philosophy are unique. ¶ 3

The fundamental belief underlying the whole system appears to be that the human body is ugly and that its natural tendency is to debility and disease. Incarcerated in such a body, man's only hope is to avert these characteristics through the use of ritual and ceremony. Every household has one or more shrines devoted to this purpose. The more powerful individuals in the society have several shrines in their houses and, in fact, the opulence of a house is often referred to in terms of the number of such ritual centers it possesses. Most houses are of wattle and daub construction, but the shrine rooms of the more wealthy are walled with stone. Poorer families imitate the rich by applying pottery plaques to their shrine walls.
¶ 4
While each family has at least one such shrine, the rituals associated with it are not family ceremonies but are private and secret. The rites are normally only discussed with children, and then only during the period when they are being initiated into these mysteries. I was able, however, to establish sufficient [504 begins ->] rapport with the natives to examine these shrines and to have the rituals described to me. ¶ 5

The focal point of the shrine is a box or chest which is built into the wall. In this chest are kept the many charms and magical potions without which no native believes he could live. These preparations are secured from a variety of specialized practitioners. The most powerful of these are the medicine men, whose assistance must be rewarded with substantial gifts. However, the medicine men do not provide the curative potions for their clients, but decide what the ingredients should be and then write them down in an ancient and secret language. This writing is understood only by the medicine men and by the herbalists who, for another gift, provide the required charm. ¶ 6

The charm is not disposed of after it has served its purpose, but is placed in the charmbox of the household shrine. As these magical materials are specific for certain ills, and the real or imagined maladies of the people are many, the charm-box is usually full to overflowing. The magical packets are so numerous that people forget what their purposes were and fear to use them again. While the natives are very vague on this point, we can only assume that the idea in retaining all the old magical materials is that their presence in the charm-box, before which the body rituals are conducted, will in some way protect the worshiper. ¶ 7

Beneath the charm-box is a small font. Each day every member of the family, in succession, enters the shrine room, bows his head before the charm-box, mingles different sorts of holy water in the font, and proceeds with a brief rite of ablution.[5] The holy waters are secured from the Water Temple of the community, where the priests conduct elaborate ceremonies to make the liquid ritually pure.

Sometimes a comic says it all

2011-02-13T10:30:00.000-08:00

Targeting Maps

2011-01-11T06:46:00.000-08:00

So there's been a major uproar about the use of targeting symbols on maps since the shooting. Understandable, and let's all thank goodness that we're at least having a discussion about violent rhetoric and violent behavior and if there is a connection. I guess the murder of Dr. Tiller wasn't violent enough for it, although many of my progressive friends have been talking about this connection ever since then.

But I digress.

Now, the conservatives are screaming in anger because Sarah Palin had a target map on her website and people are rightly, having said discussion. Why a discussion is so painful for them remains a mystery - I realize the press isn't the greatest entity for a thoughtful, interesting, nuanced conversation - but at least it has started one! They're saying that the Democrats do it too and that means they're just as violent and just as much to blame. I'll agree that both parties have wildly sunk to horrible levels of rhetoric.

But let's compare these targeting maps shall we?

Shall we start with the fact that only one has specific congressional districts?
Or maybe with the fact that only one has NAMES that are targeted, ie, people?

Perhaps we can talk about the context - how to win back states lost in the 2004 Bush election vs. how to get rid of Congresspersons who are Democrats and voted for the health care bill.

Which one is more specific? Which one is more disturbing? Which one invokes violence against a specific person and which one targets a state that needs to be won in an election (ie, anonymous voters) Does it even matter - probably not, since the discussion will, hopefully, turn to how violent rhetoric and symbols' use affect political discourse in the country. Which is a good thing.

Mindgasm

2010-11-06T14:16:00.001-07:00

Kansas

2010-10-05T09:28:00.000-07:00

Well, we've moved back to KS, as N. got a job at WSU. Yay him!
N. and I have sort of settled in now: he's started his job, I've started school, so I can finish my second master's degree...we've been here about a month and so far, so good.

I'm still hoping to find a library job, but I might have to start school again and get my teaching license. I am thinking of being a substitute teacher while I do that, to get some experience, learn my way around the different schools, meet people, etc. But right now I'm focusing on school and re-learning Wichita. The traffic really sucks here, and I kind of despise having to drive everywhere...but I do really love being close to my family and my friends - I even got to have a sort of impromptu dinner with Kay which was great! I now have someone to call and hang out with, which is so wonderful!

A Regan family reunion is being planned for next July which is immensely exciting, and too far away - and my sister might even be getting married there so that my grandma can be there, since she doesn't travel much anymore. Anyway, life is sort of boring for now, and we're settling in, as are the kitties (poor things!). Just a quick update, cause I got tired of looking at my old blog post.

Stuff I'm Reading/Browsing

2010-08-02T14:10:00.000-07:00

Browsing/Blogging/Reading
News
Blogs
Shopping

Books I'm Reading (Yes, all at the same time...geez!)
Don't Think of An Elephant: George Lakoff
Every rendition of Stone Soup I can find (for the storytime I'm doing)
The Little Lady Agency: Hester Brown (I just love British humorous chick-lit books!)
Parenting Beyond Belief: Dale McGowan
Why You Can Disagree and Still Be a Faithful Catholic: Philip Kaufman (since I don't buy the whole - you can't be a good Catholic if you *insert your chosen position* crap)

And I've re-read this article from Sam Harris about a dozen times:
Bringing the Vatican to Justice

I confess that, as a critic of religion, I have paid too little attention to the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. Frankly, it always felt unsportsmanlike to shoot so large and languorous a fish in so tiny a barrel. This scandal was one of the most spectacular "own goals" in the history of religion, and there seemed to be no need to deride faith at its most vulnerable and self-abased. Even in retrospect, it is easy to understand the impulse to avert one's eyes: Just imagine a pious mother and father sending their beloved child to the Church of a Thousand Hands for spiritual instruction, only to have him raped and terrified into silence by threats of hell. And then imagine this occurring to tens of thousands of children in our own time -- and to children beyond reckoning for over a thousand years. The spectacle of faith so utterly misplaced, and so fully betrayed, is simply too depressing to think about.

But there was always more to this phenomenon that should have compelled my attention. Consider the ludicrous ideology that made it possible: The Catholic Church has spent two millennia demonizing human sexuality to a degree unmatched by any other institution, declaring the most basic, healthy, mature, and consensual behaviors taboo. Indeed, this organization still opposes the use of contraception, preferring, instead, that the poorest people on earth be blessed with the largest families and the shortest lives. As a consequence of this hallowed and incorrigible stupidity, the Church has condemned generations of decent people to shame and hypocrisy -- or to Neolithic fecundity, poverty, and death by AIDS. Add to this inhumanity the artifice of cloistered celibacy, and you now have an institution -- one of the wealthiest on earth -- that preferentially attracts pederasts, pedophiles, and sexual sadists into its ranks, promotes them to positions of authority, and grants them privileged access to children. Finally, consider that vast numbers of children will be born out of wedlock, and their unwed mothers vilified, wherever Church teaching holds sway -- leading boys and girls by the thousands to be abandoned to Church-run orphanages only to be raped and terrorized by the clergy. Here, in this ghoulish machinery set to whirling through the ages by the opposing winds of shame and sadism, we mortals can finally glimpse how strangely perfect are the ways of the Lord.

In 2009, The Irish Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (CICA) investigated such of these events as occurred on Irish soil. Their report runs to 2,600 pages. Having read only an oppressive fraction of this document, I can say that when thinking about the ecclesiastical abuse of children, it is best not to imagine shades of ancient Athens and the blandishments of a "love that dare not speak its name." Yes, there have surely been polite pederasts in the priesthood, expressing anguished affection for boys who would turn 18 the next morning. But behind these indiscretions there is a continuum of abuse that terminates in utter evil. The scandal in the Catholic Church -- one might now safely say the scandal that is the Catholic Church -- includes the systematic rape and torture of orphaned and disabled children. Its victims attest to being whipped with belts and sodomized until bloody -- sometimes by multiple attackers -- and then whipped again and threatened with death and hell fire if they breathed a word about their abuse. And yes, many of the children who were desperate or courageous enough to report these crimes were accused of lying and returned to their tormentors to be raped and tortured again.

The evidence suggests that the misery of these children was facilitated and concealed by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church at every level, up to and including the prefrontal cortex of the current Pope. In his former capacity as Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict personally oversaw the Vatican's response to reports of sexual abuse in the Church. What did this wise and compassionate man do upon learning that his employees were raping children by the thousands? Did he immediately alert the police and ensure that the victims would be protected from further torments? One still dares to imagine such an effulgence of basic human sanity might have been possible, even within the Church. On the contrary, repeated and increasingly desperate complaints of abuse were set aside, witnesses were pressured into silence, bishops were praised for their defiance of secular authority, and offending priests were relocated only to destroy fresh lives in unsuspecting parishes. It is no exaggeration to say that for decades (if not centuries) the Vatican has met the formal definition of a criminal organization, devoted not to gambling, prostitution, drugs, or any other venial sin, but to the sexual enslavement of children.

Consider the following passages from the CICA report:

7.129 In relation to one School, four witnesses gave detailed accounts of sexual abuse, including rape in all instances, by two or more Brothers and on one occasion along with an older resident. A witness from the second School, from which there were several reports, described being raped by three Brothers: 'I was brought to the infirmary...they held me over the bed, they were animals....They penetrated me, I was bleeding'. Another witness reported he was abused twice weekly on particular days by two Brothers in the toilets off the dormitory:

One Brother kept watch while the other abused me ...(sexually)... then they changed over. Every time it ended with a severe beating. When I told the priest in Confession, he called me a liar. I never spoke about it again.

I would have to go into his ...(Br X's)... room every time he wanted. You'd get a hiding if you didn't, and he'd make me do it ...(masturbate)... to him. One night I didn't ...(masturbate him)... and there was another Brother there who held me down and they hit me with a hurley and they burst my fingers ...displayed scar....

...

7.232 Witnesses reported being particularly fearful at night as they listened to residents screaming in cloakrooms, dormitories or in a staff member's bedroom while they were being abused. Witnesses were conscious that co-residents whom they described as orphans had a particularly difficult time:

The orphan children, they had it bad. I knew ...(who they were)... by the size of them, I'd ask them and they'd say they come from ...named institution.... They were there from an early age. You'd hear the screams from the room where Br ...X... would be abusing them.

There was one night, I wasn't long there and I seen one of the Brothers on the bed with one of the young boys ... and I heard the young lad screaming crying and Br ...X... said to me "if you don't mind your own business you'll get the same". ... I heard kids screaming and you know they are getting abused and that's a nightmare in anybody's mind. You are going to try and break out. ... So there was no way I was going to let that happen to me.... I remember one boy and he was bleeding from the back passage and I made up my mind, there was no way it ...(anal rape)... was going to happen to me. ... That used to play on my mind.

This is the kind of abuse that the Church has practiced and concealed since time out of memory. Even the CICA report declined to name the offending priests due to pressure from the Vatican. The cover-up of these atrocities continues.

I have been awakened from my unconscionable slumber on this issue by recent press reports (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6) and especially by the eloquence of my colleagues Christopher Hitchens (1, 2, 3, 4, & 5) and Richard Dawkins (1 & 2). Both have begun a public effort to make the Pope accountable for the Church's complicity in these crimes. Here, I would like to announce that Project Reason, the foundation that my wife and I started to spread scientific thinking and secular values, has joined Hitchens and Dawkins (both of whom sit on our advisory board) in an effort to end the "diplomatic immunity" which the Vatican claims protects the Pope from any responsibility. We would greatly appreciate your support in this cause. All donations are tax-deductible in the United States.

My Blog: How I Miss Thee

2010-07-09T14:13:00.001-07:00

Well, my first post of June was actually my only post of June. I apologize to any loyal readers, still waiting for updated posts- I know how you feel when you get here and there's nothing new!

Today, I actually went shopping for myself. I managed to get new running shoes, and a new outfit, and even some fun new bath products. It perked up my spirits quite a bit - I got turned down for a great job this week. This economy really sucks - there's just not a lot of opportunities for full-time librarian jobs. I'm considering becoming a school librarian - I just have to get my license to teach, which means going back to school for a year or more. I am slightly reluctant about the school thing: I've been enjoying being done with classes and papers and grades. But oh well; it's not like I don't enjoy school.

Non sequitur: My husband is the best ever. I don't even need examples - but he is, you just have to trust me on this.

First Post of June

2010-06-04T08:07:00.000-07:00

Well, let's see if I can do a quick rundown of life so far:

1. Vacation in Kansas: Got to see family, in a very rushed way. Why does it always seem like we have plenty of time, but instead do not?

2. Summer programs start at the library. It's my first summer here. Am very nervous and hoping I can remember everything. Also, there is one program where there will be snakes, loose (as in, not locked in triple glass cages far away from me), in the library. Please keep your fingers crossed that I am not working IN THAT ROOM on that day!!

3. Catching up on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

4. Read the Empire of Illusion by Chris Hedges, which every single person in America should read. Seriously. It's on par with The Healing of America by T.R. Reid, which is also something every single person in American should read. Seriously. Read them.

5. Found a couple of new blogs people should check out: Let me know if the links don't work, okay?

The Secular Parent
Epiphenom

News

2010-05-22T08:47:00.000-07:00

Hey all -

Maybe you noticed the new picture at the right of my posts? Anyway, it's also a link to this great new foundation that gives money to different charities. I think everyone should check it out, and if you can, choose a charity and make a donation. All good causes, and tax deductible and all of that.

It's just been too long

2010-04-29T16:09:00.000-07:00

Since I watched this....

Laugh

Still with the funny

Potter!

Free-Range Parenting Question: Is it okay to offer to help?

2010-04-16T21:13:00.000-07:00

So, I am a big reader of the Free Range parenting blog (and articles, and books, and all that goes with it). I was reading about the parenting in different countries, during vacations in Thailand, and here.

And I had a question, so I'm really hoping that any free range parent can answer this for me, from their perspective.

Last month I was traveling, in the U.S. - my husband and I took trains and planes, and it seemed wherever we'd go there'd be kids and parents. Anyway, I'm wondering, are we too overprotective in this country to accept help from a stranger, or should it even be offered? I'm thinking not of anything specific, but I'll try to give an example.

I'm on an airplane (or in a restaurant, or public place, etc.) and I see a parent having trouble: their toddler needs to go to the bathroom, they're the only ones in the little group, and they have an infant. Is it acceptable to offer to watch/hold the infant while they take the toddler in the bathroom, or is that now a major danger alert for parents?

I refrain from doing anything like this, on the off chance I'd get a violent reaction from the parent thinking I'm a kidnapper or something - but I really feel bad in situations like these, because society is so much safer when people help each other.

So should I offer and take the consequences, which might be as little as a polite refusal or even a grateful, "that would be wonderful" or might be as bad as someone being paranoid and reporting me to the police or other official (I don't know for what, exactly, possible harm?)

I'd be interested in answers: is it okay to offer to help?

The Onion

2010-04-13T13:16:00.000-07:00

Had forgotten how funny the Onion can be.....

NEW YORK—Pro-life advocates celebrated approval of the new anti-abortion drug UR-86 by the Food and Drug Administration Tuesday, calling it a "safe and effective method" for terminating pregnant women while leaving their unborn children unharmed.

Pfizer, manufacturer of UR-86—dubbed the "last-morning-ever pill"—said the drug is intended only for occasions when the mind-set or politics of the mother threaten the life of the fetus.

"This drug is designed for extreme cases in which the mother cannot or should not be saved, or when her health has been placed before that of her unborn child," Pfizer spokesman Anthony Wright said.

The orally ingested drug first tests for the presence of a fetus. If the outcome is positive, a near-lethal dose of barbiturates is released, which induces a coma in the expectant mother until the child is born, at which point a second, fatal dose is released.

The FDA's approval came after months of clinical trials firmly established that the fetus would be nourished and protected in the womb of the near-deceased UR-86 user.

Gender-equality advocates praised the introduction of the drug, calling it an "innovative solution" to the highly polarizing national abortion debate.

"This is a step forward for equality," men's rights activist Charles Hackett said. "For too long, women have had an unfair advantage in the outcome of a pregnancy. UR-86 levels the playing field for husbands and boyfriends across America."

Pro-life advocates, many of whom had petitioned the FDA to approve UR-86 while the drug was still in the research-and-development stage, also reacted warmly to the FDA's decision. Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, praised the new pharmaceutical for its potential use in cases of rape and incest, saying it could help end the shame and humiliation of such trauma while saving the life of the fetus.

"Victims of sexual assault can feel trapped, like they've got nowhere to turn," Terry said. "Now, they can solve their deep, internal problems once and for all, without unfairly condemning their children."

Yet critics say UR-86's prescription-only status and the fact that most health insurance plans do not cover the drug limit its effectiveness, as it is not available to those who need it most.

"If people can't afford the drug or get it prescribed on short notice, they're not going to have enough time to act, especially when their wives want to end the pregnancy fast," men's issues commentator Stan Dynes said. "UR-86 should be made available over the counter as soon as possible. It's the husband's right to choose if this drug is right for him, and neither the government nor the medical elite should get in the way of that decision."

Pfizer trials showed that UR-86 can do nothing for the fetus if an abortion procedure is performed. "If the mother is administered the pill the morning after an abortion, the fetus cannot be revived because it won't be there," Pfizer's Wright said. "It will still terminate the mother, though."

Conversely, some lawmakers are uneasy with the concept of ready access to the anti-abortion pill.

Tuesday night, South Dakota legislators introduced a bill to impose a five-day waiting period for teenage girls and women before they can buy the pill, claiming its use does not adequately safeguard the lifestyle of the father, the laundry of the father, or the favorite meals of the father. The legislators cited Pfizer's own published list of side effects of UR-86, which include domestic messiness, already-born-child neglect, and inadequate stocking of the fridge.

Still, Pfizer anticipates not only that the drug will be popular with husbands, but also that, once available over the counter, UR-86 will likely find a large consumer base in mothers-in-law, downstairs neighbors, and extramarital lovers.

Happy April!

2010-04-10T12:55:00.000-07:00

I am now on a major hunt for fun topics/things to do for future storytimes. To that end, I have found a wonderful author: Alan Katz. He redoes the words to fun, traditional kid's songs. Here are a few of my favorites!

Give Me a Break (to the tune of "Home on the Range" - I am originally a KS girl)

Oh give me a break
'Cause I made a mistake
And my library book's overdue
The fault is all mine
Oh boy, what a fine
It was due way back in '92!

Home, home's where it's hid
This is such a bad thing I did
And you might say "Gee whiz!"
'Cause the book's title is
How to Be a Responsible Kid!

"Don't Flush Strange Things in the Potty" (to the tune of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic") - for patriotic potty training?

Don't take your sister's rattle and just drop it in the bowl
It's not place to hide things like a pocket or a hole
It's also not a home to give your fishy or a tadpole
The toilet is for poop!

Don't put your toy in the toilet
Or it's probably gonna spoil it
And your mom'll have to boil it
The toilet is for poop!

A kid I know took both his boots and flushed 'em on a whim
Then he took his favorite bear and taught him how to swim
The potty started flooding and they called on Plumber Jim
He had to fix their bowl

Don't flush strange things in the potty
Doing that is really naughty
Pee and poop come from your body
And they go in the bowl!

Getting In Shape: The Saga: Part 3

2010-03-22T11:13:00.000-07:00

Well, I've been doing well. I've decided that my new goal for the next month and a half is to work up to running 30 minutes straight. That's probably about 3 miles, maybe 4, depending on pace and all. So, I'm starting with intervals. Today, I walked 4 minutes and then ran, fairly slowly, but not a jog, for 2 minutes. I did this 5 times. Since N and I are going the PLA in Oregon this week, my workouts will only be two days this week, not including all the walking we'll do in the city while being tourists.

I've been eating healthy, and really enjoyed my Saturday, I can eat whatever I want day. I didn't go too crazy, but I did have ice cream after dinner: a small chocolate cone, and popcorn at the movies. Since I'm off soda, I don't think my calories were too high. I also took the two days off from major exercise; Saturday, because of the snow, and Sunday, because I worked at the children's desk.

Was majorly distracted last night watching the health care reform debate and reading blogs: I like to read the right-wing conservative, anti-choice, etc. blogs when major progressive things come up to watch the freak outs and thank my lucky stars that the internet is fairly anonymous. I don't comment or anything, but if I did, I'd be extremely glad. Some of those people seem dangerously unstable.

This is going to be a busy week, and end of the month, so I wanted to make sure I posted something recent. Hopefully you faithful readers won't miss me TOO much :-)

Getting in Shape: The Saga: Part 2

2010-03-18T11:37:00.001-07:00

How long has it been since I last posted about my trials in getting back into shape? Ten days or so? Here's an update, for all of you who actually care.

My goggles (which I bought cheaply at Walmart) have finally died. They no longer provide protection from water, therefore I have to figure out how to use N's, which are actually real swimmer's goggles and therefore require some sort of advanced degree in Engineering to figure out how to adjust so they will fit my small, weirdly shaped head. Therefore, swimming has been out, because I keep forgetting to ask him to who me how to adjust them. My fault.

I have been walking all this week, usually between 2 and 3 miles, sometimes slightly over 3. The path across the street, which is excellent, is finally free of all snow. It's been nice out all this week, with only a couple of days where I needed warmer layers. Today, all I needed was tights and a sweatshirt.

I managed to do three minutes of running today...I think it could have been more, but I didn't drink as much water as I normally do in the morning and that lack, plus the fact that I'm years out of shape, added up to a "Shit, well, damnit - YAY! You did 3 whole minutes! I'm so proud of you, you'll do even better tomorrow!" Rant in my head. That's right, I talk to myself when I run or walk. Usually it's along the lines of, "You can stop when you reach that tree. No, not that one, the one up ahead. I didn't mean THIS one, I mean that one, see, the big one. You made it past the bridge, good job can you get to the crosswalk." By which point, my running looks awkward and I'm gasping for breath, angry at my inner voice for promising I could quit sooner. Stupid inner voice.

The eating I'm having trouble with. I just enjoy food too much - and since it's a hard habit and attitude to let go of: namely, that I can eat whatever I want and not gain weight (yes, I realize this is a lie nowadays) - I'm having trouble measuring things out and making sure to eat normal portion sizes, as opposed to the ginormous ones that has led to America's obesity epidemic. But I try and I've accomplished a lot: I have fruit and/or a vegetable at almost every meal, even snacks, excluding last night's french toast. And I'm drinking tons of water - which my bathroom hates. And I have found favorites even: like today, I had a whole-wheat sandwich wrap with peanut butter (the recommended amount, which is actually a little more than I usually use and bananas, drizzled with a little bit of honey. With skim milk. Totally yummy.

Finally - how long does it take to see results? I am an American and I want, nay, I DEMAND, instant results!! I should have a flatter stomach and better thighs by now...urgh!

Getting in Shape: The Saga: Part 1

2010-03-07T12:39:00.001-08:00

I need some major fitness help. I can't seem to get any motivation. For a week and a half, I went swimming every day. Then, I had to take a break because of a stupid rash. I've been trying to walk more, which is fine, but doesn't seem to do much. Plus, I'm not great with dieting. I don't like the idea of living life always watching calories and not enjoying certain foods: cheeseburgers and pizza. It's just not a happy way to live. And I eat healthily for the most part: I don't eat cheeseburgers and pizza every week. I try to eat veggies and sushi, and fruit, except I'm sick of apples and oranges are usually too sour or acidic. (Excuses!). I've also almost completely given up soda and I rarely drink a lot of coffee. Not every day: sometimes I have a cup, sometimes more, but it's not all the time.

It's finally starting to get warmer outside, which means I'll be able to start running soon. I could even start running now, except I need to wait to buy my new running shoes - the ones that will, hopefully, not cause me to get shin splints this season. My goal is to work up to a half-marathon. Not that I am going to compete in one or anything, but just be able to run one once, by August or September.

I need a workout buddy. Does someone want to move up here and workout with me? Please?

Today, I am trying to relax and take a break from worrying about this. I have Girl Scout cookies! I'm not fat and I deserve Girl Scout cookies! And yet, I can not relax, because I'd like to lose a little weight and have somewhat buff arms by the time Nick and I go to Portland in two weeks. Clearly, to do that, I should not be eating thin mints!

Why does motivation take so much energy? It seems to take more energy to get motivated than to actually exercise.

Religion

2010-02-25T16:08:00.000-08:00

So, I've been reading a lot lately, because I'm in full-on learning mode. I think I need to take a class or something. It's weird not being in school, since I've been there 24 years or so...

And one of the books I've been re-skimming (since I read it a couple years ago) was Dan Barker's Losing Faith in Faith. I've lately been reflecting on religion in society, and politics, and in my life, and even in my friends' lives. It's an interesting conundrum, because religion, by its very nature, is somewhat comforting. As long as you blindly believe, pretty much, you don't have to worry about certain things: death, evil, meaning of life (sort of). So in a sense, it'd be easy to just choose some religion to become a part of: go back to Catholicism, become Wiccan, join the Episcopal church....

But rationalism just makes so much more SENSE! I remember never asking those questions that now I constantly wonder what the answer would have been had I asked...I can't even remember all those questions I had, when I was a kid. And when I think about it, my environment seemed to say, don't ask! Don't question! If you're scared of losing friends because you're thinking different thoughts or questioning things you just don't do it, you know?

Anyway, there's a question that Dan Barker put toward readers in his book, and I'm paraphrasing here:

Without the Laws of Moses, humans would be wandering around like little gods, stealing, raping, and spilling blood wherever vanity was offended? That question resonates with me - I think humans, for the most part, are basically good. We're not born evil, we're not born with "original sin," we're evolutionarily hardwired to be good to each other. So why do we need laws - of Moses, 10 Commandments, etc. But then I start thinking about all the things laws DO provide: civil rights, equality, figuring out messy situations, sometimes messily themselves. So I'm not inviting anarchy or anything...BUT...

I consider myself a good person. I give to charity. I try very hard to help people. I support causes I believe in, and love my family, and all sorts of things. And I do this NOT because I'm afraid if I don't I will go to hell, or because "god" told me to, or because if I do I will go to heaven. I do it because it's the right thing to do.

And here's something funny to end my weird musing: also from Dan Barker, which I just LOVE:

Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.

He also had a challenge, which I'm going to dig out my Bible to complete: where do these words appear in the Bible, if they do!?

trinity, Rapture, Second Coming, original sin, afterlife, deity, divinity, theology, monotheism, transcendence, omniscience, fundamentalist, evangelical, catholic, Christmas, Christianity, Purgatory, Infallibility, inerrancy, good Friday, Eucharist, chastity, dogma, capital punishment, abortion, ethics, morality, patriotism, education, democracy, capitalism, lesbian, homosexual, logic, fairness, Bible, unpardonable sin, pope, cardinal, the Lord's Prayer, doubting Thomas, catechism, transubstantiation, sermon, republic, apostasy, atheism, funeral, decalogue.

Reading

2010-02-22T16:13:00.000-08:00

What I'm Reading Now: I read several to many books at the same time, a mix of adult fiction/non-fiction and teen fiction/nonfiction, as well as children's books of all types. It's my job (and totally a pleasure) as a librarian! Duh!

The Left Hand of God by Michael Lerner
Going Bovine by Libba Bray
Family Tree by Barbara Delinsky
Comfort Food: Williams and Sonoma
Twelve Sharp by Janet Evanovich

What I've Just Finished Reading and Recommend!
Sexism in American by Barbara Berg
Framed: A Baby Blues Treasury (hilarious comics, I love these)
Going Rouge: An American Nightmare (which was hilarious!)by Richard Kim and Betsy Reed
Abortion: My Choice, God's Grace by Anne Eggebroten

I am also excited that one of my favorite characters will be returning in a new book in March! Totally buying the book - which is indeed special. I guess that's really all...I don't have much of a topic, I guess, but I'm always open to new ideas and to talking about these books, if any one else has read them!

Quiz!

2010-02-04T15:09:00.000-08:00

I passed this quiz, but barely. How well did you do?

How Much Do You Know?

Okay, so I'm a little bored. How about this quiz?

Are you?

The quiz site is Go To Quiz and I had a lot of fun just choosing a bunch of different ones. I wonder why taking quizzes like this is so much more fun than quizzes and tests in school. Weird!

My Only January Post

2010-01-29T11:21:00.001-08:00

Well, I was wrong - I can admit it. Ramee, you were right to have faith in a Kansas jury. It's good to know.
Kansas Juries DO Care about justice

In other news: I cut off all of my hair (okay, not all!). It's a "long bob" although not extremely long, and has some layers. Looks cute and ready for spring. I am hoping it will spur the weather on to get warmer. I am hoping to post some pictures here and on Facebook once I get some taken and uploaded to my computer.

How many of you readers were able to watch the State of the Union address? I had to work that night, so I missed it but I'm interested in hearing what you thought. Considering the problems this country has right now, I have to say, I am still very supportive of Obama. I knew solutions wouldn't come quickly. I wish some things had been taken care of, but then, I let my representatives know that, so I guess I've done all I can. Also, any thoughts on the resolution that is being introduced from some in the Republican party who want candidates to agree with 8 out of 10 of their positions, or not get funding. I think it's called the Reagan principles? Since I have some Republican friends and family; shocking I know!; I am really interested to see if they would be considered "true" Republicans. I don't think many would when it came down to the specifics involved in each of the principles, but I don't know. But it's an interesting thing to watch, in my opinion.

Also, I have been staying up with a new blog. It's funny and shocking and really interesting and I thought some of you might be interested.

Here's the link:
Remember OUR childhoods?

Home

2009-12-29T09:37:00.000-08:00

I think this will be a rather long post, since I have some stuff - even if it's semi-boring- to say.

N and I returned from Kansas the day before yesterday. Amazingly, we had clear roads and clear weather the entire way. We must have gotten lucky, because when we left on the 19th we missed all the bad weather, and the same thing happened on our way home.
It was a busy and fun week. It's always amazing to me how quickly our visits back to Kansas go - we had a whole week and yet when we got back on Sunday, it felt like we'd never even left. Christmas always goes too fast. This was our last Christmas in Andale, I think, since we usually congregate at my brother's house, and they're moving to western Kansas. I got some great gifts, and I think gave some great gifts so that was nice. And basically, N and I just hung out with family and enjoyed not having to work. I got to see my nephew's basketball game, and played a lot with my younger nephews. It was sad that my sister and bro-in-law and their two girls couldn't make it down, we missed them.
I was very happy to be able to get lunch with my oldest girlfriends - even though it always seems so short, because we all have places to be and people to see. But it's always so great to see them.
I'm working on getting laundry done and the apartment cleaned up a bit so things are more in order - have to find space for new things and move some older things around. Isn't that always the way?
I am still addicted to HGTV and the Food network, but cable is so expensive that I don't think I'll be able to feed my addiction anytime soon: I will have to stick with my books and DVDs. I really want to start cooking, thanks to watching all those cooking shows.
And, see, I was wrong - it's not a long post, but it IS kind of boring.
Happy New Year's readers, and don't drink and drive!

It's Almost Christmas!

2009-12-15T10:54:00.000-08:00

YAY! I love Christmas - I love the lights, I love the decorations, I love the music, I love giving and getting gifts. Today, I pulled out N's stocking and tried to find mine (it has sentimental meaning, since my mom made it) but couldn't find it - meaning it's hidden in some box in a corner somewhere, laughing as I try to figure out which one. After Christmas, I'm going to have to go through everything and label the boxes precisely with my ultra-cool label maker. But I digress.

Will be coming to Kansas for the holidays and get to see my family; so exciting! I'll hopefully be able to catch my nephew's last basketball game at Andale (they're moving) and hang out with all the kiddos. This year, I have two new nieces and a new nephew to spoil - thanks to Nick and us getting married and all. It's so much fun to tell people, when they ask how many nieces and nephews I have, that I have 9! They're so surprised. Yesterday, a patron commented that I looked too young to have that many. I was very gratified, since I know I'm starting to look older.

I am also excited about seeing my friends and eating great pizza - yes, in that order, but only slightly, since I LOVE Gambino's pizza! I totally miss it, since we don't have one in Iowa. And my family always has great food, so my fitness classes will come in handy after Christmas: I'm taking three: yoga, cardio, and aqua aerobics. I'm very excited about it, because I won't have excuses to not exercise.

Anyway, though somewhat pointless, my blog is now new. And has a far lighter topic.

Happy Holidays!
Happy Winter Solstice!
Merry Christmas!
Happy Hanukkah!
Merry Ramadan!! - Is that even correct?

Quotes I'm Thinking about Now

2009-12-02T08:24:00.000-08:00

"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." - Florynce Kennedy

"A myth is a religion in which no one any longer believes." - James Feibleman

"Human beings are the only creatures that allow their children to come back home." - Bill Cosby

"Just think of the tragedy of teaching children' not to doubt." - Clarence Darrow

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go further." Richard Dawkins

"In literature as in love, we are astonished at what is chosen by others." - Andre Maurois

"It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by a resort to mathematics, though she is still forbidden to resort to physics or chemistry." - H.L. Mencken

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same god who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." Gallileo Galilei

"Always be a first-rate version of yourself, instead of a second-rate version of somebody else." - Judy Garland

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain

Mandatory Counseling BEFORE Getting Pregnant

2009-11-05T11:13:00.000-08:00

I was thinking about abortion, choice, life, all that today - I got drawn into a debate on this major anti-choice website. I usually try to avoid it - trying to reason with many of the commenters on sites like that is like banging your head against a wall. Mainly cause they twist what I'm saying and are really talented at doing so. Anyway...one of the things that came up was laws about mandatory counseling before an abortion. Personally, making sure a woman knows everything isn't a problem - what's a problem is the wait-period...and assuming that women don't ALREADY know these things or WON'T ASK or something....but still. I was thinking of that and then thought that perhaps, before a woman gets pregnant - or starts trying- there should be mandatory counseling about the risks of pregnancy. So I looked them up. Some I already knew, some are really rare, etc. But anyway - I thought I'd post a list. I think women should know everything they need before they decide to try for a pregnancy. (By the way, I've been thinking about the whole pregnancy thing for awhile now and even with all these risks, I STILL want to try eventually...I wonder what that says about the whole mandatory counseling thing, other than that's it's an inconvenience? Just a spare thought)....

Sorry for the wall of text:

Normal, frequent, or expectable side effects of pregnancy:
exhaustion, altered appetite and senses of taste and smell, nausea and vomiting, heartburn and indigestion, weight gain, dizziness and light-headedness, bloating, swelling, fluid retention, hemmorhoids, cramps, yeast infections, congestion, bloody nose, acne and mild skin disorders, skin discolorations, mild to severe backache and strain, increased headaches, difficulty sleeping and discomfort while sleeping, increased urination and incontinence, bleeding gums, pica, breast pain and discharge, swelling of joint and join pain, leg cramps, difficulty sitting, inability to take regular medications, shortness of breath, higher blood pressure, hair loss, tendency to anemia, curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities, infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease (immune suppression during pregnancy) extreme pain on delivery! hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression, continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (especially for c-sections)

Normal, expectable or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:
stretch marks, loose skin, permanent weight gain or redistribution, abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness, pelvic floor disorder, changes to breasts, varicose veins, scarring from episiotomy or c-section, other pemanent aesthetic changes to the body, increased proclivity for hemmorhoids, loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)

Occasional complication and side effects:
spousal/partner abuse, hyperemesis gravidarum, temporary and permanent back injury, severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after multiple pregnancies), dropped uterus (especially after multiple pregnancies) pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, gestational diabetes, placenta previa, anemia, thrombocytopenic purpura, severe cramping, embolism, medical disability requiring full bed-rest, diastasis recti and torn abdominal muscles, mitral valve stenosis, serious infection and disease, ectopic pregnancy (risk of death) broken bones, hemorrhage, delivery complication, refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease, aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions, severe post-partum depression and psychosis, ovarian cancer( from fertility treatments) coronary and cardiovascular disease (6 plus pregnancies)

Less common complications:
peripartum cardiomyopathy, cardiopulmonary arrest, magnesium toxicity, severe hypoxemia/acidosis, massive embolism, increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction, molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease, malignant arrhythmia, circulatory collapse, placental abruption, obstetric fistula

More permanent side effects:
future infertility, permanent disability, death.

Random Thoughts

2009-10-24T09:50:00.000-07:00

I read this very interesting opinion in the New York Times the other day; the guy was arguing that Republicans are basically voting against anything Obama or the Democrats write (bill-wise, etc.) merely because of a form of sour grapes - ie. because Obama likes it, than it's clearly bad - even if it's something that might be good for the country. I thought it was an interesting idea. I mean, politics is messy and requires compromise, something that a lot of people have trouble with, even me, when it comes to certain things/issues. But compromise also requires BOTH sides to be willing to discuss, and debate, and argue the merits of their idea and then come to a conclusion that either makes both sides NOT want to vomit, or at least that both sides than say, okay, this is the best we can do. But if the Republicans (and even Democrats, I'm not saying it's only one party) just say no outright merely because Obama is promoting it, that means our government isn't really working. I think that's sad. I realize that a lot of people are firmly against some things: healthcare, taxes, the war, etc. or for some things....but well, you can't always get your way. Aren't we all supposed to have learned that in kindergarten?

My job is going really awesome. I absolutely love being a children's librarian - although I am working a lot of hours in circulation. But I think that's good, because I get to meet a lot of people and start to know familiar faces. Always important for someone dealing with the public.

I'm doing a lot of research and reading in preparation for writing. Some of my favorite authors (the ones that are alive and can give advice) say that writing about what you're interested in and would like to read is the best way to finish. So I'm taking their advice and have started on a campaign of reading lots of nonfiction and finding out about things. It's kinda fun actually. Normally, I read a lot of fiction - and I'm still doing that. But I'd forgotten how much fun it is to just learn and read about things for no particular reason: it's not for class, or research for a paper, or a presentation. It's just cause I think it'd be cool to learn more about say, architecture or hauntings....

N and I have been looking at houses lately - a lot of the ones we like (shocker!) are out of our price range...but then, we're pretty picky and we want something we'll really love, not just something that fits for right now. Of course, we're not quite needing a house, but we wanted to get started on our research and find out what's out there, the prices and what we can get for that, all that fun stuff.

Also, I just read this great story - definitely an example of free-range parenting (you know, the non-controlling, helicopter parenting so prevalent today) and I just loved it. Thought I'd share, in case none of you saw it.

see the story here

Something

2009-08-02T20:08:00.000-07:00

I am inspired by Kristi (and so excited that she posted) so I thought I'd post too. I have a lot of things happening in my life: I'm graduating, I'm moving, I'm starting a new job, and of course, Nick and I have great news!

1) I can't wait to be back in Iowa: this last year has been a lot harder than I thought!

2) I really do wish I had a million dollars. I have to be very specific: I want a million dollars, or else I want to be a multi-billionaire. So I'm aiming low with my wish.

3) I miss living close to girl friends...I don't think I'm as good at making close friends as I used to be, or else I'm just very, very particular.

4) Trying to keep up with politics and the issues I'm interested in is a lot harder now that I am packing, organizing, moving, starting a new job, and graduating. I'm lucky to catch up on Jon Stewart!

Dave Barry

2009-07-28T21:23:00.000-07:00

College is basically a bunch of rooms where you sit for roughly two thousand hours and try to memorize things. The two thousand hours are spread out over four years; you spend the rest of the time sleeping and trying to get dates.

Basically, you learn two kinds of things in college:

1. Things you will need to know in later life (two hours).
2. Things you will not need to know in later life (1,998 hours).

These are the things you learn in classes whose names end in -ology, -osophy, -istry, -ics, and so on. The idea is, you memorize these things, then write them down in little exam books, then forget them. If you fail to forget them, you become a professor and have to stay in college for the rest of your life.

It's very difficult to forget everything. For example, when I was in college, I had to memorize -- don't ask me why -- the names of three metaphysical poets other than John Donne. I have managed to forget one of them, but I still remember that the other two were named Vaughan and Crashaw. Sometimes, when I'm trying to remember something important like whether my wife told me to get tuna packed in oil or tuna packed in water, Vaughan and Crashaw just pop up in my mind, right there in the supermarket. It's a terrible waste of brain cells.

After you've been in college for a year or so, you're supposed to choose a major, which is the subject you intend to memorize and forget the most things about. Here is a very important piece of advice: be sure to choose a major that does not involve Known Facts and Right Answers. This means you must not major in mathematics, physics, biology, or chemistry, because these subjects involve actual facts. If, for example, you major in mathematics, you're going to wander into class one day and the professor will say: "Define the cosine integer of the quadrant of a rhomboid binary axis, and extrapolate your result to five significant vertices." If you don't come up with exactly the answer the professor has in mind, you fail. The same is true of chemistry: if you write in your exam book that carbon and hydrogen combine to form oak, your professor will flunk you. He wants you to come up with the same answer he and all the other chemists have agreed on.

Scientists are extremely snotty about this.

So you should major in subjects like English, philosophy, psychology, and sociology -- subjects in which nobody really understands what anybody else is talking about, and which involve virtually no actual facts. I attended classes in all these subjects, so I'll give you a quick overview of each:

ENGLISH: This involves writing papers about long books you have read little snippets of just before class. Here is a tip on how to get good grades on your English papers: Never say anything about a book that anybody with any common sense would say. For example, suppose you are studying Moby-Dick. Anybody with any common sense would say that Moby-Dick is a big white whale, since the characters in the book refer to it as a big white whale roughly eleven thousand times. So in your paper, you say Moby-Dick is actually the Republic of Ireland.

Your professor, who is sick to death of reading papers and never liked Moby-Dick anyway, will think you are enormously creative. If you can regularly come up with lunatic interpretations of simple stories, you should major in English.

PHILOSOPHY: Basically, this involves sitting in a room and deciding there is no such thing as reality and then going to lunch. You should major in philosophy if you plan to take a lot of drugs.

PSYCHOLOGY: This involves talking about rats and dreams. Psychologists are obsessed with rats and dreams. I once spent an entire semester training a rat to punch little buttons in a certain sequence, then training my roommate to do the same thing. The rat learned much faster. My roommate is now a doctor. If you like rats or dreams, and above all if you dream about rats, you should major in psychology.

SOCIOLOGY: For sheer lack of intelligibility, sociology is far and away the number one subject. I sat through hundreds of hours of sociology courses, and read gobs of sociology writing, and I never once heard or read a coherent statement. This is because sociologists want to be considered scientists, so they spend most of their time translating simple, obvious observations into scientific-sounding code. If you plan to major in sociology, you'll have to learn to do the same thing. For example, suppose you have observed that children cry when they fall down. You should write: "Methodological observation of the sociometrical behavior tendencies of prematurated isolates indicates that a casual relationship exists between groundward tropism and lachrimatory, or 'crying,' behavior forms." If you can keep this up for fifty or sixty pages, you will get a large government grant.

Star Trek

2009-07-19T11:08:00.000-07:00

I read this article in Humanist this month and I thought it was pretty interesting. I have never thought about Star Trek (any of them) in this capacity before...but now I've got a lot to think about. Sorry it's so long.

Star Trek Made Me an Atheist

Published in the July/August 2009 Humanist

Growing up, my parents were very strict. On Friday nights I had to be in bed by 10 pm. My mother would tuck me in, turn off the light, and close the door. I would lie under the covers until I heard her settled back into the living room. Then I would slide out of bed, tiptoe to the door, and quietly turn the lock. I knew what I was about to do was wrong and I was embarrassed and worried that my parents might walk in on me. Still, I couldn’t help myself. I snuck over to the other side of the room and switched on the black-and-white TV. So as not to be discovered I would turn the volume down as low as it would go and press my ear up to the tiny speaker. It was Friday evening in 1967, and I would tune in to NBC to watch my favorite television show, Star Trek.

[Warning: the following article is overflowing with geekiness. Further reading could result in unnaturally splayed fingers, pointed ears, or any manner of themed costuming.]

I was in line the other day waiting to see the new Star Trek movie and it got me thinking about the good old days of science fiction films. Back then special effects looked cheap, and it was always hit or miss as to whether they would work. More often than not a pie tin hanging from a string to simulate a flying saucer looked, well, like a pie tin hanging from a string. So the people who filmed science fiction (otherwise known as sci-fi or SF) couldn’t rely on computer-generated eye candy to keep audiences awake. Instead they had to rely on something completely different—good writing.

There were a number of things that drew me to the Star Trek TV series, not the least of which were the short skirts on the female crew members. And of course there were the characters... mainly Spock. Although Captain James T. Kirk was obviously the star of the show, for me Spock was the real center of the Star Trek universe. Leonard Nimoy’s pointy-eared alien made a big impression on me. Week after week no matter how many times he was chastised, harassed, or ridiculed, this level-headed alien would continue espousing reason and logic above everything else. And the really amazing thing about it was that, week after week, he was always proven right.

To be fair, Shatner’s Kirk was interesting also. Not because of that amazing dropkick that he seemed to work into every episode but because of the pride he brought to his character. He not only had pride in his ship, and his mission but, because this was outer space, he also projected a pride in his species, in being a human being.

Now science fiction movies are mostly just shoot-‘em-ups, but back in the day sci-fi was a medium to explore social issues. SF allowed us to examine the core elements of controversial issues without all the emotional baggage that went along with them. It’s easy to dismiss the genre when you have grown-up fans walking around in costumes and silver make-up, but SF employs disarming tools to tease core arguments from their tired rhetoric. Here pundits, smoke screens, and slogans are stripped away and we see a subject as though for the first time. We get to test whether the rules we create to guide our lives work in any world or are just arbitrary constructs. And back in the late 1960s, no science fiction did this better then Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek, TOS (that’s “the original series” for those who actually dated in high school.)

Take the issue of Vietnam. It's an understatement to say that back then it was hard for people to look at the Vietnam war objectively; on one side you had Jane Fonda, on the other Richard Nixon. (I don’t know about you but when I was a young boy, images of both of them used to get my blood pumping, albeit in completely different ways.) Put the issue on an alien planet and set up the plot so the Klingons are arming one side, the Federation the other, and an innocent, naïve alien species is in the middle. It becomes easy to see that simply arming both sides to the teeth is not the answer.

Consider too how complicated the subject of race relations was four decades ago. Star Trek simplified it for me. When a conflict between black-and-white striped aliens erupts onto the bridge of the Enterprise the absurdity of racism is dramatically illustrated. At the end of the episode, it’s revealed that the only reason these two “races” so vehemently hate each other is because one of them is black on the right side and the other black on the left. Sure it’s silly, but in a time when laws were still on the books in the United States preventing interracial couples from marrying, you couldn’t blame the writers of Star Trek for being heavy handed.

On the subject of faith, Trek had a very clear position. Of everything in my past, it is this one show that I most credit for being able to identify myself as an atheist. There was a recurring plotline in so many episodes that it almost became a running theme—some all-powerful being would set itself up as God but would eventually turn out to be nothing more than an advanced alien or megalomaniacal computer. As a little kid watching episodes like “Return of the Archons” and “The Apple,” I learned that it wasn't enough to have faith in something just because everyone else around you did. I learned there might be truths outside one’s own society—heavy stuff for a seven-year-old.

In an episode called “The Squire of Gothos,” actor William Campbell played one of these all-powerful beings. Even though his powers were limitless he was the bad guy. In other words, all-powerful did not automatically equal all good. Captain Kirk decides to oppose this being, even though the alien seems unstoppable. In the end this superbeing turns out to be nothing more than a child, and his parents show up just in time to put an end to his antics. Now consider the message: it doesn’t matter if you are all powerful. If you’re doing something wrong, you’re doing something wrong, and should be opposed. No matter what the consequence. Wow. This wasn't what I was being taught in my catechism classes.

And so as a boy I found it increasingly hard to understand why Christians weren’t acting the way Kirk and Spock were. If there was a God, some being causing earthquakes and hurling hurricanes, why wouldn’t Christians (or Jews or Muslims for that matter) fight against such a being? What I was learning on Star Trek seemed more moral to me than what I was learning in church. As I got older and learned more about suffering around the world, the more I wondered why religious people didn’t oppose such a cruel God. These holy men should be up in arms, I thought. If they were faithful Star Trek watchers, they would be trying to build some sort of giant phaser to take him out.

And even at seven I was smart enough to know that God doesn’t get a pass by saying he didn’t cause the terrible things that were happening in the world. If you can stop something from happening and you choose not to, it’s as bad as causing it. (I learned that from my mom when I sat watching my dog eat an entire pan of lasagna off the kitchen counter while my family was all in the other room.) Why were priests and rabbis afraid, I'd wonder, just because this “God” of theirs was powerful? Didn't religious people think someplace out in the vastness of the universe there might be a mommy and daddy god having a much needed night on the town, destined to return at the last minute to whisk away this naughty child calling himself god with a capital G and return the world to its normal conditions?

One of my favorite episodes of the original Star Trek was called, “Who Mourns for Adonis?” In it we discover that the Olympians of Greek mythology were actually alien space travelers mistaken for gods by the simple shepherds and tribesman living in the Mediterranean around 3000 BCE. Considering that Erich von Däniken’s Chariots of the Gods? hadn’t been published yet, this was mind blowing enough for me.

Far out in space, the crew of the Enterprise stumbles on the last of these advanced aliens. Lonely and temperamental, Apollo is the personification of an ancient god, loving one second, vengeful the next. At first this immortal being offers the Enterprise crew everything they could possibly want. He creates paradise for them on his planet. In return he asks that the crew stay on the planet and worship him for the rest of their lives—a few burnt offerings once in a while, that’s all. If they do this they get Eden. If they don’t, Apollo will crush their ship like a tin can. (That’s a god for you.)

Brawny actor Michael Forest was well cast as Apollo. It’s interesting that he chose to play this all-powerful being with a slight air of befuddlement, as though Apollo—revered as a supreme being 5,000 years ago—is incapable of understanding this twenty-third century breed of human.

But the character who most caught my eye was Lieutenant Palamas, an anthropologist played by Leslie Parrish who finds herself strongly drawn to this mythological god. The main struggle in this episode isn’t really between a Greek god and the crew of the Enterprise, but rather between Kirk and Palamas. It’s the conversations between the two of them, eerily similar to dialogs I was having with my own Christian school mates, that I found most engaging:

(PALAMAS)
I have a message for you…He wants us to live in peace. He wants to provide for us. He’ll give us everything we ever wanted.

(KIRK)
…Accept him and you condemn all of us to slavery…nothing less than slavery…Or perhaps the thought of spending an eternity bending knee and attending sheep appeals to you?

It’s the classic contrast between people who are willing to give up everything, even their own freedom, to be taken care of, verses people who think freedom is the most important thing there is. Kirk explains to Palamas that he has a plan to get them off the planet but it involves her betraying Apollo and turning her back on this alien with whom she has become infatuated. Palamas asks how she could even consider doing such a thing. That’s when Kirk delivers one of those powerful monologues that defined the series:

(KIRK)
Give me your hand…we’re the same. We share the same history, the same heritage, the same lives. We’re tied together beyond any untying. Man or woman, it makes no difference, we’re human. We couldn’t escape from each other even if we wanted to. That’s how you do it, lieutenant, by remembering who and what you are: a bit of flesh and blood afloat in a universe without end. And the only thing that’s truly yours is the rest of humanity. That’s where our duty lies!

That really stuck with me, the idea that in this world, we—all of us—have to help each other because as specks afloat in the universe all we have is each other. And smack dab in the middle of that speech is the wonderfully egalitarian line “we’re human,” read with pride and that distinctive Shatner punch.

In the end, with Palamas’s help, the crew defeats Apollo and escapes. The next morning I thought about that episode. When you change it from a god with a small g to the God with a capital G it’s easy to see the meaning: better a free man in hell then a slave in heaven. Not only didn’t I have to trudge through Milton’s Paradise Lost to get that message but I got to watch attractive women in togas that looked like they would fall off at any moment. Star Trek was good.

When the show was canceled I was disappointed and when the first movie came along I was disappointed again. Then came TNG (that’s Star Trek, The Next Generation for those who dated in college). This time it was the Data character (played by Brent Spiner) who got me hooked. Here was an android, this super being, and he wanted to be human—with all our frailties and foibles. It was Roddenberry at the top of his game, giving us a logic machine that concluded it was logical to strive to achieve something it knew it could never achieve. Talk about a symbol for humanity. Aren’t we all at our best when we're striving for unattainable goals, knowing that it is the act of striving that makes us better people?

On top of this, TNG featured Captain Jean-Luc Picard (played by Patrick Stewart) who possessed an absolutely clear moral compass despite the absence of any religious beliefs whatsoever. While that series was running there wasn’t a week that went by that I didn’t ask myself, “WWPD?” (What would Picard do?)

The new series even had a semi-regular all-powerful being. John de Lancie mastered the mischievous and often malevolent character “Q” in many episodes, and in each, humanity’s relationship with omnipotence was explored in new and different ways. This relationship was complicated, and subtle. It was not a parent-child relationship. There was no worshiping and devotion, and certainly no blind faith.

Roddenberry and Star Trek were back, tackling other big issues like homosexuality and gender, how we treated our Vietnam vets, substance abuse and the responsibility of the enabler, even the meaning of reality itself. TNG even chimed in on abortion. In the episode “The Child,” one of the crew members is impregnated with an alien child without her permission. The conference room is abuzz with discussion as to whether the unborn alien should be aborted or not. Opinions on the situation are flying left and right. Everyone is arguing a position, until the pregnant crew member quietly announces she's keeping the child. At that moment the conversations all end because the person carrying the unborn child has made her choice.

What the religious right should have been doing all these years is watching more Star Trek. I’d recommend every episode of TOS and TNG with a small smattering of Voyager. Don’t bother with Deep Space 9; they went soft on religion. Enterprise is also pretty good and not just because of Jolene Blalok, playing the sexy Vulcan. (I have a thing for women with pointy ears. Is that weird? My wife thinks so. And, again, for those with active social lives who had no idea there were this many iterations of Star Trek this all probably falls under the category of “too much information.”) Enterprise really tried hard to put humanism back in the show, to explore what it means to be a member of a strange species.

Unfortunately, by the time Enterprise came along the franchise was showing its age. Scripts were becoming predictable (I mean even more predictable then the usual predictable scripts). And Trek’s own history was starting to choke its plot lines. Writers had to keep checking to make sure they weren't contradicting something that happened in, say, episode 42 of the third season of DS9. The franchise was dying quickly and in the tenth movie, Nemesis, Picard’s evil twin finally killed it. It was a box office flop.

This brings us to the new movie, released in May of this year. I have to admit I was wary. For one, the director tapped to resurrect Star Trek, J.J. Abrams, wasn’t known for issue-driven stories. And what the franchise needed was a reboot. But how do you re-imagine a show whose fans consider every previous manifestation of it to be sacred text? In addition how do you reintroduce Star Trek’s idealism to a new audience, one that is jaded by dark knights and chainsaw-wielding villains?

This film takes place while young Kirk and Spock are still in the Starfleet Academy. All the actors selected to portray the young versions of the original Enterprise crew do a great job. Chris Pine is sufficiently hammy enough as Kirk to fill the shoes of that magnificent paradigm of manhood William Shatner. Karl Urban is spot on as the cranky Dr. McCoy, giving a cantankerous voice to humanity’s emotional side. And Zachary Quinto skillfully dons the pointy ears, perhaps “out-Spocking” Nimoy himself. His performance is enhanced by the fact that in this Star Trek, Vulcans achieve their wholly logical minds not because they are void of emotion but because they have chosen to control their emotions.

[SPOILER ALERT: if you haven’t seen the movie yet, the following paragraphs contain specific plot details.] The movie begins with a catastrophic event described by one of the film’s writers, Alex Kurtzman (along with Roberto Orci), as the movie’s 9-11. The disaster inadvertently sends the main villain, an evil Romulan named Nero (played by Eric Bana), into the past. There Nero kills Kirk’s father just after Kirk is born, inadvertently changing history and thereby presenting us with an alternate timeline for the entire Trek franchise.

Thematically the film is all about choices. Over and over, characters are faced with making choices that will not only shape the direction of their own lives but also the direction of the entire world around them. For Kirk the moment of truth comes after losing a particularly nasty bar fight. He is given a choice to continue on the self-destructive path his life has taken as a result of his father’s death, or make something of himself by joining the Starfleet. For Spock it’s the moment he must choose between the Starfleet or the Vulcan Science Academy, where he is told he’s been accepted despite the handicap of being half human. In another instance cadet Kirk is presented with a computer simulation that doesn’t allow for the opportunity to win. Confronted with this no-win scenario, Kirk chooses to reprogram the computers thereby giving him the choice of victory. At the climax of the film, even the bad guy Nero is given the option of being saved by the Enterprise or being crushed to death in a black hole. (You probably have a problem when you can’t see a clear choice there.) So, in the end it is the individuals who weigh the options, who deny fate, and take control of their own destiny who come out ahead. Those who are slaves to the past get crushed in black holes.

The neat thing about this theme is that it’s exactly the gift director Abrams has given to himself. By creating a story in which all the future events of the Trek universe have been wiped away, he can now make the future of Star Trek whatever he wants. Just like the characters in his film, Abrams has gone into the past and changed history. And the message we can take from this is that despite all the disasters and all the incorrect choices we make directly after catastrophic events, we are not controlled by history. We can change direction (I’m talking to you, George W. Bush). We can improve our chances.

In short, this might not be the most cerebral Star Trek ever written but it has re-energized the franchise and presented us hope for the future.

When you first watch Star Trek it’s this campy sci-fi show that occasionally takes some not-so-subtle potshots at religion. At a very young age it made me question the nature of God even to the point of questioning his (her or its) very existence. And it showed me that those questions were okay to pose, that there were other people out there like me, asking the same questions. But then Roddenberry’s campy little show goes so much farther. It explores what it means to be human. It is a message of hope for the future of our species and an expression of pride in all of humanity. Through it, I learned that although people aren’t perfect, it is that striving to be better (the voyage) that makes us special. The show helped me realize that I control my own future—me, a speck in the universe. I began to understand that each and every person posseses potential, that within all of us there is the seed of greatness waiting to be nurtured, and that someday we may each be able to tap into that potential greatness, that…humanity. (I hope you read that last line the way Shatner would have.)

Nick Farrantello lives, works, and continues to embarrass his wife in Orlando, Florida.

© 2009, American Humanist Association

Funny

2009-07-09T19:31:00.001-07:00

I wish I had a response like this when my ex-husband would bring up this topic. Debates would have been much more interesting (and still way too easy for me......hee.

Randomness

2009-06-25T15:59:00.000-07:00

I honestly have no topic to post, but I'm getting a little tired of seeing my last post so I'm going to try for some kind of random writing - I've heard that just randomly writing things is good practice for all writing, and one of my goals is to get a book or two published (yes, I'm writing now, but it's too soon to really talk about) so I will practice.

School has already started and it's already crazy busy. I forgot to take into account that the summer semester, because it's shorter, will also be busier - assignments still have to be done, but done in weeks rather than months. Actually, this might be good for me, because I tend to procrastinate and this way I have to get things done sooner rather than later. So maybe it will help me break that bad habit. I love my classes - I'm taking three (which apparently is a lot for summer (everyone seems really impressed when I tell them this) and they're all interesting and going to be a great help when I start a "real" job. My favorite is definitely my children's nonfiction, mainly because most of the class are friends (or at least friendly) so I know them and feel comfortable talking and discussing things and mainly because the instructor is AWESOME! She's hilariously funny and very excited about things and just helps make the class fun as well as practical. Today we watched a video about hobbits - the REAL hobbits, not the Tolkien ones. And if anyone is interested, I suggest you search for the Wikipedia entry on Homo Floresias (I have no idea if this spelling is correct, but I know it's close).

I get to see my boyfriend next weekend over the 4th of July, and my friend Ramee is visiting very soon after that and we're going to the midnight premier of the new Harry Potter movie! YAY!

I have someone interested in subleasing my apartment, and despite having to go through a major cleaning fit in the next few days, I'm very hopeful they will like it and take it!

There are two sites I visit every day and one is becoming so hateful and toxic it makes me glad NOT to be associated with the people who post and comment on that particular blog site. Perhaps I'm taking it personally; but I've cut down my visits - the hatefulness and what, in my opinion, is very unintelligent comments all masquerading as a "discussion" is kind of addictive. So I'm glad that I'm weaning myself off of it.

So, that's pretty much it. I promised to write more about my life, and I did.

Abortion: "Morally Equivalent" Doesn't Mean "Politically Equivalent"

2009-06-19T11:31:00.001-07:00

I thought this was interesting...Klein has some pretty interesting articles. Sometimes I don't agree with him, but I think that's sort of the point here. And I promise to post something about what's happening in my life once it actually settles down enough for me to reflect a bit.

Abortion: "Morally Equivalent" Doesn't Mean "Politically Equivalent"

Posted using ShareThis

This Is So Sad

2009-06-12T16:08:00.000-07:00

ESSAY | summer 2004

* This essay was nominated as a National Magazine Awards finalist. Congratulations to Martha Mendoza.

Between a Woman and Her Doctor
A Story About Abortion You Will Never Forget
by Martha Mendoza

I could see my baby's amazing and perfect spine, a precise, pebbled curl of vertebrae. His little round skull. The curve of his nose. I could even see his small leg floating slowly through my uterus.

My doctor came in a moment later, slid the ultrasound sensor around my growing, round belly and put her hand on my shoulder. “It’s not alive,” she said.

She turned her back to me and started taking notes. I looked at the wall, breathing deeply, trying not to cry.

I can make it through this, I thought. I can handle this.

I didn’t know I was about to become a pariah.

I was 19 weeks pregnant, strong, fit and happy, imagining our fourth child, the newest member of our family. He would have dark hair and bright eyes. He’d be intelligent and strong — really strong, judging by his early kicks.

And now this. Not alive?

I didn’t realize that pressures well beyond my uterus, beyond the too bright, too-loud, too-small ultrasound room, extending all the way to boardrooms of hospitals, administrative sessions at medical schools and committee hearings in Congress, were going to deepen and expand my sorrow and pain.

On November 6, 2003, President Bush signed what he called a “partial birth abortion ban,” prohibiting doctors from committing an “overt act” designed to kill a partially delivered fetus. The law, which faces vigorous challenges, is the most significant change to the nation’s abortion laws since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled abortion legal in Roe v. Wade in 1973. One of the unintended consequences of this new law is that it put people in my position, with a fetus that is already dead, in a technical limbo.

Legally, a doctor can still surgically take a dead body out of a pregnant woman. But in reality, the years of angry debate that led to the law’s passage, restrictive state laws and the violence targeting physicians have reduced the number of hospitals and doctors willing to do dilations and evacuations (D&Es) and dilations and extractions (intact D&Es), which involve removing a larger fetus, sometimes in pieces, from the womb.

At the same time, fewer medical schools are training doctors to do these procedures. After all, why spend time training for a surgery that’s likely to be made illegal?

At this point, 74 percent of obstetrics and gynecology residency programs do not train all residents in abortion procedures, according to reproductive health researchers at the National Abortion Federation. Those that do usually teach only the more routine dilation and curettage — D&C, the 15-minute uterine scraping used for abortions of fetuses under 13 weeks old.

Fewer than 7 percent of obstetricians are trained to do D&Es, the procedure used on fetuses from about 13 to 19 weeks. Almost all the doctors doing them are over 50 years old.

“Finding a doctor who will do a D&E is getting very tough,” says Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers.

My doctor turned around and faced me. She told me that because dilation and evacuation is rarely offered in my community, I could opt instead to chemically induce labor over several days and then deliver the little body at my local maternity ward. “It’s up to you,” she said.

I’d been through labor and delivery three times before, with great joy as well as pain, and the notion of going through that profound experience only to deliver a dead fetus (whose skin was already starting to slough off, whose skull might be collapsing) was horrifying.

I also did some research, spoke with friends who were obstetricians and gynecologists, and quickly learned this: Study after study shows D&Es are safer than labor and delivery. Women who had D&Es were far less likely to have bleeding requiring transfusion, infection requiring intravenous antibiotics, organ injuries requiring additional surgery or cervical laceration requiring repair and hospital readmission.

A review of 300 second- trimester abortions published in 2002 in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology found that 29 percent of women who went through labor and delivery had complications, compared with just 4 percent of those who had D&Es.

The American Medical Association said D&Es, compared to labor and delivery, “may minimize trauma to the woman’s uterus, cervix and other vital organs.”

There was this fact, too: The intact D&E surgery makes less use of “grasping instruments,” which could damage the body of the fetus. If the body were intact, doctors might be able to more easily figure out why my baby died in the womb.

I’m a healthy person. I run, swim and bike. I’m 37 years old and optimistic. Good things happen to me. I didn’t want to rule out having more kids, but I did want to know what went wrong before I tried again.

We told our doctor we had chosen a dilation and evacuation.

“I can’t do these myself,” said my doctor. “I trained at a Catholic hospital.”

My doctor recommended a specialist in a neighboring county, but when I called for an appointment, they said they couldn’t see me for almost a week.

I could feel my baby’s dead body inside of mine. This baby had thrilled me with kicks and flutters, those first soft tickles of life bringing a smile to my face and my hand to my rounding belly. Now this baby floated, limp and heavy, from one side to the other, as I rolled in my bed.

And within a day, I started to bleed. My body, with or without a doctor’s help, was starting to expel the fetus. Technically, I was threatening a spontaneous abortion, the least safe of the available options.

I did what any pregnant patient would do. I called my doctor. And she advised me to wait.

I lay in my bed, not sleeping day or night, trying not to lose this little baby’s body that my own womb was working to expel. Wait, I told myself. Just hold on. Let a doctor take this out.

I was scared. Was it going to fall out of my body when I rose, in the middle of the night, to check on my toddler? Would it come apart on its own and double me over, knock me to the floor, as I stood at the stove scrambling eggs for my boys?

On my fourth morning, with the bleeding and cramping increasing, I couldn’t wait any more. I called my doctor and was told that since I wasn’t hemorrhaging, I should not come in. Her partner, on call, pedantically explained that women can safely lose a lot of blood, even during a routine period.

I began calling labor and delivery units at the top five medical centers in my area. I told them I had been 19 weeks along. The baby is dead. I’m bleeding, I said. I’m scheduled for a D&E in a few days. If I come in right now, what could you do for me, I asked.

Don’t come in, they told me again and again. “Go to your emergency room if you are hemorrhaging to avoid bleeding to death. No one here can do a D&E today, and unless you’re really in active labor you’re safer to wait.”

More than 66,000 women each year in the U.S. undergo an abortion at some point between 13 and 20 weeks, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC doesn’t specify the physical circumstances of the women or their fetuses. Other CDC data shows that 4,000 women miscarry in their second trimester. Again, the data doesn’t clarify whether those 4,000 women have to go through surgery.

Here’s what is clear: Most of those women face increasingly limited access to care. One survey showed that half of the women who got abortions after 15 weeks of gestation said they were delayed because of problems in affording, finding or getting to abortion services.

No surprise there; abortion is not readily available in 86 percent of the counties in the U.S.

Although there are some new, early diagnostic tests available, the most common prenatal screening for neural tube defects or Down syndrome is done around the 16th week of pregnancy. When problems are found — sometimes life-threatening problems — pregnant women face the same limited options that I did.

At last I found one university teaching hospital that, at least over the telephone, was willing to take me.

“We do have one doctor who can do a D&E,” they said. “Come in to our emergency room if you want.”

But when I arrived at the university’s emergency room, the source of the tension was clear. After examining me and confirming I was bleeding but not hemorrhaging, the attending obstetrician, obviously pregnant herself, defensively explained that only one of their dozens of obstetricians and gynecologists still does D&Es, and he was simply not available.

Not today. Not tomorrow. Not the next day.

No, I couldn’t have his name. She walked away from me and called my doctor.

“You can’t just dump these patients on us,” she shouted into the phone, her high-pitched voice floating through the heavy curtains surrounding my bed. “You should be dealing with this yourself.”

Shivering on the narrow, white exam table, I wondered what I had done wrong. Then I pulled back on my loose maternity pants and stumbled into the sunny parking lot, blinking back tears in the dazzling spring day, trying to understand the directions they sent me out with: Find a hotel within a few blocks from a hospital. Rest, monitor the bleeding. Don’t go home — the 45-minute drive might be too far.

The next few days were a blur of lumpy motel beds, telephone calls to doctors, cramps. The pre-examination for my D&E finally arrived. First, the hospital required me to sign a legal form consenting to terminate the pregnancy. Then they explained I could, at no cost, have the remains incinerated by the hospital pathology department as medical waste, or for a fee have them taken to a funeral home for burial or cremation.

They inserted sticks of seaweed into my cervix and told me to go home for the night. A few hours later — when the contractions were regular, strong and frequent — I knew we needed to get to the hospital. “The patient appeared to be in active labor,” say my charts, “and I explained this to the patient and offered her pain medication for vaginal delivery.”

According to the charts, I was “adamant” in demanding a D&E. I remember that I definitely wanted the surgical procedure that was the safest option. One hour later, just as an anesthesiologist was slipping me into unconsciousness, I had the D&E and a little body, my little boy, slipped out.

Around his neck, three times and very tight, was the umbilical cord, source of his life, cause of his death.

This past spring, as the wild flowers started blooming around the simple cross we built for this baby, the Justice Department began trying to enforce the Bush administration’s ban and federal courts in three different cities heard arguments regarding the new law.

Doctors explained that D&Es are the safest procedure in many cases, and that the law is particularly cruel to mothers like me whose babies were already dead.

In hopes of bolstering their case, prosecutors sent federal subpoenas to various medical centers, asking for records of D&Es. There’s an attorney somewhere, someday, who may poke through the files of my loss.

I didn’t watch the trial because I had another appointment to keep — another ultrasound. Lying on the crisp white paper, watching the monitor, I saw new life, the incredible spine, tiny fingers waving slowly across my uterus, a perfect thigh.

Best of all, there it was, a strong, four-chamber heart, beating steady and solid. A soft quiver, baby rolling, rippled across my belly.

“Everything looks wonderful,” said my doctor. “This baby is doing great.”

Martha Mendoza is a working journalist and a winner of the 2000 Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting. She recently gave birth to her fourth child, a beautiful and healthy baby girl.

Sublease

2009-06-10T14:13:00.000-07:00

I've become pretty bad at keeping up with my posting. I have excellent excuses though - I'm graduating from the MLS program here early and moving back to Iowa (with Nick) which means I have to sublease my apartment, arrange a moving truck, pack, get ready for my last semester of school, worry about forms for graduating and a myriad of other things, like day to day stuff - working, running, etc. On the other hand, I get to live with Nick again! AND, I have a close friend coming to visit in July and we're planning on going to the midnight premier of the new Harry Potter movie. YAY! So this summer is going to be good, busy and all, but busy in a good way.

Finding a tenant to sublease my apartment is going to be a nightmare, I'm almost positive. I put my ad up a few days ago and I've already received five or six inquiries - so far, only one seems to be from a crazy person. I'm so excited though, and that's really seeing me through. And my classes this summer are going to be fantastic - especially the nonfiction for youth class. I think it's going to be such a fun class. It's taught by a great professor, who I've had before, and a lot of my friends and classmates I'm friendly with are in the class. Such fun.

Anyway, things have been crazy and busy and nerve-racking here, so readers must forgive me. And I'll try to do better and post more!

Tiller Murdered

2009-06-01T11:19:00.001-07:00

I'm not even sure what to talk about today. I wanted to bring up the Tiller murder, but I think I'm still in a state of shock and mourning. He's helped so many women. I'm just heartsick - especially being murdered in church! I can't imagine what his wife went through. And I've been reading anti-choice blogs and it's amazing how the people who comment on them are more concerned with how this is going to reflect on them ; talking about how he can't be a Christian because he provided abortions; when was is that people became so certain about how god would judge people?

And then I started thinking about why the people who are virulently anti-choice are so worried - it's possibly because they know that by creating an environment where there is no debate, no discussion, no open minds - the "all people who are pro-choice are just baby-haters, and baby-killers and are going to roast in hell" type of conversation leads to crazy people using that language to justify murdering someone, or bombing clinics, or committing acts of violence. I haven't seen a lot of people posting about how he deserved it, but there have been enough. And while I don't really get into conspiracy theories (even though it's fun) I do have to wonder why it is that 'Tiller Watch' a section of Operation Rescue's website was suddenly unavailable....

And of course, according to Mr. Leach of the anti-choice Prayer and Action Newsletter, there is "Christian scripture that would support this." (NY Times 6/1/09). I know that's probably true - but it makes me sadder, because I am sure a lot of Christians would disagree and totally condemn it. I think this has started a whole wave of attention on a whole range of things.

I don't know. I have so much other stuff to worry about and think about and get done - but I knew I had to post something.

So I'll be thinking of Dr. Tiller today, the women he helped, the women who won't be getting his help, and his family today while I go about my business...Sad day.

SCOTUS

2009-05-26T11:01:00.000-07:00

Last week I was in Kansas, checking on the news from the New York Times website, when my niece and her friend came in to see what I was up to. When I explained and said that it was so exciting, the president would be nominating a new Supreme Court justice. They looked at me like I was crazy - and I of course, explained why I found it so exciting. But hey, they're ten - the most information they get regarding the SCOTUS is a paragraph or two during social studies class. They'll get there.
And now we have a nominee - Sonia Sotomayor. I was a little surprised - I had my own favorite candidates (not that it matters, since I'm not president) but I haven't read all the articles about it yet, so maybe her nomination will prove me wrong in my favorite candidates and give me something to think about. And it IS exciting to have a female nominee and the first Hispanic nominated as well.
Did any of you have favorite candidates - was the choice a surprise?
That sounds kind of like homework - but it's so exciting, at least to me - I want to know, what are your thoughts?

A Guide to Christian Clichés and Phrases

2009-05-11T13:59:00.000-07:00

No one liked Mr. Deity? Seriously? Well, okay, then...

I found this one another blog and wanted to post it here, cause I thought, well, everyone needs guides!

A Guide to Christian Clichés and Phrases
By Daniel Florien on May 29, 2008 in Articles, Bible, Christianity, God, Jesus.

“Save sex for marriage.”
Translation: “If I can’t have consequence-free sex, neither can you.”
Acceptable Response: “I pledge myself! Give me a promise ring!”
Unacceptable Response: “So how did that work out for you?” Or, “Where exactly does the Bible say that?”

“All you need to do to go to heaven is ask Jesus into your heart.”
Translation: “You’re going to burn in hell if you don’t say this prayer, little boy.”
Acceptable Response: “Dear Jesus, thank you for coming into my heart and saving me…”
Unacceptable Response: “Dear Jesus, where in the Bible do you tell us to ask you into our hearts? That seems kind weird. And why did the ancient world think the heart was the kidney? Hello? Can you hear me? I guess this is just a one-way intercom. How can I know if you’re still around if you don’t say anything back? Okay, if you’re really there, appear to me right now in person like you did to Paul.” Or, “What exactly does Jesus do in my blood-pumping organ?”

“Amen”
Translation: “Say ‘amen’ back to me!”
Acceptable Response: “Amen” or “Preach it!” combined with vigorous head nodding.
Unacceptable Response: “No!” Or, “Hmm…. That doesn’t sound right.”

“What can I pray for you about?”
Translation: “Any juicy tidbits about your life I can spread through the prayer gossip grapevine?”
Acceptable Response: “Thanks for asking. You’re so kind. My wife is having an affair, my brother is a drunk, and my dog can’t control his sexual desires.”
Unacceptable Response: “Have you ever kept a prayer journal to see if you get more unanswered prayers than answered ones, or if your unasked prayers get answered just as much?”

“I’m not a racist, but…”
Translation: “I’m a racist asshole who attends an all-white church and is uncomfortable around most black people. I love racist jokes and am about to tell you a good one.”
Acceptable Response: Laugher followed by telling a slightly more racist joke.
Unacceptable Response: “You’re a hypocritical racist asshole.”

“God is in control.”
Translation: “I only believe this about overwhelming situations. The rest of the time, I believe things are up to us and I act that way.”
Acceptable Response: “Amen.” Sometimes followed by an anecdote about some unexplained or coincidental experience that you attribute to God.
Unacceptable Response: “If God’s in control, then relax and don’t do anything about it! In fact, you don’t have to do anything at all ever, right? But that’s not right, and people still have to do everything, so what does it mean for God to be in control and why does it matter?”

“I believe this because the Bible says so.”
Translation: “I have no clue about the history of that big book I’m in love with, and I don’t care either, because it’s God’s Word, and if God said it, it must be true.”
Acceptable Response: “Amen.”
Unacceptable Response: “It also says to kill homosexuals.” They might heartily agree to that one, which in case the unacceptable response becomes, “It also says to kill your children when they talk back. Have your children ever talked back?” Or, “Explain to me the authorship and transmission of the Bible, and why you think it’s God’s Word.” Or especially, “Jesus said to give anything to those who ask of you – and not only to give what they ask, but more. So please give me your wallet and your car.”

“What’s God doing in your life?”
Translation: “I’m getting ready to judge you.”
Acceptable Response: “I’m conquering pride and lust!” Or, “Oh, Jesus, Jesus, I love Jesus my beautiful King and Savior!”
Unacceptable Response: “God’s been teaching me about how much evidence there is for evolution.”

“Hate the sin, love the sinner.”
Translation: “I’m a flaming fundamentalist.”
Acceptable Response: “Amen.”
Unacceptable Response: “That’s a relief, because I’m a homosexual transvestite in an interracial relationship.”

“We’re in the end times.”
Translation: “My pastor said we’re living in the end times.”
Acceptable Response: “God will punish America for our sins!” Or, “America isn’t mentioned in the Bible because we’re going to crumble soon!”
Unacceptable Response: “Did you know that out of the millions of times Christians have claimed this throughout history, they’ve always been wrong?” Or, “If you’re so confident, I’m sure you’ll be confident in putting some significant money towards a bet on that.”

“He is risen!”
Translation: “It’s Easter! Let’s eat!”
Acceptable Response: “He is risen indeed!”
Unacceptable Response: “Where? I don’t see him.” Or, “Do you have any evidence for that statement?” Or especially, “Like yeast?”

“Jesus loves you.”
Translation: “Jesus does, but I don’t.”
Acceptable Response: “Amen.”
Unacceptable Response: “If that were true, why doesn’t he tell me himself?”

“Do you know where you’re going to go after you die?”
Translation: “This is the question they told me to ask in my evangelism class.”
Acceptable Response: “To heaven to see my sweet, precious Savior!”
Unacceptable Response: “How can you know that before you’re actually dead?”

“What would you say if you stood before God after you die?”
Translation: “I’ve got you now, sinner!”
Acceptable Response: “Please forgive me! I was so fracking stupid! How blind of me not to see you in everything you created!”
Possibly Acceptable Response: “Oops.”
Unacceptable Response: “If you wanted me to believe in you, why didn’t you show some kind of evidence? Why create everything through the painful process of evolution? Why did you let your creation suffer through hunger, neglect, disease, and war? Why incarnate yourself and then commit deicide/suicide? Why were you so bloodthirsty in the early years? If you’re God, you’re not a very good one.” Or, “Which one?”
[Thanks, Steve, for the last response.]

“Thank you Jesus!”
Translation: “It’s easier to thank Jesus than the people who deserve it.”
Acceptable Response: “Amen!”
Unacceptable Response: “I’m not Jesus.” Or, “You’re welcome.”

“Have you found Jesus?”
Translation: “Are you also a Jesus-lover, or must I convert you?”
Acceptable Response: “I’ve been walking with the Lord since I was two years old, Praise Gawd!”
Unacceptable Response: “I didn’t know he was missing.” (source)

“I’ll pray for you”
Translation: “This conversation is over. My mind exploded.” Or, “I refuse to believe you won this argument.”
Acceptable Response: “Thanks, you’re so kind.”
Unacceptable Response: ”Instead of praying, why don’t you read a non-Christian book?” Or, “I’ll think for you.” Or especially, “Liar.”
[Inspired by Richard, Gdad, and Wazza.]

“Lord willing…”
Translation: “The Bible says somewhere to say this, and I feel uber-spiritual whenever I do.”
Acceptable Response: “…”
Unacceptable Response: “How would you know if it’s the Lord stopping you, or just your laziness?”
[Inspired by Polly.]

“Here’s my testimony…”
Translation: “I was a guilt-ridden sinner until I hit rock-bottom and then believed in Jesus and my sins were forgiven!”
Acceptable Response: “That’s a great story, how can I have my sins forgiven and go to heaven?”
Unacceptable Response: “The reason you’re telling your story is because it’s impossible for me to say you didn’t have that experience. Unfortunately, people have religious experiences all the time, and many of them have nothing to do with Jesus. Your story is nice, but it’s easier to fool yourself than you might think. You don’t know the truth about God and Jesus and the Bible through an emotional experience, but through evidence, and you’ll find that lacking.”

“It’s a miracle!”
Translation: “My brain can’t comprehend how this could happen without the God of the Universe getting involved, so it must be true.”
Acceptable Response: “Exactly! How else could they have called when you were thinking of them, except for God to control them like a puppet to impress you?”
Unacceptable Response: “Maybe, but could you prove it?” Or, “Would this really be impossible without God?” Or especially, “It seems you don’t understand probability theory. Let me explain.”
[Inspired by Brian.]

“It takes more faith to be an atheist than a Christian.”
Translation: “I don’t really understand atheism or how it’s possible not to believe in a god.”
Acceptable Response: “That’s right, brother. Denying God is like denying gravity.”
Unacceptable Response: “Believing in something without evidence takes faith. Not believing in something without evidence takes intelligence.”

“Atheism is a religion.”
Translation: “Atheism is a religion because everyone believes there is a god, right?”
Acceptable Response: “They know there is a God and they reject him and hate him! They will burn in hell forever!”
Unacceptable Response: ”Calling ‘atheism’ a religion is like calling ‘bald’ a hair color.” (Don Hirschberg) Or, “If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.” (Mystyk)

“It’s a mystery.”
Translation: “It doesn’t make any sense to me either, but that’s what the Bible says.”
Acceptable Response: “And when has the Bible ever steered us wrong?”
Unacceptable Response: ”If every hard question ends with mystery, how can you be so confident you are right?”

“It’s not a religion, it’s a relationship.”
Translation: “I hope he doesn’t ask if I attend church every week.”
Acceptable Response: ”Yep, it’s all about the big J.”
Unacceptable Response: ”Can’t every religion claim they are about a relationship with God?” Or, “If you’re not a religion, why do you attend church, read the Bible, believe in orthodoxy, and are trying to convert me?”

“God always answers prayer.”
Translation: “He just usually answers no…”
Acceptable Response: ”God knows best.”
Unacceptable Response: ”Jesus said if you ask anything in his name you’ll receive it. He also said if you have even the smallest amount of faith, like a mustard seed, you can move mountains. Does that fit with your experience?” (Inspired by Jack D)

“Have you made your peace with God?”
Translation: “Are you a Jesus-lover like me?”
Acceptable Response: ”Of course, Jesus is my best friend! He’s filled my soul with gladness and joy, brother.”
Unacceptable Response: ”I wasn’t aware we were quarreling.” (Paul Bogan) Or, “It’s hard to make peace with someone who never calls you back.”

Grappling with Evil .... and Disasters ....

2009-05-07T17:23:00.001-07:00

I got the idea to post these from the humanist blog I read..Very funny...I'm only gonna do a few, maybe five or six...I'll keep putting them on throughout the week...

Sometimes I'm Right

2009-05-04T07:43:00.000-07:00

I'm signed up for a ListServ to bring me news from the intellectual freedom group in ALA. There's an actual name for it that escapes me at the moment. At any rate, every day I get news articles sent to my inbox of books that people want taken out of libraries or put in a different section, etc. Since we talk a lot about this in many of my classes, and since I'll be working as a librarian fairly soon, I think it's good to know what books cause people to get angry (almost all of them, depending on the people involved) and how to address that. But this particular challenge is kind of unique so I thought I'd post it. Many of the people who challenge books do so for a religious reason - their particular religious reason - and usually they're just sort of surprised at the placement of a certain book. But in my head I have a lot of trouble dividing the concerned people (who just want to be taken seriously and be listened to) and the people who, in my opinion, would have been far happier being alive during Hitler's book burning parties, or the Dark Ages, or some thing like that. I usually talk myself out of thinking that way. But this morning - I got THIS in my inbox.
Sometimes, I'm right.

Publication: APD - West Bend Daily News;
Date: May 2, 2009;
Section: Front Page;
Page: A1

Christian rights group joins library fray
Suit by Milwaukee chapter singles out ‘Baby BeBop’ for complaint
By DWAYNE BUTLER Daily News Staff

The Milwaukee branch of the Christian Civil Liberties Union (CCLU) has filed a legal claim that says a book that is available in the West Bend Community Memorial Library is offensive.

Robert C. Braun of West Allis, Joseph Kogelmann of Milwaukee, Robert Brough of West Bend and the Rev. Cleveland Eden of Milwaukee, representing the Milwaukeebased group, filed the claim with the city of West Bend clerk's office.

Named in the claim are the city of West Bend, Mayor Kristine Deiss, the West Bend Library Board and Library Director Michael Tyree. The group is seeking $30,000 per plaintiff, Deiss’ resignation and a racist book be removed and publicly burned or destroyed as a deterrent to repeating the offensive conduct, the claim states.

Pursuant to section 893.80 of the Wisconsin state statutes, the claim says the Library is engaged in having books on display that the plaintiffs consider to be obscene or racial in content and promote violence. The plaintiffs question why a taxpayer funded library makes literature available that has damaged the plaintiffs, the claim states.

The book in question is “Baby Be-Bop,” by Francesca Lia Block, and should be removed from the Library, which is in the vicinity of a school, the claim states. It describes the book as being “explicitly vulgar, racial (sic) and anti-Christian.”

The plaintiffs, all of whom are elderly, say their mental and emotional well-being were damaged by the book at the Library, the claim states.

In the claim, they cite Wisconsin’s sexual morality law. Under the law, obscene material is a publication or recording that:
“The average person, applying community standards, would find appeals to the prurient interest if taken as a whole.”
“Under contemporary com- munity standards, describes or shows sexual conduct in a patently offensive way.”
“Lacks serious literary, artistic, political, educational or scientific value, if taken as a whole.”

The claim states that specific words used in the book are derogatory and slanderous to all males, and dangerously offensive and disrespectful to all people. The claim says the words can permeate violence, and puts one's life in possible jeopardy, adults and children alike.

The plaintiffs have also requested in the claim that West Bend City Attorney Mary Shanning could commission a grand jury to investigate whether the book should be declared obscene and inappropriate since it uses racial language that offends the plaintiffs' Christian beliefs.

The plaintiffs believe the book should be kept out of the Library and constitutes a hate crime, and they feel the book is inappropriate for the elderly and their minor grandchildren, and degrades the community, the claim states.

“We don't want it put in a section for adults,” said Braun, who is the president of the CCLU branch. “We're saying its inappropriate to have it in the library, and we want it out or destroyed.”

Assistant City Attorney/Director of Human Resources Warren Kraft said Friday the claim has been referred to Tyree and the Library Board for their review. Because the claim involves a financial request, Kraft said the city's insurance carrier has received a copy of the claim. He said the carrier will evaluate the claim and conduct an investigation into its circumstances and then make a recommendation to the city whether to allow or disallow all or part of the claim.

Week

2009-04-23T17:17:00.001-07:00

So, a rundown of my week. I'm still recovering - but I'll hit the highlights.

1. Exam on Monday - barely prepared because I worked all weekend - also, can't understand Freud and wish there was a Freud's Cliff's Notes

2. Found out that the library paid me for more hours than I worked (YAY, I guess?!) But now have to work an extra 20 hours.

3. Poster project due and must be turned in at printshop as well as online for professor...first poster and very nervous I did it wrong.

4. Might have to graduate in Dec. 2010 instead of May 2010 because of financial aid stuff, pressure from classes, and assistantship stuff...freaking out, although have come to terms with this possibility.

5. Had a storytelling day for class - did not have a story prepared and made sure I "volunteered" to go next week.

6. Worked everyday as well as went to class...

7. Have not thoroughly cleaned my apartment for like, two weeks. Am lucky to get dishes clean when all I want to do is lay on couch and fall asleep.

8. Met a crazy person at the bus stop - who was apparently being beaten up by people I could not see and who would not leave her alone.

9. Got to hold a baby - my manager brought her six-month old, Bella, into the store, so that was a nice little baby fix.

10. Had no one respond to my last post except Sara...very sad.

11. Missing my girls.

12. Missing my boyfriend.

13. Missing my family - including my nephew's fifth birthday - he had an obstacle course and a spiderman cake.

2009-04-18T09:45:00.000-07:00

Pro-Choice Does Not Mean Pro-Abortion: An Argument for Abortion Rights Featuring the Rev. Carlton Veazey
Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Since the Supreme Court's historic 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, the issue of a woman's right to an abortion has fostered one of the most contentious moral and political debates in America. Opponents of abortion rights argue that life begins at conception - making abortion tantamount to homicide. Abortion rights advocates, in contrast, maintain that women have a right to decide what happens to their bodies - sometimes without any restrictions.

To explore the case for abortion rights, the Pew Forum turns to the Rev. Carlton W. Veazey, who for more than a decade has been president of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Based in Washington, D.C., the coalition advocates for reproductive choice and religious freedom on behalf of about 40 religious groups and organizations. Prior to joining the coalition, Veazey spent 33 years as a pastor at Zion Baptist Church in Washington, D.C.

A counterargument explaining the case against abortion rights is made by the Rev. J. Daniel Mindling, professor of moral theology at Mount St. Mary's Seminary.

Featuring: The Rev. Carlton W. Veazey, President, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

Interviewer: David Masci, Senior Research Fellow, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

Question & Answer

Can you explain how your Christian faith informs your views in support of abortion rights?

I grew up in a Christian home. My father was a Baptist minister for many years in Memphis, Tenn. One of the things that he instilled in me - I used to hear it so much - was free will, free will, free will. It was ingrained in me that you have the ability to make choices. You have the ability to decide what you want to do. You are responsible for your decisions, but God has given you that responsibility, that option to make decisions.

I had firsthand experience of seeing black women and poor women being disproportionately impacted by the fact that they had no choices about an unintended pregnancy, even if it would damage their health or cause great hardship in their family. And I remember some of them being maimed in back-alley abortions; some of them died. There was no legal choice before Roe v. Wade.

But in this day and time, we have a clearer understanding that men and women are moral agents and equipped to make decisions about even the most difficult and complex matters. We must ensure a woman can determine when and whether to have children according to her own conscience and religious beliefs and without governmental interference or coercion. We must also ensure that women have the resources to have a healthy, safe pregnancy, if that is their decision, and that women and families have the resources to raise a child with security.

The right to choose has changed and expanded over the years since Roe v. Wade. We now speak of reproductive justice - and that includes comprehensive sex education, family planning and contraception, adequate medical care, a safe environment, the ability to continue a pregnancy and the resources that make that choice possible. That is my moral framework.

You talk about free will, and as a Christian you believe in free will. But you also said that God gave us free will and gave us the opportunity to make right and wrong choices. Why do you believe that abortion can, at least in some instances, be the right choice?

Dan Maguire, a former Jesuit priest and professor of moral theology and ethics at Marquette University, says that to have a child can be a sacred choice, but to not have a child can also be a sacred choice.

And these choices revolve around circumstances and issues - like whether a person is old enough to care for a child or whether a woman already has more children than she can care for. Also, remember that medical circumstances are the reason many women have an abortion - for example, if they are having chemotherapy for cancer or have a life-threatening chronic illness - and most later-term abortions occur because of fetal abnormalities that will result in stillbirth or the death of the child. These are difficult decisions; they're moral decisions, sometimes requiring a woman to decide if she will risk her life for a pregnancy.

Abortion is a very serious decision and each decision depends on circumstances. That's why I tell people: I am not pro-abortion, I am pro-choice. And that's an important distinction.

You've talked about the right of a woman to make a choice. Does the fetus have any rights?

First, let me say that the religious, pro-choice position is based on respect for human life, including potential life and existing life.

But I do not believe that life as we know it starts at conception. I am troubled by the implications of a fetus having legal rights because that could pit the fetus against the woman carrying the fetus; for example, if the woman needed a medical procedure, the law could require the fetus to be considered separately and equally.

From a religious perspective, it's more important to consider the moral issues involved in making a decision about abortion. Also, it's important to remember that religious traditions have very different ideas about the status of the fetus. Roman Catholic doctrine regards a fertilized egg as a human being. Judaism holds that life begins with the first breath.

What about at the very end of a woman's pregnancy? Does a fetus acquire rights after the point of viability, when it can survive outside the womb? Or let me ask it another way: Assuming a woman is healthy and her fetus is healthy, should the woman be able to terminate her pregnancy until the end of her pregnancy?

There's an assumption that a woman would end a viable pregnancy carelessly or without a reason. The facts don't bear this out. Most abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Late abortions are virtually always performed for the most serious medical and health reasons, including saving the woman's life.

But what if such a case came before you? If you were that woman's pastor, what would you say?

I would talk to her in a helpful, positive, respectful way and help her discuss what was troubling her. I would suggest alternatives such as adoption.

Let me shift gears a little bit. Many Americans have said they favor a compromise, or reaching a middle-ground policy, on abortion. Do you sympathize with this desire and do you think that both sides should compromise to end this rancorous debate?

I have been to more middle-ground and common-ground meetings than I can remember and I've never been to one where we walked out with any decision.

That being said, I think that we all should agree that abortion should be rare. How do we do that? We do that by providing comprehensive sex education in schools and in religious congregations and by ensuring that there is accurate information about contraception and that contraception is available. Unfortunately, the U.S. Congress has not been willing to pass a bill to fund comprehensive sex education, but they are willing to put a lot of money into failed and harmful abstinence-only programs that often rely on scare tactics and inaccurate information.

Former Surgeon General David Satcher has shown that abstinence-only programs do not work and that we should provide young people with the information to protect themselves. Education that stresses abstinence and provides accurate information about contraception will reduce the abortion rate. That is the ground that I stand on. I would say that here is a way we can work together to reduce the need for abortions.

Abortion has become central to what many people call the "culture wars." Some consider it to be the most contentious moral issue in America today. Why do many Catholics, evangelical Christians and other people of faith disagree with you?

I was raised to respect differing views so the rigid views against abortion are hard for me to understand. I will often tell someone on the other side, "I respect you. I may disagree with your theological perspective, but I respect your views. But I think it's totally arrogant for you to tell me that I need to believe what you believe." It's not that I think we should not try to win each other over. But we have to respect people's different religious beliefs.

But what about people who believe that life begins at conception and that terminating a pregnancy is murder? For them, it may not just be about respecting or tolerating each other's viewpoints; they believe this is an issue of life or death. What do you say to people who make that kind of argument?

I would say that they have a right to their beliefs, as do I. I would try to explain that my views are grounded in my religion, as are theirs. I believe that we must ensure that women are treated with dignity and respect and that women are able to follow the dictates of their conscience - and that includes their reproductive decisions. Ultimately, it is the government's responsibility to ensure that women have the ability to make decisions of conscience and have access to reproductive health services.

Some in the anti-abortion camp contend that the existence of legalized abortion is a sign of the self-centeredness and selfishness of our age. Is there any validity to this view?

Although abortion is a very difficult decision, it can be the most responsible decision a person can make when faced with an unintended pregnancy or a pregnancy that will have serious health consequences.

Depending on the circumstances, it might be selfish to bring a child into the world. You know, a lot of people say, "You must bring this child into the world." They are 100 percent supportive while the child is in the womb. As soon as the child is born, they abort the child in other ways. They abort a child through lack of health care, lack of education, lack of housing, and through poverty, which can drive a child into drugs or the criminal justice system.

So is it selfish to bring children into the world and not care for them? I think the other side can be very selfish by neglecting the children we have already. For all practical purposes, children whom we are neglecting are being aborted.

Reactions?

2009-04-11T09:56:00.000-07:00

Abandoned!

2009-04-10T18:22:00.000-07:00

I have been abandoned by my intrepid girls Star Trek Team to fight off Seven of Whore who has stolen my man! The agony! The pain! The anguish! The betrayal! I am all alone. How will I defeat her - she has huge breasts and blond hair, and can sing!
heeheeheehee...I miss melodrama sometimes.

Eek at the End

2009-04-06T08:15:00.000-07:00

Does anyone have any interview advice? I've been reading books and researching it and such, but I've been reviewing my past job interviews and wondering if maybe I'm screwing something up? Maybe I'm not asking good questions, or I'm being too honest, or something! It could also be that I'm just not right for the particular position, but I'm wanting to make sure that that's the reason I am not getting jobs and not because of something else, like sucky performance.
Also, our conversation seems to have hit a dead-end on my last post (which is why I'm posting again) but definitely interesting. Trying to read Vatican documents is like trying to read law documents or Freud or something else very complicated with a language all its own. It was taking me awhile, and cutting into my time reading Freud (for class) as well as other class stuff, so I had to shelve it. Sorry for anyone ready to continue. I'm sure we'll get into some more down the road.
I've been reading two books that I think everyone should read (or at least all women):
1) The Feminine Mistake by Leslie Bennetts.
2) The Price of Motherhood by Ann Crittendon - it's NOT against motherhood, it just sounds it.

Basically, I've been branching out on my feminist theory and practices reading. I've read most of the big ones in Women's Studies, so now I'm re-reading or looking for new ones or new perspectives. Helps my research!

I don't really have any more news...school is starting to wind up: I have a bunch of final projects to complete and exams to study for - but the reading continues. I also have to figure out my classes for summer and fall and register for my Library Subject Exam. Eek!

The Pope

2009-04-01T10:42:00.000-07:00

Remember my last post, where I mentioned that the Vatican and the Pope aren't really getting my full respect (not that they'd care) as truthful or worthy of respect? Basically, it came about because of two recent articles I read - the first about the Pope and condoms - as "exacerbating the problem of AIDS" and secondly because of an article in Ms. magazine. called Vatican Justice. I'll post the article here and given the fact that people might find Ms. biased because of its feminist stance, I'll also link to articles that support Ms. from different sources.

NATIONAL NEWS | winter 2009
Vatican Justice
Pedophile priests can stay in the Church, but priests who ordain women may be excommunicated

By Bill Frogameni

WHAT HAPPENS IF A Catholic priest molests children?

Usually, he’s protected by the Church hierarchy. Maybe he’ll eventually have his parish or diocese taken away, or be switched to another one—often after years of serial abuse. But there’s a good chance he’ll stay in the Church.

So what happens if a Catholic priest publicly supports ordaining women? Well, then he’s excommunicated on the double.

“Nearly 5,000 Catholic priests [in the U.S.] have sexually abused over 12,000 Catholic children…but they were not excommunicated,” says Father Roy Bourgeois, who faced the latter scenario after helping celebrate what the Vatican considers to be an illegitimate ordination mass in August 2008. Bourgeois, a Vietnam veteran with a Purple Heart who became a prominent peace activist, stood with the trailblazers of the female ordination movement in Lexington, Ky., to make Janice Sevre-Duszynska a Catholic priest.

For thumbing his nose at one of the most sacred tenets of the conservative hierarchy—that only men are worthy of the priesthood—Bourgeois was swiftly rebuked by the Vatican in a letter two months later, telling him he had 30 days to renounce his actions or face excommunication.

After his deadline passed without a definitive word, Bourgeois told Ms. that his heart wouldn’t allow him to cave in to the Vatican. “Deeper than the hurt, the sadness, there’s a peace that comes from knowing I followed my conscience in addressing this great injustice,” he said.

Still, Bourgeois wanted to question the Pope: “Who are we as men to say that our call to the priesthood is valid, but yours as women is not?” Given that 64 percent of American Catholics in a 2005 AP/Ipsos poll agreed that women should be ordained, they might ask the pope the same thing. But the Vatican, despite parish closings across America and a 30 percent decline in priests between 1965 and 2000, doesn’t seem ready for that question.

“The church believes that the intent of Jesus’ founding of the priesthood is that it was reserved for men,” explained Sister Mary Anne Walsh, spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. But, speaking for the group Roman Catholic Womenpriests, Bridget Mary Meehan, herself ordained in 2006 and subsequently excommunicated, disputes that teaching. “Jesus never ordained anyone,” says Meehan. “And in the tradition, women were ordained deacons, priests and bishops for the first 1,200 years.”

The Vatican’s strong response to Bourgeois’ action stands in stark contrast to its overwhelming failure to punish molesters. Even a homicidal priest, Father Gerald Robinson, who was convicted in 2006 of the satanicritualistic murder of a 71-year-old nun in an Ohio chapel (see “The Nun’s Story,” Summer 2006), has not been excommunicated. Though Robinson to date has spent more than two and a half years in prison and lost an appeal, he still remains a priest, albeit one quietly retired by his bishop.

Walsh’s explanation: As heinous as the crime was, the Church doesn’t excommunicate for murder.

The Vatican may soon have further explaining to do, this time in a U.S. courtroom. A federal appeals court ruled in late November that a lawsuit arising in Kentucky over the Vatican’s negligence in dealing with sexual abuse could proceed—the first time a court that high has recognized the Holy See’s potential liability in this arena.

One of the key pieces of evidence in the lawsuit? A 1962 memo, approved by Pope John XXIII, directing Catholic bishops to keep silent about sex-abuse claims.

Photo by Jenny Warbug

Now, I also checked for validation: there's an article from Catholic News Service about the ex-communication of Bourgeois.
www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0805758.htm
It was hard to find anything about the priests that abused children and whether they were ex-communicated separate from other issues. But if anyone wants to look further, that'd be fine.

Trying to Stay on Top of the Blog

2009-03-30T10:32:00.000-07:00

Spring Break is over and I'm home in Illinois. I would normally do a top ten list covering my break, but I just don't feel like I can do only ten, so I'll do a top ? list and let the numbers just fill themselves in...

1) Arrival - hugs from kids, watching tv, and feeling right at home
2) Zoo - Took Colin, Taylor, Dalton, and Tristan to the zoo and had a blast - although I'm thinking about writing a letter of complaint to the zoo because of the food at the restaurant there, which totally sucked. But the day was great!
3) A break from stress - homework, work, money, next semester, etc. and getting enough sleep!
4) Seeing family
5) Fried chicken and Scattegories
6) Watching Alyssa drive - which was both amazingly scary and amazingly cool!
7) Bridesmaid dress shopping with Kay - who knew dress shopping could be so exhausting. BUT, awesome burgers!!!
8) Seeing Watchmen with Ramee and getting a chance to catch up on our lives

In other news: I've decided to try a new facial routine, using clinique's 3-Step. It's gotten really good reviews and I LOVE the scrub I'm already using, so hopefully this will make my skin look beautiful and glow-y. Also, it's time to start my exercising again - for my break, I kind of relaxed it and didn't worry too much about it, although I was pretty busy with the kids: we played basketball and hide and seek and such, so I wasn't totally sedentary.
School is winding down, and it feels very fast, but I'm still loving this semester and my classes. I have to take a class I'm totally dreading this summer and I'm confused about my education classes, for summer and fall, but I'm seeing the end of school and such. I'm also very nervous about my exams for my teaching certification: have to decide which subject exams to take and make sure I get all that stuff done before student teaching and my practicum (both of which leave me weak in the knees but also very excited).
I I'm also working on my cover letter and resume and hoping for an assistantship - all pretty standard news there.
On my driving spurts: to KS, to IA, to IL, I listened to NPR and also to conservative talk radio, including Rush Limbaugh. It's funny how much conservative talk radio or religious shows sound totally moronic to me - it's usually not the subject matter; sometimes, the subject makes sense, I might even agree on their take of an issue or something. But for the most part, I feel like they're morons OR, most of the time, they jump to conclusions that make no sense given the context and such - it's all very illogical and irrational. Also, WHY are there so many stations of crappy Christian music? I mean, seriously, I think one or two is probably enough.
Also, everyone should read Dale McGowan's blog through my link.
And what is with the Pope? I thought the Catholic church respected science? I get that he's against all birth control, even condoms, but they "exacerbate the problem of AIDS?" Seriously? Condemning them as against church teaching is one thing; but that's just a lie! Not that I'm surprised. The Catholic Church as a whole isn't exactly getting my full respect in regard to truth and respect of humanity lately. No surprise to my readers, I suppose, so no need to yell at something you already know. I have an article about that for my next post. Which should be a treat: there will be a new post!

A deletion and explanation

2009-03-18T11:35:00.000-07:00

I don't know if anyone reads the blogs/sites I link to, but in case anyone does I wanted to point out that I deleted the link for the PhD in Parenting blog site. When I first read it, the blog seemed to be another perspective in parenting techniques, what's good for moms and dads, and kids, etc. But it's developed, or perhaps always was and I missed it, into a blog solely about breastfeeding. And I deleted it, because the author is very supportive of breastfeeding - yay her! I'm certainly not against it - but is also very dismissive of other choices (ie, formula and bottle-feeding). The author seemed to have a very superior attitude AGAINST those who could not or chose not to breastfeed. I hate this kind of thing. It's far too easy lately, or perhaps always, for mothers and women to get all up in arms about being the "best" mom. They have to brag - "Oh, I breastfeed...you don't - well, clearly, you're not a good mom then...etc." (This is mostly attitudinal, although I've actually read it too) or "I had 'natural' childbirth and I'm so superior to you...etc."

So I exercised my prerogative and deleted the link to the site. I certainly have my own ideas about motherhood and parenting and women and women's issues. But one thing I really think is that women find it so easy to think of it as an 'us vs. them' kind of thing. Maybe it's because they don't honestly feel fulfilled in whatever choice they made, they're uneasy; maybe it's a societal non-support thing; maybe they don't realize they're doing it. But I was sick to death of reading this blog and thinking these women are acting sooo superior...and when I'm a mom, eventually, I certainly don't want to hear (even in someone's attitude) how the choices I make for me and my kid(s) are bad because that's 'not how I did it' etc.

I think this is one of those choice issues that people don't realize is a choice issue - we focus so much on abortion, birth control, abstinence, adoption, as the issues/theme of 'choice' that we don't talk about how women need to be able to choose what works for them in regard to being a mother (once they chosen to do so, of course) Now, if a person chooses child abuse, I'm not supportive of THAT obviously - I'm talking more of what works for them as parents and a family. There's no award given out to women who have 'natural' childbirth - so great you successfully had a baby. Get over how you did it and celebrate the event itself. There's no award given out if you do x, y, or z. Why can't we just celebrate women and men who are trying to be the best parents they can, regardless of HOW they're doing it?
Oh, and I know that how you take care of a child can reap personal awards - and that's great to talk about - but when it becomes a superiority thing, it's gone too far.

I guess I've said my piece. And I'd prefer not to get into a debate about how x, y, z, is better for the baby/kid - there are benefits and drawbacks to a lot of choices (childbirth, feeding, discipline, even religion!) but I concede - I may not agree with it...but I'll support it if I think it's in the best interest of kids in general (not in any official capacity of course...). Hopefully this made sense.

Further information and ants

2009-03-17T08:15:00.000-07:00

So the link for my last post didn't work but I liked this guys reasoning so much that I figured I'd just post his rules and reasoning and get it further out there on the web. Also, I apparently have ants somewhere - I keep seeing a few everytime I sit down at the desk here and it's freaking me out, cause I don't know why. There appears to be no ant colony and no gross food or anything to keep them here...just an ant or two every time I sit down. Weird.

Four Reasons (According to Dale McGowan) that religious literacy (knowledge OF religion as opposed to belief IN it) is crucial:

1. To Understand the World
A huge percentage of the news includes a religious component. Add the fact that 90 percent of our fellow humans express themselves through religion and it becomes clear that ignorance of religion cuts our children off from understanding what is happening in the world around them - and why.

2. To Be Empowered
In the U.S. Presidential election of 2004, candidate Howard Dean identified Job as his favorite book of the New Testament. That Job is actually in the Old Testament was a trivial thing to most of us, but to a huge whack of the religious electorate, Dean had revealed a forehead-smacking level of ignorance about the central narrative to their lives. For those people, Dean was instantly discounted, irrelevant. Because we want our kids' voices heard in the many issues with a religious component, it's important for them to have knowledge of that component.

3. To make an informed decision.
I really, truly, genuinely want my kids to make up their own minds about religion, and I trust them to do so. Any nonreligious parent who boasts of a willingness to allow their kids to make their own choices but never exposes them to religion or religious ideas is being dishonest. For kids to make a truly informed judgement about it, they must have access to it.

4. To avoid the "teen epiphany."
Here's the big one. Struggles with identity, confidence, and countless other issues are a given part of the teen years. Sometimes these struggles generate a genuine personal crisis, at which point religious peers often pose a single question: "Don't you know about Jesus?" if your child says," No," the peer will come back incredulously with, "YOU don't know Jesus? Omigosh, JESUS IS THE ANSWER!" Boom, we have an emotional hijacking. And such hijackings don't end up in moderate Methodism. This is the moment when nonreligious teens fly all the way across the spectrum to evangelical fundamentalism.

A little knowledge about religion allows the teen to say, "Yeah, I know about Jesus"- and to know that reliable answers to personal problems are better found elsewhere.

So should you take your kids to a mainstream, bible-believing church? Hardly. They shouldn't get to age 18 without seeing the inside of a church, or you risk creating forbidden fruit. Take them once in awhile just to see what it's all about and to see there's no magical land of unicorns and fairies behind those doors. But know that churchgoing generally has squat to do with religious literacy. In Religious Literacy: What every American Needs to Know and Doesn't, Stephen Prothero points out that faithfully churchgoing Americans are incredibly ignorant of even the most basic tenets of their own belief systems, not to mention others. Europeans, on the other hand, are religiously knowledgeable AND rarely darken the door of a church.

Coincidence? I don't think so. Most European countries have mandated religious education and decidedly secular populations. Unless they attend a UU or Ethical Society, U.S. kids have almost no religious education. Faith is most easily sustained in ignorance. Learning about religion leads to THINKING about religion - and you know what happens then.

Mainstream churchgoing also exposes kids to a single religious perspective. That's not literacy - in fact, it usually amounts to indoctrination.

So how do you get religiously-literate kids?
I'll do these separately, so wait for the rest on other days and posts.

1. Talk, talk, talk.
All literacy begins with oral language. Toss tidbits of religious knowledge into your everyday conversations. If you drive by a mosque and your 4-year old points out the pretty gold dome, take the opportunity: "Isn't that pretty? It's a kind of church called a mosque. People who go there pray five times every day and they all face a city far away when they do it." No need to get into the five pillars of Islam. A few months later, you see a woman on the street wearing a hijab and connect it to previous knowledge: "Remember the mosque, the church with the gold dome? That's what some people wear who go to that church."

As kids mature, include more complex information - good, bad, and ugly. No discussion of Martin Luther King, Jr. is complete without noting that he was a Baptist minister, and that his religion was important to him. You can't grasp 9/11 without understanding Islamic afterlife beliefs. And the founding of our country is reframed by noting that the majority of the founders were religious skeptics of one stripe or another. Talk about the religious components of events in the news, from the stem cell debate to global warming to terrorism to nonviolence advocacy.

Hope you enjoyed his ideas - the link is on my blog for the entire post, if you don't want to wait. Like I said before, it's geared from a humanist perspective. But I still think the ideas are interesting for everyone.

Finally....

2009-03-12T05:40:00.000-07:00

I'm providing a link to one of my favorite sites and I think everyone will enjoy this guy's blog, although maybe from different viewpoints. He's posting about religious literacy and religious education - just for a warning, this is from the perspective of a humanist, but I think even people who are raising their kids with a specific religion might like some of his points. MIGHT, I said. So read and enjoy, and then we can talk about it. Maybe

www.parentingbeyondbelief.com

Dr. Laura

2009-02-27T13:34:00.000-08:00

I have to preface this with this fact: sometimes, she seems to make sense. It's usually NOT when she's spouting biblical principles or something though. But in most ways, I really despise Dr. Laura - although it can be funny to listen to her show. It's also very funny to listen to other conservative radio shows - it's like, education in what conservatives believe and despite the fact I tend to get really annoyed, I also think it's good for me - to at least hear the other point of view.

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

Check out this new blog

2009-02-17T10:30:00.000-08:00

My dad (and family) have actually been talking about some of this stuff for years. I may not agree with all of it - as it's a new blog/reading material I haven't read all of it - but it's definitely interesting. And it has nothing to do with abortion or religion or politics (I don't think.) So check it out and let me know what you think, if anything.

http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/

Thoughts...

2009-02-08T09:42:00.001-08:00

I have a day off today. Well, yesterday I also had a day off, but I spent the morning voluntarily getting up early (which is weird for me, I tend to savor those days because I know eventually I will not be able to sleep in anymore!) to go to a storytelling workshop: Native American Storytelling for the Non-Native. It was pretty interesting; found out some techniques and also first-hand knowledge of something Jerry always tells me (and his classes): there are a LOT of different viewpoints regarding things in the Native world. Which I knew intellectually, but nor personally. Anyway, the speaker was good, very interesting. Don't know if it will help me with my storytelling in class, but I think it was mostly worth it. Made me miss Jerry quite a lot though.

So today I have to get ready for the week: I'm regretting not going to the grocery store yesterday because I know today will be majorly crowded and I hate that: I tend to do the impulse buying when I'm standing in line. I also have to start my whole spring-cleaning process, now that it's starting to get nice out. I honestly LIKE spring cleaning, as long as I can have the windows open and music going. It'd be more fun with someone else here, but I'm still basically a loner, so I doubt I'd make friends quick enough or close enough to do spring cleaning. Plus, if I had someone here besides the cats, I couldn't sing along to Mamma Mia! which right now is my favorite sing-along music while I clean.

The interview on Thursday went pretty well. Don't know if I got it, although I really want it - it's a pretty amazing job, even as a lowly office assistant there's some great opportunities. But don't know if I got it and trying not to think about it. I wonder if maybe I blow my interviews and am thinking of going to whatever workshop I can the next time they have one and practice.

This week is already going to be the best week: Nick will be visiting, and I'm ready to see him. Plus, I don't have to work at 5am for two mornings, so I won't be sleep-deprived for the week, like last week. I DO have to pay my tuition soon - it's more expensive this semester which makes me very nervous, but I guess it's worth it for that teaching certificate. If nothing else, they will always need teachers: I'm planning on being certified in whatever I can be so I have that to "fall" back on - plus, despite being somewhat terrified with public speaking, I kind of LIKE teaching.

I exorcised some past demons and tried to let go of some of my anger regarding my ex-husband this week too: I got rid of a lot of photos and such that I didn't want anymore, but kept hanging onto out of some misplaced sense of loyalty or something. Not only are my closets/photo albums cleaner, but I feel a little better. I still wish I had my childhood things, but I'm trying really hard not to let it get to me, because there are people around me who have things I can use for memories, if that makes sense, and I don't want to be bitter which makes more sense. Also, I went for a run/walk yesterday. I emphasized walking, which was good -I am majorly out of shape! I felt like I was dying, and I only ran for one song. I did better the second run, once I'd been warmed up. I can't wait for spring to get out there. Still somewhat intimidated to go to the rec center alone, but as soon as I get into more of a schedule, I'm going to do it. Even if it's just on my days off or something. I'm also thinking of taking a kayaking course that they're offering there in April - does anyone think this is crazy? I think it would be fun, I love water and any kind of water sport, and it's good exercise. Plus, it's something different, a new skill. Unless it's really expensive, I'm planning on doing it. I also want to learn rock climbing.

I know this post was pretty boring and uncontroversial. I just didn't want to get into politics today - I could, of course, with the Republicans being so recalcitrant on the Stimulus bill, but well, it's my day off. Maybe tomorrow. Ta-ta.

First February Post

2009-02-05T11:49:00.000-08:00

So I'm basically blogging for the sake of blogging. I'm actually at school, wasting some time before I go to an interview. Amazingly, I am not at all nervous about this interview, mainly because to get nervous would be to get my hopes up and I don't want to do that. It's not a fantastic position, but it looks interesting, different, somewhat challenging, and I'd be working at school, so that's good. I'm also hoping it will pay more than my other jobs, but who really knows?

My storytelling class went really well today - I actually managed to tell the story I picked out without ruining it, and my professor (who is a professional storyteller) actually complimented me - he only did that after certain ones (although he complimented everyone at the end of class of course!). I think this class might really help me with my public speaking skills and it's one of the few times in my life I can remember being excited about getting up in front of people and talking. I just get all tongue-tied. I'm hoping to attend a workshop this weekend that's being taught by a Native American storyteller. At the very least, I'm planning on going to his performance, so it should be a busy/fun weekend. Classes this semester are actually a lot of fun. I'm only slightly behind in my educational psychology course because of my work schedule, but I should be able to make it up this weekend. And my other classes are so interesting and almost fun that it's hardly difficult to stay on track because I want to - which proves that good teaching and making subject interesting/exciting, really works!

I am quite exhausted this week and very excited to be done with it and get on to next week - when Nick visits!!! It's been more than a month since we got to spend any time together and that totally sucks. Plus, by next week, I will hopefully have all of my taxes finished and my financial aid forms in so I can breathe some relief about that.
In other news, Justice Ginsberg was hospitalized today for cancer. Kind of scary. I'm interested in the whole supreme court dynamic now that we have a Democrat as president and more Democrats in office in general. I'm not as scared as I was when I thought that Bush would be appointing another Justice if one died or retired. I realize that technically, judges don't (or aren't supposed to) have political leanings, they're supposed to be impartial. But it's good to know that politicians ARE and can appoint judges who can interpret the laws differently. And yes, I do mean interpret, NOT create.

Also, they found out that "Dr.Death" one of those escaped Nazi war criminals is dead - did anyone read about this in the New York Times? Pretty interesting story. And while reading it, I was off on a tangent in my head - because they mentioned in the article that they never caught Dr. Mengele, which is interesting, because I thought they did...

So that's all for now. Have an interview to go to, so wish me luck!

Semester Woes

2009-01-27T10:23:00.000-08:00

I feel like this semester is going to be extremely tough to keep up with. I'm already making reading and study schedules, trying to stay organized, but it already feels like a losing battle; and not because I haven't finished things. I'm actually doing pretty well at finishing things, on time, and not rushed. This is actually kind of weird for me. I usually finish things on time, but a lot of the time only one thing was done in a non-rushed manner. But this week, I finished two assignments well and on time and now I have all day to really work and edit an easy paper that's due tomorrow - of which, I already have a bunch of notes and things to correct as well, so aside from just making changes and revamping things and getting a style - I'm pretty much done with homework. I have no idea then why this semester is going to be so difficult, because I'm off to a great start, I feel better about myself and I'm really trying to do well and stay organized.

What the hell is wrong with me then, to feel so stressed?

I have a ton of readings and I am worried about keeping up and absorbing and understanding the material. Especially in my educational psychology class, because it's been so long since I took any sort of college-level psychology class. Of course, I also feel extremely smart in that class because I caught references to things I'd studied before and I'm in the class with quite a few undergraduates, who basically, make me look like a genius. In my own humble opinion.

Some of it is stress because of money. I'm still looking for an assistantship or better job and trying to get more hours is crazy as well - it's just not happening. But I always have the outlook that I will manage somehow.
Another one is very vain: but I've gained some weight in the last few years and for awhile I was doing really well losing it: but then winter hit and suddenly it's hard to exercise. I want to go outside and run, but it's dangerously cold or icy - or both. And I have a wonderful place to workout, but it's such an effort to actually get up and go there: I have to drive or take the bus. Plus, it's so boring not having someone to workout with, you know? But I know I'll probably do better here too, since I've gotten more set on scheduling and stuff.

I guess this post has been boring, but I just got tired of reading the same old things on all the blogs I read and figured others would be too.

Happy Inauguration Day!

2009-01-20T13:37:00.001-08:00

So, what did everybody think about the inauguration? Did anybody else cry a bit? It's turning out to be a very exciting year. My classes are going to be more involved; my ten-year high school reunion is happening in September; my oldest best friend is getting married in October; my cousin is having twins; and a new president! Yep, all in all a very busy, exciting, happening year. I'm slightly amazed by it all, in fact. And very inspired. And slightly uneasy - because, frankly, I haven't really accomplished anything even close to exciting or amazing for awhile. So I guess this means that inspiration is a good thing to feel right now - hopefully, I can harness it.

Happy Inauguration Day!

Hmm....

2009-01-18T09:48:00.000-08:00

So, I just finished re-watching all the episodes of Friends (minus Season 9 because I couldn't get it from the library in order). Naturally, the last episode made me cry - i think they did a great job ending the show, but I was with Rachel when she wished she'd be around to watch Monica and Chandler handle twins. Anyway, I wanted to find out if Courtney Cox was pregnant with Coco at the time the last episode aired (she was) and I stumbled across news, possible just gossip, about a Friends movie. So that begs the question - would we finally get to see Ross and Rachel get married? Cause that was the one wedding missing from the series (a real wedding, not that Vegas one which ended so badly) that I really wanted to see - the proposal Ross described and their wedding. But other than that, what would the premise be? That's what my post is about - I want to see comments about the Friends movie and what the storyline could be, including but not limited to the Ross and Rachel proposal/wedding.

So, here's a new post with an intriguing question. And please, I realize that not all of my readers were Friends fans, and maybe no one really CARES about this topic, but I thought it would be fun, so leave the comments about how sucky a movie would be out - just relax and have some fun with it and leave negative comments at the door - ok?

I know, these must be annoying to readers

2009-01-13T09:01:00.000-08:00

Can a Humanist Believe in God?

COLUMN BY C. MARTIN CENTNER
HumanistNetworkNews.org
Jan. 7, 2009

Editor's Note: This week HNN features what may be a controversial essay to some. I think that the writer casts fresh eyes on humanism, and presents yet another lens in which to view this philosophy. Readers, I'll be curious to hear what you think.

Many people seem to confuse humanism with atheism, and seem to think that no humanist could believe in God.

We have, however, seen many who believe in God act in ways that are sterling examples of humanism. Prior to the Civil War, evangelicals joined with freethinkers to oppose slavery in the United States.

In the 20th century, humanists, secularists, Jews and Christians, joined forces to support civil rights for all Americans. We now join with more liberal members of churches to reinforce the crumbling wall separating Church from State, and to enshrine in law full equality for our gay and lesbian citizens.

Lincoln was a perfect example of a humanist with faith. He repeatedly referred to God, but acted in a way he thought right based upon human need.

He hoped his actions were consistent with God's will, but he never assumed they were, and instead took at path that, to him, was consistent with the ideals of his nation and its founding principles.

At our own Ethical Society, we've had speakers who are quite devout, but come with a message of humanism. Chaplain Kristi Pappas spoke last year about our ethical obligation to the veterans who return with invisible injuries. A Methodist, she had dedicated her life to the welfare of others.

Carol Bullard Bates, founder of Bethany, was called by her faith and her interpretation of Jesus' words, to help the homeless and recovering addicts in Washington D.C. These two deeply religious people, and many others like them, commit themselves to helping those in need, bringing hope and care to their fellows. What better definition of humanism is there?

If humanists can believe in God, one might ask, than what is the difference between them and those of faith? The answer was given years ago, in the The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. In one section, Huck is attempting to figure out what is right and what is wrong. His his limited experience, Southern society, laws, and the church are his guideposts to correct action.

But when faced with turning in his friend, the runaway slave, Jim, he finds their guidance repulsive. After ruminating, he decides not to turn in his friend, even after acknowledging that he will probably go to "hell" for his decision. Huck let his innate sense of right and wrong guide him to a humane, morally correct decision to "steal Jim out of slavery."

The fable Twain created helps us understand what a humanist is: A humanist is one who can say "no" to social standards and even to divine guidance when they see them as incompatible with justice and humanity. They rely upon reality to determine whether their actions are good or bad, and while possibly inspired by the metaphysical, seek the correct path by observing how their actions affect their fellow beings.

To argue that humanists cannot believe in God is to posit a creed, one as narrow as those found in a thousand sacred books. We should only look upon actions to see whether someone is committed to humanity. As the saying goes, "Deed, Not Creed."

Humanists are everywhere there is charity and empathy. We humanists should not question the purity of fellow humanists by whether or not they believe in a transcendental world.

When their fellow human beings call for assistance, we can see humanists throughout the religious spectrum: they are the ones who get off their knees and roll up their sleeves.

C. Martin Centner lives in Vienna, Va., and is a member of the Northern Virginia Ethical Society.

The Institute for Humanist Studies encourages readers of Humanist Network News to forward articles freely, including to list-serves. Please read our terms of use, however, before republishing anything contained in HNN. http://www.humaniststudies.org/terms.html

Happy New School Year

2009-01-12T12:30:00.000-08:00

Well, this semester is about to start. I'm taking quite a few interesting classes. I'm worried whether I have enough credits, though I'm pretty sure I do. I also have to start on an assignment for my young adult literature class - an autobiography of my reading/media history. Eek! I'm nervous about starting my storytelling class, but excited as well, because then I can practice when I visit all the kiddos in my life. Money is still tight, but I'm hoping to get a scholarship or an assistantship still. Might have to wait until next fall. For any who are interested, my heaviest reading load - and this is only books, not articles - is around 42-45. I have to read 42-45 books in my young adult literature class. I am quite excited to see if I can handle that, plus my other classes. Wish me luck in my new semester, keep hoping and praying and thinking about me getting an assistantship or become a millionaire (I promise to share if I do!) and well, that's pretty much it.

Next week = NEW PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Happy New Year

2009-01-07T06:27:00.000-08:00

Okay, so it's a week late. I've had a crazy three weeks and I still feel rather jarred about by them. My Christmas was wonderful, although I've noticed as the years go by that the actual Christmas part of it has taken a backseat to the enjoying being with family part of it. Nick ended up being extremely busy with his family over break this year - busier than normal, for very good reasons - and so I spent tons of time with my family in Kansas. Certainly tons of time with Rick and Charlene's family. I was glad to see Jackie for a few days and hang out a bit with her, and of course, I was happy to see my dad and stepmom. But by and large, my vacation took place with Rick and Charlene and those kids. Colin turned 13 so we celebrated (somewhat reluctantly, teenagers - eek!), I got to watch Taylor play basketball, Dalton and I had a blast playing games on the computer and Playstation, and later the Wii (the kid kicks by butt at bowling, and he's 5!) and I got to bond quite a bit with Tristan, who's not yet 2. It was fun just being around and relaxing with the family. The break has been busy, so I'm not going to do a highlights list - there's just too many things that happened. But suffice to say, it was a pretty good break.
Nick left today - he was able to spend a week here, so we had our New Year's celebration together, and then basically hung out and tried not to spend too much money. I already miss him. Feels like it will be forever until our next meeting (which sounds rather old-fashioned, doesn't it?)
I have some simple, possibly successful resolutions in place. I'm getting ready for school to start in about two weeks. Nervous this semester, as I start education courses. But happy to keep going forward and get stuff done.

An Anti-Abortion Advocate Takes it Back (Well, sort of)

2008-12-13T16:33:00.001-08:00

I love it when people make me think, no matter which side of the abortion debate they're on.

Frank Schaeffer

Frank! As A Former Pro-Life Leader How Dare You Support Pro-Choice Obama?

Dear Republican and Pro-Life Friends,
Thanks for the spittle-flecked emails as well as for the polite queries. Yes, I am aware Obama is pro-choice. Yes, I'm still pro-life. I also believe that with Obama in the White House that there will be less abortions in America than with the Republicans in power.

As you know I was a lifelong Republican until I reregistered as an Independent in 2006, after I just couldn't take the Rove brigade's dirty tricks, lies and slime any longer. When I worked to get John McCain nominated in 2000 I went on many conservative and religious radio shows to plead his cause. I started edging away from the party after seeing the filth the Bush crew got away with.

I know rather a lot about the politics of the "life issues." And I know you know that is true because you are calling me a traitor for supporting Senator Obama because of my leadership in the early stages of the pro-life movement.

You also know that without my late Evangelical leader father Francis Schaeffer's and my work (teamed up with C. Everett Koop) there would have been no Evangelical/Republican pro-life movement as it emerged in the mid 1970s. And on a personal note, having gotten my girlfriend pregnant when we were teens, I also know a little about the heartache that goes along with a very unplanned pregnancy. Fortunately we received the sort of support that made keeping our daughter Jessica possible. It could have gone another way.

That said...I know (as you pro-lifers do if you're honest) that the Republicans have milked the abortion issue, as have the Evangelical and Roman Catholic leadership, for every dime it's worth for fundraising, votes, power and empire-building, without changing much if anything. As I said, I also am fully aware that Senator Obama is pro-choice. I think his pro-choice views are out of character with his otherwise generous and enlightened world view.

The pro-life cause poisoned many of us who were part of it. Me included. It led to self-righteous hubris that extended to a general attitude of hate toward the "other." For instance power hungry strivers such as James Dobson and Pat Robertson took the passion generated by the pro-life cause and fueled their wholly illegitimate war against gay Americans with it, not to mention their multi million dollar empires. Our cause became all about power over other people, money and the muscle to win elections, not about the good of unborn babies and women.

I describe this corruption in my book, CRAZY FOR GOD-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back. I explore what happened to us as we were lured by politics and money. So lots of folks who are in the Evangelical/Republican/Roman Catholic establishment and who are still earning a good living through the culture wars hate my book (and me) for spilling the beans.

Just for the record: my annual income was a lot bigger and more secure within the Evangelical fold than without. The big bucks in America are all about selling God, as Rick Warren, James Dobson or Joel Osteen can tell you, not earned blogging for lefty sites such as Huffington Post or writing novels as I do now.

That said... First, a nod to reality: even if Roe were reversed (it won't be no matter who is president) the abortion pill and the acceptance of at least some types of legal abortion by most Americans guarantees there will be access to abortion. Besides, on a state-by-state basis abortion would remain legal in most states no matter what the court does. And as we have seen the Republicans haven't really changed anything in thirty years.

So what do we who find abortion abhorrent do if we want to deal in reality rather than fantasies and slogans of winner-take-all propaganda? The reality is that we need to foster a climate in which we can reduce the number of abortions and also keep the moral -- rather than legal -- debate alive.

We can't do this by concentrating on politics, or silver bullets such as trying for that one magic court appointment. It's the "holistic" approach that is really what's important if our goal is to reduce the number of abortions rather than just "win" political games.

The effort to reduce abortions will be more possible in the Obama era than in a continuation of the hardhearted Bush presidency with McCain. This is all about tone and moral leadership, not law.

At heart of the abortion reality is this: we are a consumerist society with a heart of stone when it comes to the poor, who account for four times the national average of people having abortions, mostly because of economic needs that Republicans don't lift a finger to address. And we still denigrate women and female sexuality.

Meanwhile we face global catastrophe if we keep on the path we are on that the Republicans have put us on. And Obama promises real change on the environment, education, the economy, the military and foreign affairs, all of which need to change, not as a luxury or choice or option, but as a matter of national survival.

I guess that having had my Marine son John go to war for George W. Bush concentrated my mind on the seriousness of this election. McCain won't do more than provide another four-to-eight years of Bush. Our planet and country can't endure that. And our military is disintegrating under the Bush doctrine, which is: "You all go shopping while we ask a few Americans to go to war again and again and again and again..."

For all you sanctimonious Evangelicals out there, also note: when it comes to squeaky clean family values, Senator Obama -- not Senator McCain -- should be your role model. The Republican right wants us to draw back in horror from Obama because he is pro-choice, but this is the same group working to get a philanderer who abandoned his wife because she had a disfiguring accident, elected.

It isn't just a matter of voting for Obama. Americans who want there to be a country left in which to argue our issues must vote against McCain. As his support for the Bush lies about Iraq shows McCain is hung up on his own version of post-Vietnam traumatic stress disorder. This is a man who would take our civilian culture down in flames and sacrifice it to his sense of death-or-glory military "honor." How do you "win" a wrong war? McCain will make the world more dangerous. You think Bush was a cowboy? Just try McCain.

I say this as the proud father of United States Marine. I say this as someone who believes that we should be in Afghanistan where my son served, fought and risked his life for us all. I also say this as someone who believes that when it comes to pro-life issues in the most comprehensive sense, that President Bush, Dick Cheney and the neoconservative/Republican establishment have needlessly killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and over 4000 American servicemen and women.

I use the words "needlessly killed" advisedly. When you send men and women into an unnecessary and unprovoked war-of-choice for spurious reasons that then turn into outright lies, you've murdered them. And George W. Bush has sanctioned torture, contravened the Geneva conventions, and has lied to the American people about all of it.

Bush has destabilized the world. The latest evidence of this is the fact that Russia attacked Georgia. In the climate of Bush's aggression, where is our moral standing to criticize Russia? McCain offers no alternative. These too are life issues.

There's no point arguing about abortion, capital punishment, women's rights, gender equality or any other issue -- no matter how important -- while the ship of state is being torpedoed by the Commander-in-Chief. We can't afford more of this. Our honorable military can't endure more of this. Our economy can't endure more of this. Our Earth will not survive more of this. Bush and his look alike shill McCain have to go.

When it comes to the issue of abortion there is another side besides legality/illegality: the nature of our country.

What kind of care do we provide to mothers and children? What is our educational system like? Is healthcare available to all? Do our preschool programs and everything from paternal and maternal leave to the economic well-being of our country come first? Or do we argue about abortion rights while we live lives of such supreme selfish decadence that the nature of our country means that no matter what we do with the laws about abortion life will not be valued?

The Republican leadership is not pro-life. They are simply against abortion for reasons of political expediency. They are also for torture and military aggression. And they chose a literal executioner for president; a former governor who has more blood on his hands than any other modern American governor; Mr. Texas-sized, Capital Punishment-with-no-mercy-no-pardons hang em' high himself.

The Republicans have contributed to climate change by coddling oil companies and car companies and ducking the hard environmental and energy policy questions for thirty years. They have literally sold our country to the highest polluting bidders from the Saudis to the Chinese. Therefore the Republicans have literally risked the ability of our planet to sustain all human life born and unborn. So much for human life values.

Who will help us to become a nation that values life -- abortion rhetoric aside? Obama.

The contrast could not have been more clear than on August 16 in the interview between pastor Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church and Obama and McCain. Obama gave real and thoughtful answers, often trying to explore a moral question deeply. McCain offered nothing more than canned applause lines and anecdotes from his tired simplistic stump speech.

McCain fed pre-programed red meat to the Evangelical faithful who were packing the auditorium, but not much more. He parroted all the "right" lines about abortion, the same empty phrases Bush, parrots, Bush's father parroted and Reagan and Ford parroted.

"When does life begin?" asked Warren. "At conception!" shot back McCain.

The Evangelical crowd goes wild! See?! That's our guy!

And where do the tired canned pro-life "correct answers" get us? Nowhere.

I will be voting for the presidential candidate who seems most authentically exercised about our devastating problems and who is ready to not only address them but to provide the inspiring leadership that will move my fellow citizens and I to do something about our terminal situation. I'll be voting for the man that has also inspired the world more than any national leader in my lifetime.

There are worse things than America being liked and therefore safer. Would you rather have non-Americans waving our flag or burning it?

In the best of all worlds we would be living in a country in which no one had an abortion. We would be living in a country in which there was never capital punishment. We would be living in a country that would have addressed the legacy of our racist past and racist present so that we would not have a disproportionate number of black men and women locked in our prisons. We would be living in a country where people calling themselves Christians would not hate gay people. We would be living in a country that never went to war except as last resort for self defense. We would be living in a country where education and opportunity was every American's birthright. But we are not.

The question is: Who can best help us to the realization of the real American Dream?

The Republicans only offer consumerism as a debased sort of "freedom." This is the freedom of "me" and "I." This is the freedom of pigs rooting at a trough.

As a born-again Christ-centered believer Obama offers a spiritual vision of life founded on the Sermon On the Mount. It is the freedom of "we." It is the same view of freedom that my Marine son learned in boot camp: that the person standing next to you is more important than you are. That concept of freedom is more in keeping with valuing all human life. It will create a climate more friendly to mothers and children.

As I listen to Senator Obama speak, as I see the selfless altruistic energy he has generated in a whole new generation of young people, as I think about the ethical, caring culture he would like to foster with healthcare for all, a revamped and reenergized educational system that includes the arts, history, poetry and all those things that make life worthwhile, as I think about the wars my son's brothers-in-arms are still mired and dying in because of the hubris of the Republicans, as I think about the crying need to restore our standing in the world, as I think about the scandalous way in which the Republicans have manipulated people, including the most sincere Evangelicals, Orthodox and Roman Catholics, to get their votes, while not actually doing anything about the issues they care most about, yes, I am ready to for a change.

In Obama's America arguments for compassion for the unborn and all the other "least of these" will resonate regardless of Obama's stance on the legality of abortion. Roe is not the point. Our hearts are the point. The unborn like everyone else will do better in a country that puts people, the earth, and our future ahead of greed, oil company profits and jingoistic rule by fear.

I will be voting for Senator Obama and am fighting for his election because I am pro-life.

Frank Schaeffer is coauthor of HOW FREE PEOPLE MOVE MOUNTAINS-A Male Christian Conservative and a Female Jewish Liberal On A Quest For Common Purpose and Meaning. He is also author of CRAZY FOR GOD-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back

Ahh, Memories

2008-12-11T10:01:00.000-08:00

You can find these on YouTube - also, there is apparently a DVD available from KWCH that has some of the episodes of Santa's Workshop with ToyBoy. I would LOVE to have that for Christmas, wouldn't you?

An article from Newsweek

2008-12-09T14:17:00.001-08:00

I thought this was so well-written I had to share.

Our Mutual Joy
Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.

Lisa Miller
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Dec 15, 2008
For feedback on this story, head to NEWSWEEK's Readback blog.

Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?

Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so.

The battle over gay marriage has been waged for more than a decade, but within the last six months—since California legalized gay marriage and then, with a ballot initiative in November, amended its Constitution to prohibit it—the debate has grown into a full-scale war, with religious-rhetoric slinging to match. Not since 1860, when the country's pulpits were full of preachers pronouncing on slavery, pro and con, has one of our basic social (and economic) institutions been so subject to biblical scrutiny. But whereas in the Civil War the traditionalists had their James Henley Thornwell—and the advocates for change, their Henry Ward Beecher—this time the sides are unevenly matched. All the religious rhetoric, it seems, has been on the side of the gay-marriage opponents, who use Scripture as the foundation for their objections.

The argument goes something like this statement, which the Rev. Richard A. Hunter, a United Methodist minister, gave to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in June: "The Bible and Jesus define marriage as between one man and one woman. The church cannot condone or bless same-sex marriages because this stands in opposition to Scripture and our tradition."

To which there are two obvious responses: First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else's —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes. "Marriage" in America refers to two separate things, a religious institution and a civil one, though it is most often enacted as a messy conflation of the two. As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights; and inheritance. As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer—in accordance with God's will. In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them. Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.

In the Old Testament, the concept of family is fundamental, but examples of what social conservatives would call "the traditional family" are scarcely to be found. Marriage was critical to the passing along of tradition and history, as well as to maintaining the Jews' precious and fragile monotheism. But as the Barnard University Bible scholar Alan Segal puts it, the arrangement was between "one man and as many women as he could pay for." Social conservatives point to Adam and Eve as evidence for their one man, one woman argument—in particular, this verse from Genesis: "Therefore shall a man leave his mother and father, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh." But as Segal says, if you believe that the Bible was written by men and not handed down in its leather bindings by God, then that verse was written by people for whom polygamy was the way of the world. (The fact that homosexual couples cannot procreate has also been raised as a biblical objection, for didn't God say, "Be fruitful and multiply"? But the Bible authors could never have imagined the brave new world of international adoption and assisted reproductive technology—and besides, heterosexuals who are infertile or past the age of reproducing get married all the time.)

Ozzie and Harriet are nowhere in the New Testament either. The biblical Jesus was—in spite of recent efforts of novelists to paint him otherwise—emphatically unmarried. He preached a radical kind of family, a caring community of believers, whose bond in God superseded all blood ties. Leave your families and follow me, Jesus says in the gospels. There will be no marriage in heaven, he says in Matthew. Jesus never mentions homosexuality, but he roundly condemns divorce (leaving a loophole in some cases for the husbands of unfaithful women).

The apostle Paul echoed the Christian Lord's lack of interest in matters of the flesh. For him, celibacy was the Christian ideal, but family stability was the best alternative. Marry if you must, he told his audiences, but do not get divorced. "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): a wife must not separate from her husband." It probably goes without saying that the phrase "gay marriage" does not appear in the Bible at all.

If the bible doesn't give abundant examples of traditional marriage, then what are the gay-marriage opponents really exercised about? Well, homosexuality, of course—specifically sex between men. Sex between women has never, even in biblical times, raised as much ire. In its entry on "Homosexual Practices," the Anchor Bible Dictionary notes that nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women, "possibly because it did not result in true physical 'union' (by male entry)." The Bible does condemn gay male sex in a handful of passages. Twice Leviticus refers to sex between men as "an abomination" (King James version), but these are throwaway lines in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world, a text that devotes verse after verse to treatments for leprosy, cleanliness rituals for menstruating women and the correct way to sacrifice a goat—or a lamb or a turtle dove. Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?

Paul was tough on homosexuality, though recently progressive scholars have argued that his condemnation of men who "were inflamed with lust for one another" (which he calls "a perversion") is really a critique of the worst kind of wickedness: self-delusion, violence, promiscuity and debauchery. In his book "The Arrogance of Nations," the scholar Neil Elliott argues that Paul is referring in this famous passage to the depravity of the Roman emperors, the craven habits of Nero and Caligula, a reference his audience would have grasped instantly. "Paul is not talking about what we call homosexuality at all," Elliott says. "He's talking about a certain group of people who have done everything in this list. We're not dealing with anything like gay love or gay marriage. We're talking about really, really violent people who meet their end and are judged by God." In any case, one might add, Paul argued more strenuously against divorce—and at least half of the Christians in America disregard that teaching.

Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition (and, to talk turkey for a minute, a personal discomfort with gay sex that transcends theological argument). Common prayers and rituals reflect our common practice: the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer describes the participants in a marriage as "the man and the woman." But common practice changes—and for the better, as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice." The Bible endorses slavery, a practice that Americans now universally consider shameful and barbaric. It recommends the death penalty for adulterers (and in Leviticus, for men who have sex with men, for that matter). It provides conceptual shelter for anti-Semites. A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism. The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it's impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours.

Marriage, specifically, has evolved so as to be unrecognizable to the wives of Abraham and Jacob. Monogamy became the norm in the Christian world in the sixth century; husbands' frequent enjoyment of mistresses and prostitutes became taboo by the beginning of the 20th. (In the NEWSWEEK POLL, 55 percent of respondents said that married heterosexuals who have sex with someone other than their spouses are more morally objectionable than a gay couple in a committed sexual relationship.) By the mid-19th century, U.S. courts were siding with wives who were the victims of domestic violence, and by the 1970s most states had gotten rid of their "head and master" laws, which gave husbands the right to decide where a family would live and whether a wife would be able to take a job. Today's vision of marriage as a union of equal partners, joined in a relationship both romantic and pragmatic, is, by very recent standards, radical, says Stephanie Coontz, author of "Marriage, a History."

Religious wedding ceremonies have already changed to reflect new conceptions of marriage. Remember when we used to say "man and wife" instead of "husband and wife"? Remember when we stopped using the word "obey"? Even Miss Manners, the voice of tradition and reason, approved in 1997 of that change. "It seems," she wrote, "that dropping 'obey' was a sensible editing of a service that made assumptions about marriage that the society no longer holds."

We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future. The Bible offers inspiration and warning on the subjects of love, marriage, family and community. It speaks eloquently of the crucial role of families in a fair society and the risks we incur to ourselves and our children should we cease trying to bind ourselves together in loving pairs. Gay men like to point to the story of passionate King David and his friend Jonathan, with whom he was "one spirit" and whom he "loved as he loved himself." Conservatives say this is a story about a platonic friendship, but it is also a story about two men who stand up for each other in turbulent times, through violent war and the disapproval of a powerful parent. David rends his clothes at Jonathan's death and, in grieving, writes a song:

I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
You were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
More wonderful than that of women.

Here, the Bible praises enduring love between men. What Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy is perhaps best left to history and our own imaginations.

In addition to its praise of friendship and its condemnation of divorce, the Bible gives many examples of marriages that defy convention yet benefit the greater community. The Torah discouraged the ancient Hebrews from marrying outside the tribe, yet Moses himself is married to a foreigner, Zipporah. Queen Esther is married to a non-Jew and, according to legend, saves the Jewish people. Rabbi Arthur Waskow, of the Shalom Center in Philadelphia, believes that Judaism thrives through diversity and inclusion. "I don't think Judaism should or ought to want to leave any portion of the human population outside the religious process," he says. "We should not want to leave [homosexuals] outside the sacred tent." The marriage of Joseph and Mary is also unorthodox (to say the least), a case of an unconventional arrangement accepted by society for the common good. The boy needed two human parents, after all.

In the Christian story, the message of acceptance for all is codified. Jesus reaches out to everyone, especially those on the margins, and brings the whole Christian community into his embrace. The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and author, cites the story of Jesus revealing himself to the woman at the well— no matter that she had five former husbands and a current boyfriend—as evidence of Christ's all-encompassing love. The great Bible scholar Walter Brueggemann, emeritus professor at Columbia Theological Seminary, quotes the apostle Paul when he looks for biblical support of gay marriage: "There is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ." The religious argument for gay marriage, he adds, "is not generally made with reference to particular texts, but with the general conviction that the Bible is bent toward inclusiveness."

The practice of inclusion, even in defiance of social convention, the reaching out to outcasts, the emphasis on togetherness and community over and against chaos, depravity, indifference—all these biblical values argue for gay marriage. If one is for racial equality and the common nature of humanity, then the values of stability, monogamy and family necessarily follow. Terry Davis is the pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Hartford, Conn., and has been presiding over "holy unions" since 1992. "I'm against promiscuity—love ought to be expressed in committed relationships, not through casual sex, and I think the church should recognize the validity of committed same-sex relationships," he says.

Still, very few Jewish or Christian denominations do officially endorse gay marriage, even in the states where it is legal. The practice varies by region, by church or synagogue, even by cleric. More progressive denominations—the United Church of Christ, for example—have agreed to support gay marriage. Other denominations and dioceses will do "holy union" or "blessing" ceremonies, but shy away from the word "marriage" because it is politically explosive. So the frustrating, semantic question remains: should gay people be married in the same, sacramental sense that straight people are? I would argue that they should. If we are all God's children, made in his likeness and image, then to deny access to any sacrament based on sexuality is exactly the same thing as denying it based on skin color—and no serious (or even semiserious) person would argue that. People get married "for their mutual joy," explains the Rev. Chloe Breyer, executive director of the Interfaith Center in New York, quoting the Episcopal marriage ceremony. That's what religious people do: care for each other in spite of difficulty, she adds. In marriage, couples grow closer to God: "Being with one another in community is how you love God. That's what marriage is about."

More basic than theology, though, is human need. We want, as Abraham did, to grow old surrounded by friends and family and to be buried at last peacefully among them. We want, as Jesus taught, to love one another for our own good—and, not to be too grandiose about it, for the good of the world. We want our children to grow up in stable homes. What happens in the bedroom, really, has nothing to do with any of this. My friend the priest James Martin says his favorite Scripture relating to the question of homosexuality is Psalm 139, a song that praises the beauty and imperfection in all of us and that glorifies God's knowledge of our most secret selves: "I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made." And then he adds that in his heart he believes that if Jesus were alive today, he would reach out especially to the gays and lesbians among us, for "Jesus does not want people to be lonely and sad." Let the priest's prayer be our own.

With Sarah Ball and Anne Underwood

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653
© 2008

I love these actors and actresses!

2008-12-04T14:54:00.001-08:00

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Reflection on Thanksgiving

2008-12-01T14:42:00.000-08:00

Well, I'm back in Champaign - and already I am wishing for Christmas vacation. Who knew that being gone for a simple week would be so complicated. Plus, I hate unpacking! But it is worth it because I had a great Thanksgiving break and holiday. In honor of that, I thought I'd put aside politics and debate and just do a nice highlights page - cause everyone loves highlights right?!

My Thanksgiving Break Highlights (these are in no particular order)

1. Movie with Jackie, Taylor, Alyssa, and Colin - the movie was Twilight and this was the second time I saw it. Certain parts were just as hilarious. But it was far more fun just hanging out with them. Plus, Colin was the only boy in our group, seeing a chick flick, and I think that's just very classy of him.

2. Having lunch with Jackie at Olive Garden and reminiscing and basically getting a chance to catch up.

3. Thanksgiving dinner with the family, and laughing so hard it hurt because dad was telling all his old, really hilarious stories to Nick.

4. Watching Nick make pies in the kitchen and talking with all the kids on Wednesday night.

5. Seeing Twilight with Ramee and laughing so hard it almost hurt! Also, alcohol.

6. Hanging out with all my friends from high school (almost all). It felt like old times, if we had gone out to Old Chicago and drank while we were in high school. But it was so fun to see everyone and laugh until it hurt - literally HURT - to keep smiling. It was good to see you all!!!! Kay, your ring is beautiful and you still suck for not wearing the shirt!

7. Spending time with Nick, who I never get tired of spending time with and already miss, even though it's only been 8 hours.

8. Thanksgiving food!!!!

9. Having lunch with Dr. Owens and Angie Gumm at Jimmy's Diner and talking about history and classes and gossip.

10. Seeing the family. 'Nuff said.

First installment

2008-11-17T11:18:00.000-08:00

We have a pro-choice president. But there are still people who are anti-choice. I know what their arguments are and try very hard to listen and take to heart their point of view. I know that some don't believe me, not that it matters. But now that we have a pro-choice president, the anti-choice movement is up in arms. They're afraid: that FOCA will get passed, that we'll get "radical" judges, etc. and they're planning on a bigger push to make abortion illegal. That's their right of free speech of course (remember, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU!) and I always enjoy hearing arguments and debating the issue. But abortion WAS once illegal. And a lot of women, on both sides of the issue, seem to have forgotten the past, and why so many people pushed for legal abortions - to help women and save women's lives. So I thought that I'd publish this experience from a doctor who dealt with illegal abortions in the past. If nothing else, it will help pro-choice women remember WHY we support reproductive rights, and maybe it will help anti-choice people (or anti-abortion people, as there is a difference in my mind) figure out how they can be anti-abortion, get rid of legal abortion, AND save women. I hope that makes sense. I'm hoping to add more of these first-hand experiences, that's why I titled it "first installment." Also, a toast to Dr. Fielding. I think you're a hero for sharing your experiences.

Repairing the Damage, Before Roe
by Waldo L. Fielding, M.D.

With the Supreme Court becoming more conservative, many people who support women’s right to choose an abortion fear that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that gave them that right, is in danger of being swept aside.

When such fears arise, we often hear about the pre-Roe “bad old days.” Yet there are few physicians today who can relate to them from personal experience. I can.

I am a retired gynecologist, in my mid-80s. My early formal training in my specialty was spent in New York City, from 1948 to 1953, in two of the city’s large municipal hospitals.

There I saw and treated almost every complication of illegal abortion that one could conjure, done either by the patient herself or by an abortionist — often unknowing, unskilled and probably uncaring. Yet the patient never told us who did the work, or where and under what conditions it was performed. She was in dire need of our help to complete the process or, as frequently was the case, to correct what damage might have been done.

The patient also did not explain why she had attempted the abortion, and we did not ask. This was a decision she made for herself, and the reasons were hers alone. Yet this much was clear: The woman had put herself at total risk, and literally did not know whether she would live or die.

This, too, was clear: Her desperate need to terminate a pregnancy was the driving force behind the selection of any method available.

The familiar symbol of illegal abortion is the infamous “coat hanger” — which may be the symbol, but is in no way a myth. In my years in New York, several women arrived with a hanger still in place. Whoever put it in — perhaps the patient herself — found it trapped in the cervix and could not remove it.

We did not have ultrasound, CT scans or any of the now accepted radiology techniques. The woman was placed under anesthesia, and as we removed the metal piece we held our breath, because we could not tell whether the hanger had gone through the uterus into the abdominal cavity. Fortunately, in the cases I saw, it had not.

However, not simply coat hangers were used.

Almost any implement you can imagine had been and was used to start an abortion — darning needles, crochet hooks, cut-glass salt shakers, soda bottles, sometimes intact, sometimes with the top broken off.

Another method that I did not encounter, but heard about from colleagues in other hospitals, was a soap solution forced through the cervical canal with a syringe. This could cause almost immediate death if a bubble in the solution entered a blood vessel and was transported to the heart.

The worst case I saw, and one I hope no one else will ever have to face, was that of a nurse who was admitted with what looked like a partly delivered umbilical cord. Yet as soon as we examined her, we realized that what we thought was the cord was in fact part of her intestine, which had been hooked and torn by whatever implement had been used in the abortion. It took six hours of surgery to remove the infected uterus and ovaries and repair the part of the bowel that was still functional.

It is important to remember that Roe v. Wade did not mean that abortions could be performed. They have always been done, dating from ancient Greek days.

What Roe said was that ending a pregnancy could be carried out by medical personnel, in a medically accepted setting, thus conferring on women, finally, the full rights of first-class citizens — and freeing their doctors to treat them as such.

Waldo L. Fielding was an obstetrician and gynecologist in Boston for 38 years. He is the author of “Pregnancy: The Best State of the Union” (Thomas Y. Crowell, 1971).

It's Over!

2008-11-05T18:54:00.000-08:00

YES WE DID!!!!!!!!!

I was so proud of being an American yesterday. I imagine I'll be posting about this topic for awhile, but I honestly don't have a lot of words. When they announced it last night, I burst into tears I was so happy, so relieved, so excited. I was wishing I was in Grant Park and kicking myself for not organizing a group to go up there and celebrate with the new President-elect. And I have to say, I'm so proud of Americans too, not just for voting for Obama, but for voting at all. We had the biggest turn-out in a century! That's incredible! And I really have some major pity for those who DIDN'T vote; I think they've missed out on being a part of history, at least in action.
Also, I have to say McCain's concession speech was beautiful and also gave me teary eyes. So - YAY! YAY! YAY! YAY! YAY! YAY! YAY! YAY! YAY! YAY! YAY! YAY!
YES WE DID!!!!

This is only the first part - you can check out the rest of it on YouTube.

Tree-hugging liberal

2008-11-02T20:57:00.001-08:00

I am proud to be a tree-hugging liberal. I realize this might not be completely accurate, especially today, but I thought it was kinda funny and I needed a laugh cause Nick had to leave today and I miss him.

A day in the life of Joe Republican

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FDIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

Kids and Zingers

2008-10-30T09:08:00.001-07:00

When kids bring God to dinner

COLUMN BY MARY ELLEN SIKES
Humanist Network News
May 4, 2005

"What's that Communion thing Grandma does at church?"

It's one of those zingers kids like to hit you with at the dinner table, usually while you're focused on someone else's spilled milk, or the smoke suddenly billowing out of the oven. And as mealtime zingers go, I guess it could be worse. (Take "My snake just escaped!" -- for example.)

For humanist parents, zingers involving religion -- and especially those involving religion and relatives -- are rife with both opportunity and risk. The wide-open potential of such a moment is undeniable: without even trying, here you've got an opening to discuss not only the extended family's religious beliefs, but the reasons you don't share them. To a humanist parent, this is something like going to McDonald's and discovering prime rib on the menu. But let's face it -- with careless handling, even prime rib will cause food poisoning. If your extended family is really religious, like mine, dealing with a zinger thoughtlessly now could turn the next family reunion into one giant Unhappy Meal -- the kind that generates belches for years to come.

If religion dominates the present and children are the future, the fateful intersection of religion with childrearing might be one of the most important topics today. Scientist Richard Dawkins himself takes it on in his April 28 article for Salon, [See: The atheist (story by Salon.com, April 28, 2005).] He criticizes parents who give their kids religious labels like Catholic or Muslim, noting, "We wouldn't dream of speaking of a Keynesian child or a Marxist child. And yet, for some reason we make a privileged exception of religion."
(Section deleted by me)
I do agree with him, though, about the harm of molding children to conform to the expectations of an inherited faith....
(Section deleted by me)

But some might also ask if we're kidding ourselves. Don't we freethinkers also give our kids ideas about "the cosmos, life, and morality" when faced with a zinger like the one above? Are we, too, guilty of labeling our kids?

I certainly hope we are raising our children to know about our values -- and without apology! -- but I do think there's an important difference between religious parenting and what most humanists practice. The goal of religious parenting is to raise a child to follow the family faith, using authority and revelation as resources. The goal of humanist parenting is to raise a child to craft her own lifestance, using reason and free inquiry as her resources. One assigns the child's religious identity; the other expects him to develop it himself.

As a Catholic child (and therefore a victim of "label abuse," according to Dawkins), I received plenty of instruction on what to think about the universe and my place in it. Whatever questioning occurred did so within strict boundaries involving church authority and the presumption of a supernatural realm (both strictly outside the limits of scrutiny). My husband was raised in a similar way by Southern Baptists.

For our own children, however, authority and faith were simply not reference points. As humanist parents, my husband and I gave objective, common-sense justifications for the ideas we offered our kids. We were careful to distinguish fact from opinion. And we tended to describe rather than endorse -- even when presenting thoughts we do endorse for ourselves, personally. "Some people believe..." and "We think..." were phrases our children heard frequently.

In this way, we did not raise "atheist children," even though both have, indeed, become nonreligious adults. We raised children who were exposed to the ideas of their atheist parents -- ideas they were free to challenge, accept or reject. We raised children who were also given information about others' beliefs and opinions, as appropriate. This would please Dawkins, I think; it turns out he is just as hard on parents who label children "atheist." I have a feeling most humanist parents would earn his approval on this score.

I started with a dining room zinger involving children, extended family, and religion. It seems only fair to invite you back to the table for the ending.

"Communion is a Christian ritual," began my answer to our daughter's question. For Protestants, I added, the Communion wafer symbolizes Christ's body sacrificed on the cross. At 10, our daughter knew the Jesus story.

"But for Catholics like Grandma," I continued in what I hoped was a neutral tone, "Communion is the most important part of their faith. It's not just a symbol: they believe the priest changes the bread into Christ's actual body during the Mass, and the wine into his blood. During Communion, people go up to the altar to eat and drink the body and blood of Jesus."

She put down her fork and stared at me in disbelief. "No way!" she said.

Really, I assured her. It's what Catholics believe. It's what I was taught to believe when I was young.

She went back to her food, quietly eating. I wondered if the discussion might be over, or if I'd somehow blown it. This was her grandmother we were talking about, after all (even though I was pretty sure my explanation and Grandma's would have been 99 percent the same). Our daughter was deep in thought.

After a few minutes she looked up from her food. "Why don't they just do a science test and find out if it's true?" she asked.

On some nights, there's just no end to the zingers a kid can throw at you during dinner.

Mary Ellen Sikes is the Associate Director and Web Analyst for the Institute for Humanist Studies.

Editor's Note: For more information on humanist parenting, click the "Parenting" tab in the left-hand sidebar that appears on every page of the Institute for Humanist Studies website, or visit: http://www.HumanistStudies.org/parenting

The Institute for Humanist Studies encourages readers of Humanist Network News to forward articles freely, including to list-serves. Please read our terms of use, however, before republishing anything contained in HNN. http://www.humaniststudies.org/terms.html

Personal Improvements

2008-10-25T12:01:00.000-07:00

I have found a potential flaw in myself. I don't actually know if it's a flaw, perhaps it's a personality quirk? Perhaps it's not a fault at all - maybe it's something good?
At any rate, lately I've been trying for improvements in myself. For example, I have a tendency to procrastinate. I've been trying really hard to address this. So far, I've been MOSTLY successful. It's hard to break habits, but since this one will benefit me in school, work, life, it's not that hard to do. I'm actually kind of surprised.
Basically, I'm thinking about things that bother me, basically to find out WHY they bother me. Is it something I can overcome or is it a basic makeup of my basic personality and life outlook? I'm taking stock of myself, in other words.
And I've found that I DESPISE hypocrisy. DESPISE. I don't just dislike it. I don't hate it. I despise it. I'm sure most people would say they also dislike/hate/despise hypocrisy. So maybe I'm not alone, and this is a good trait for humans - although you've got to wonder why, if hating hypocrisy is something that's good for humans, so many people are hypocritical. I know that there are times I myself have been hypocritical. Maybe it's something you can't help being, because life is so full of gray-nothing is really black and white, and having a position about one thing can never be fully secure, there are always caveats. A person thinks and declares, let's come up with something that really bothers me: that women shouldn't work if they have kids. They argue that it's harmful to children. That women are the empathetic, caregiving sex and shouldn't work. In many cases, they argue this even as they're working themselves. This just pisses me off. At least back up what you're saying: act the way you supposedly think; especially because you're arguing that ALL women should act in a way you yourself are not acting. Anyway, hypocrisy really bothers me.
I was thinking about this the other day on the bus, of all places, because of a particular incident. There was a woman on the bus talking on her cell phone, a lovely conversation involving some guy. I must point out that she was with a friend. Now, for about ten minutes she just talked and talked on her cell phone, occasionally she would relay information to her friend. She finally hung up. Wait for five minutes. A cell phone rang and a woman answered it and proceeded to explain to her friend that she was on the bus, that's why it was so loud, and how did the other day go. The woman WHO HAD JUST HUNG UP HER CELL PHONE! turned to her friend and said - "I just hate it when people answer their cell phones and have conversations on the bus. It's so rude." I wanted to just glare at her until she could read my thoughts: you just did that, you IDIOT! But of course, I didn't. Instead I started thinking about how we're all hypocritical. Sometimes it's more blatant than others. So I'm trying to figure out how I can avoid being hypocritical: I despise it in other people, so I should definitely try to avoid doing it. Since I think it happens without people realizing it, it may be difficult to accomplish.

A Flashback

2008-10-23T21:08:00.001-07:00

Dave Barry on College

College is basically a bunch of rooms where you sit for roughly two thousand hours and try to memorize things. The two thousand hours are spread out over four years; you spend the rest of the time sleeping and trying to get dates.

Basically, you learn two kinds of things in college:

1. Things you will need to know in later life (two hours).

2. Things you will not need to know in later life (1,998 hours). These are the things you learn in classes whose names end in -ology, -osophy, -istry, -ics, and so on. The idea is, you memorize these things, then write them down in little exam books, then forget them. If you fail to forget them, you become a professor and have to stay in college for the rest of your life.

It's very difficult to forget everything. For example, when I was in college, I had to memorize -- don't ask me why -- the names of three metaphysical poets other than John Donne. I have managed to forget one of them, but I still remember that the other two were named Vaughan and Crashaw. Sometimes, when I'm trying to remember something important like whether my wife told me to get tuna packed in oil or tuna packed in water, Vaughan and Crashaw just pop up in my mind, right there in the supermarket. It's a terrible waste of brain cells.

After you've been in college for a year or so, you're supposed to choose a major, which is the subject you intend to memorize and forget the most things about. Here is a very important piece of advice: be sure to choose a major that does not involve Known Facts and Right Answers. This means you must not major in mathematics, physics, biology, or chemistry, because these subjects involve actual facts. If, for example, you major in mathematics, you're going to wander into class one day and the professor will say: "Define the cosine integer of the quadrant of a rhomboid binary axis, and extrapolate your result to five significant vertices." If you don't come up with exactly the answer the professor has in mind, you fail. The same is true of chemistry: if you write in your exam book that carbon and hydrogen combine to form oak, your professor will flunk you. He wants you to come up with the same answer he and all the other chemists have agreed on.

Scientists are extremely snotty about this.

So you should major in subjects like English, philosophy, psychology, and sociology -- subjects in which nobody really understands what anybody else is talking about, and which involve virtually no actual facts. I attended classes in all these subjects, so I'll give you a quick overview of each:

ENGLISH: This involves writing papers about long books you have read little snippets of just before class. Here is a tip on how to get good grades on your English papers: Never say anything about a book that anybody with any common sense would say. For example, suppose you are studying Moby-Dick. Anybody with any common sense would say that Moby-Dick is a big white whale, since the characters in the book refer to it as a big white whale roughly eleven thousand times. So in your paper, you say Moby-Dick is actually the Republic of Ireland.

Your professor, who is sick to death of reading papers and never liked Moby-Dick anyway, will think you are enormously creative. If you can regularly come up with lunatic interpretations of simple stories, you should major in English.

PHILOSOPHY: Basically, this involves sitting in a room and deciding there is no such thing as reality and then going to lunch. You should major in philosophy if you plan to take a lot of drugs.

PSYCHOLOGY: This involves talking about rats and dreams. Psychologists are obsessed with rats and dreams. I once spent an entire semester training a rat to punch little buttons in a certain sequence, then training my roommate to do the same thing. The rat learned much faster. My roommate is now a doctor. If you like rats or dreams, and above all if you dream about rats, you should major in psychology.

SOCIOLOGY: For sheer lack of intelligibility, sociology is far and away the number one subject. I sat through hundreds of hours of sociology courses, and read gobs of sociology writing, and I never once heard or read a coherent statement. This is because sociologists want to be considered scientists, so they spend most of their time translating simple, obvious observations into scientific-sounding code. If you plan to major in sociology, you'll have to learn to do the same thing. For example, suppose you have observed that children cry when they fall down. You should write: "Methodological observation of the sociometrical behavior tendencies of prematurated isolates indicates that a casual relationship exists between groundward tropism and lachrimatory, or 'crying,' behavior forms." If you can keep this up for fifty or sixty pages, you will get a large government grant.

For my Trekkie Fans, especially Sara and Kay!

Real Americans

2008-10-21T18:19:00.001-07:00

I have to say...Jon Stewart is hilarious.

The Pledge

2008-10-18T08:31:00.000-07:00

This is something Nick and I have actually debated before. I'm starting to come around to his way of thinking regarding the pledge, but I never thought about the viewpoint of a teacher before, so this article was very interesting.

Confessions of an Atheist Teacher: My Pledge Was a Lie

I don't exactly remember the first time I said the Pledge of Allegiance as a public school teacher, but it must have been in a classroom of twenty-seven 4th graders at around 7:55 on an August morning in Virginia in the mid-90s. We must have stood with the windows to the soccer field on our left and our Jamestown display on the right, facing the flag at the head of the classroom near the chalkboard. After that first day, I have a vague idea that a student was assigned the rotating job of "Pledge leader," getting me off the hook for the other 179. Maybe that's why my first year of Public Pledging is an elusive ghost of a non-memory.

I've met Big Brother, and it's me
Now it's two years later. I've been demoted to kindergarten -- remedial, at that. My job is to keep a hyperactive 5-year-old in roughly the same hemisphere as his classmates as often as I can. In "morning circle" he sits on my lap on the floor, both of us Indian-style, while everyone does calendar and show and share. Then we all get up for the Pledge, my little charge with great bounding enthusiasm after too much sitting still, and I stand there with him, showing him how to be a good little Pledger with his hand over his heart and the words flowing from the tip of his tongue, just like his classmates. As a good example, I stand that way too and say the words and make eye contact while he tries hard to parrot me and keep up with the others.

"One nation, under God," we both say every single morning. One day it hits me: does his family even worship a god? They live on my street, and both cars always seem to be in the driveway on Sunday mornings. But there's no mechanism for asking; absent an official request initiated by my little guy's parents, we Pledge away just the way Uncle Sam tells us to.

I realize with some amount of surprise that I feel guilty. Putting words in a child's mouth -- words he may or may not have chosen himself -- makes me feel I've overstepped my bounds as a state employee. I'm teaching -- no, training -- him to blindly, obediently say an oath of allegiance to a country -- a commitment no five-year-old can begin to understand. I've become the worst kind of Big Brother, the kind that preys on the minds of innocent little kids, shaping them to suit someone else's idea of national purpose. And pretending I believe those words myself, just to motivate him to say them too ... well, I begin to see myself as a lying hypocrite, cast in that role by my employer.

Don't tell
That same year, I'm assigned to a new supervisor in the special ed department. We get to talking during planning period and she learns that I once attended a Catholic boarding school in her home town in Maryland. She assumes I'm still Catholic, but I correct her matter-of-factly. "I'm a humanist now," I tell her. "That means I'm nonreligious."

"Oh, Mary Ellen," she says, with the sound of excited conspiracy in her voice. "I know now what our goal should be for this year -- to bring you back to the Catholic Church." Tension builds between us during the school year; this is the teacher who will evalute my performance and determine my raise, if any. I try to avoid the topic of religion altogether, but she just can't. One morning, just before spring break, she spontaneously exclaims in front of another teacher, "Jesus has risen whether you believe in him or not, Mary Ellen!"

In May, I ask to be reassigned the following year, and I am. I never tell the principal why, and he never asks, but more importantly I've absorbed a painful lesson about being a religious minority in a public school. The lesson: tell no one.

Freedom: just for students?
Fast forward to 2001. I've survived elementary school, mostly by working in the computer lab where morning exercises aren't an issue. Now, I've been promoted to high school. Five periods a day my students and I delve into Web design, HTML, and a programming language called Visual Basic. At ten every morning the school broadcast is supposed to interrupt whatever we're doing. We turn on the TV to hear the day's announcements, say the Pledge, and observe the state-mandated minute of silence.

I'm supposed to stand and model the Pledge for my students during that time, then enforce the minute of silence, but I don't. I sit at my computer, working on the day's assignments and testing my students' code. If the kids want to Pledge, and then be silent for a minute, they can do that. But I don't instruct them to, and they don't -- ever. They work, eat, and socialize, and I don't stop them.

I keep waiting for the principal to tell me that a parent has complained about my not observing morning exercises -- not even demanding silence during "the minute" -- and I wonder what I'll say if that happens. After years of "fitting in," I'm feeling liberated in the freer atmosphere of high school; I'm ready to assert my rights.

The problem is, I'm not sure I have any. It's students, not teachers, who've been granted freedom of non-participation by the Supreme Court. When you hire into a government teaching job, you agree to push the government's agenda. Right now, that gig includes an expression of religious belief I haven't held since the age of ten. What's an atheist teacher to do? What's any teacher to do? It's uncharted territory, and teachers are navigating without maps.

Testimony to the Supreme Court
By 2003, when the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Pledge of Allegiance case, I'd left behind the world of public school education. I now work in the humanist movement, where morning rituals are a matter of individual preference and never, to my great relief, involve the government's God. The entire freethought community rallied behind Michael Newdow when his case was accepted; supporting amicus briefs were filed by my employer, the Institute for Humanist Studies, our coalition partners, the Secular Coalition for America, and quite a few others. Students' religious freedom and the theme of "coercion" were common threads.

In reading these briefs, I began to wonder if the High Court has ever considered the plight of teachers forced to push the majority deity on kids as a condition of employment.

In a testimony which was eventually submitted as part of the American Humanist Association's brief, I tried to provide that perspective. I wrote: "My active participation in these daily exercises was then, and remains now, a source of internal conflict centered around deep-seated ethical principles inspired by my worldview. From my vantage point as a state employee entrusted with the care and education of its youngest citizens, my leading the Pledge by state mandate required me to choose between my professional duties and the Constitutional freedoms of my students; between a peaceful standing in my school community and the exercise of my own Constitutional rights; and between my school's standards of learning and a daily practice requiring children to abandon the critical thinking and free inquiry demanded of them in every other setting. There were no correct choices; each bore a price for someone...

"In a civics lesson, my children might have learned that oaths are solemn promises of serious intent, never sworn casually," I continued. "Instead, they innocently and blindly swore the Pledge each day, hands on heart, for no reason other than that I -- their authority figure, placed there by the state -- led them.

"I was there to show them how to position their bodies, where to fix their eyes, where to place their hands, and what words to say in rote unison -- words that were neither theirs nor mine, but had been established by their government as the orthodox expression of patriotism. My students were to repeat this ritual 180 times per school year for 13 years -- two thousand, three hundred forty Pledges per child, not counting athletic and extracurricular events."

Now that the Court has chosen not to rule on the constitutionality of 'under God,' but rather to sidestep the issue by focusing on a technicality, it's my fervent hope that more parents will step forward to challenge the 1954 act of Congress which baptized the Pledge in the name of a monotheistic God. But I hope that teachers, too, will take up the cause. To date, they've been reluctant to speak out, and some educational associations have even supported the preservation of the religious Pledge.

Arguments in favor of that phrase (including those forwarded by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in her concurring opinion) claim that 'under God' is but a ceremonial reference to our heritage as a nation founded on principles of religious freedom. But these semantic runarounds miss the real point. Teachers, more than any lawyer or judge, know that to a child, God means God. Teachers know, too, that when they use the word in an official classroom ritual, they've endorsed the idea of that God in every child's mind. It's just as simple as that.

-Mary Ellen Sikes, IHS
The Institute for Humanist Studies encourages readers of Humanist Network News to forward articles freely, including to list-serves. Please read our terms of use, however, before republishing anything contained in HNN. http://www.humaniststudies.org/terms.html

Election Thoughts

2008-10-16T11:06:00.000-07:00

Religion Threatens '08 Presidential Race

Comment

by REV. HOWARD MOODY

October 14, 2008

The 2008 presidential race has been the strangest and most unusual campaign in modern times. It has also involved, to an unprecedented degree, the most troublesome and dangerous threat to our political way of life, the insertion of religion into electoral campaigns. This appeared initially in the form of "guilt by association" attacks on Barack Obama because of the church he belonged to and sermons his pastor preached. Later, the same criteria were applied to John McCain because of the beliefs and statements of ministers who had endorsed him. Both presidential nominees were forced to renounce their religious supporters--one for sermonic declarations that were critical of America, and the other for spreading religious intolerance.

Obviously, this is not the first time religion has been introduced in a presidential campaign. John Kennedy was challenged over whether he could be a practicing Catholic committed to the pope and a loyal American committed to the Constitution. In previous campaigns, the religion of a presidential candidate has been an implicit issue in "culture war" debates on abortion and gay rights. However, all past history is but a prelude to the role that religious beliefs and theology have played in the present campaign. What is important to realize is that when we use the word "religion" in our American political culture, it really is Christianity that we are talking about. It is widely accepted that an agnostic or atheist could not be elected president--even if he or she were a Nobel prize-winner and decorated veteran of Iraq. And it is still uncertain that a person of the Jewish tradition could be elected president. Nevertheless, we can be sure that this state of affairs is a direct violation of Article VI of our Constitution: "There shall be no religious test."
A candidate's religious faith may not influence his or her presidential policies; there is no such thing as a Christian tax reform policy, or a Jewish policy on immigration or a Muslim universal healthcare plan. Our founding fathers understood this distinction, and that is why they created a republic in which church and state are separate and no religious criteria determine a candidate's fitness for public office.

It doesn't matter whether this country was founded as a Christian nation. The fact is, today polls indicate that 80 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians--and 40 percent of them are "born-again Christians." To understand why so many insist on the errant claim that we were Christian in our origins, there is some interesting evidence. At the beginning of the country, nearly every colony was settled with an established religion. When Connecticut was founded in 1639, its doctrine of origin explained that the whole purpose of government was to "maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus." Most of the colonies had their established church (for example, Virginia was Anglican and Massachusetts was Congregational).

However, in 1787, more than a hundred years after the early settlers arrived, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention wrote a constitution that, in contrast to the colonies', doesn't even mention God. All but two states--Rhode Island and Vermont--had religious tests for public office, but the Constitution prohibited them. It established a nation that was neither Christian or secular. The convention founded a democratic republic where a lot of its people went to church.

What the founding fathers did not reckon with was the power of the Christian interpretation of the settling of this country to morph into a sacred narrative, a holy story line. It began with the early Jamestown settlement and its entrepreneurial adventurers, and continued with the Massachusetts Bay Colony, whose zealous Puritans held an almost fanatic belief that they were God's chosen people to found a New Israel, a "shining city on a hill," as John Winthrop predicted in his sermon to the passengers aboard the Arabella.

This sacred narrative indicated that this new nation had a calling as dramatic and soul-shaking as the one Saul of Tarsus received on the road to Damascus. That calling was a mission to bring light to the darkened masses of the world. It began as we moved across the vast expanse of this continent, destroying, dehumanizing and incarcerating the Native American population of the land--all in the name of Christianity (Protestant). It was similar to what Spain did all across Latin America to indigenous people in the name of Christianity (Catholic). This mission was so powerful and so explicitly believed by American leaders as a role for this nation that it resulted in the doctrine of Manifest Destiny. It was this belief that in the nineteenth century led to our invasion of the Philippines in order to Christianize them, and to the invasion of Cuba in the Spanish-American War (where the mythic battle of San Juan Hill helped elect Theodore Roosevelt president).

The danger of this sacred narrative is that has always been connected implicitly to our violence and wars against our enemies, who were anyone who challenged our imperial, predestined leadership in the world. Of course, one could argue that this holy story line ended with the twentieth century--except that the majority Christian church has supported every war we have ever fought, right up to the present war in Iraq. Why do you think it was so easy for George W. Bush to sell his phony war to religious people? It is because deep down some of us really believe that this nation has a calling to save the world wherever or whenever it is threatened by evildoers. It is the old "chosen people" doctrine transposed into American exceptionalism. It is our destiny still, as the "greatest and most superior nation," not to "save the heathen" but to spread "democracy and freedom," to determine who is morally fit to possess nuclear material, to decide which countries are good or evil--in other words, to be the world's leader, militarily and politically, so that all the world's people look to America for their emancipation.

The danger to our fragile democratic experiment can be seen most clearly in the way in which both political parties have now bought into the sacred narrative, meaning that one's theology is predeterminate of whether one is patriotic or 100 percent American. Is this the reason there was no public outcry when Pastor Rick Warren staged a national televised event in which the candidates were put on the spot to find out if they were truly Christian believers (he called it discovering their "worldview")? Governor Sarah Palin was spared this interrogation, but we can be sure that her "inexperience" is not nearly so dangerous as her belief that God has been preparing her for the vice presidency and that Iraq was a "task that is from God."

A New Awakening

We need a New Awakening because we've been asleep while religion surreptitiously seeped into every nook and cranny of our government. Even before the Air Force Academy scandal of proselytizing evangelicals, the Justice Department was full of Christian-trained lawyers running prayer and Bible study groups and an atheist soldier was being removed from the war zone because of threats from his fellow soldiers. If we do not believe that these are threats to our political way of life, then the danger is greater than we may realize.

No one on the present scene has been more prescient or spoken more eloquently on this subject than James Carroll, the Boston Globe columnist and author. In his book House of War and the movie Constantine's Sword, he spells out in no uncertain terms the danger that the interjection of religion and American exceptionalism poses for our democracy in the vastness of Pentagon powers and military dominance over diplomacy in our foreign policy. The flaw in Carroll's viewpoint is that he places the blame only on fundamentalist Christians, but it was liberal Democrats and moderate Christian churches that remained silent as religion was exploited for political gain.

Our American system of governing is designed for a people of incredible religious diversity. We have countless religious entities and each one has subsets. There will never be a religious consensus--and that is a good reason for the separation of church and state. Being American has nothing to do with whether we are male or female, rich or poor, the color of our skin, where we go to church or if we go to church. As Oliver Thomas, a constitutional lawyer and Baptist minister, puts it: "Being American is about the principles and ideals set forth in our framing documents.... In a word, the American consensus is civic, not religious." That is why it is out of order, inappropriate, if not a grave mistake, to force our presidential aspirants to submit to a religious interrogation in order to judge their fitness for office.

We need a national dialogue to address the issue of the ways in which we have allowed Christian beliefs to be wrapped around political positions and parties. Politicians and those who vote for them ought to be able to defend their fitness for public office and the policies they stand for solely on the "civic consensus" and not on religious beliefs, on which as a people we have no consensus.

About Rev. Howard Moody
Rev. Howard Moody is minister emeritus of Judson Memorial Church in New York City. more...
Copyright © 2008 The Nation

Library Thing! You Make My Heart Sing!

2008-10-15T08:23:00.000-07:00

I know we barely got started discussing my last issue, but it's depressing me a bit so I thought I'd share something much more fun. Right now, I'm working on uploading all of my books into a personal library. It's called LibraryThing, and it's totally free. If you google it, you'll be able to join free and add your books - make your own library! Also, my library catalog will be public, so all of my friends can see which books I own. Have fun with it guys, it's awesome! I've been having a lot of trouble keeping up with my catalog manually - I just have a basic Excel document with a list of my books, organized by author. Yes, that's right. I'm a nerd. You all love me anyway. And Library Thing is totally cool.

A Catholic Church question

2008-10-13T18:47:00.000-07:00

Right now I'm reading the "Philadelphia Grand Jury Report on Abusive Priests and the Cardinals who Enabled Them."
I have many reasons to be glad I am no longer Catholic. But the sexually abusive priests and the church officials who cared nothing about the victims makes me jump for joy over not having to deal with religious doubts. If it hadn't already happened, I think this would have done it. I agree that you can't blame a whole religion on some "bad apples." But I do wonder how it is that the people who protected the "bad apples," are somehow ignored. Perhaps they're not. Perhaps people really are outraged and they're really trying to do something about it (Though I haven't actually seen any sadness for the victims from the Catholics I know)- I don't know how you can get rid of a cardinal who knew that a priest was sexually abusing children - it's not like a democracy; the people can't vote him out, can they? Basically I'm outraged and I'm not even Catholic. I can't imagine how they are feeling. No on seems to talk about it, but I might be missing things. I sometimes wonder if protecting the good name of the church is what most Catholics are interested in and so the outrage is more that the media reported it? I hope that's not true. I'm sure that's not true. Even I'm not that cynical.
There's a list in the report about what the priests did to the children. I thought it might be interesting to share what the Catholic Church's representatives were (and I looked up what the church considers a priest, from the Youngstown Archdiocese - www.youngstownvocations.org/priest-role.htm) before diving into the list. According to this site, which is a Roman Catholic site, not just something I picked up off of one of my liberal web pages, a priest is "a man who is chosen by god to act as a living bridge between heaven and earth..." "Priests are living instruments of Christ the eternal priest." (I know that a lot of these kids were Catholic, so they probably knew this. I wonder what it did to their psyches and their faith to imagine that it was Jesus, as a priest, who was hurting them.) "By means of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, priests bear the presence of Jesus Christ."
If there are Catholic readers out there, please tell me if I'm in possession of wrong information.
They're all bad, but for some reason, this one made me cry the most:
- A boy who told his father about the abuse his younger brother was suffering (because you have to protect your siblings!) was BEATEN to the point of unconsciousness. And the kicker that made me cry. "Priests don't do that!" said the father as he punished his son for what he thought was a vicious lie against the clergy.
Also, it's only a partial list and I didn't include what the officials did to protect the priests.

- a girl, 11, was raped by her priest and became pregnant. The Father took her in for an abortion.
- A 5th grader was molested by a priest inside the confessional.
- A teenage girl was groped by her priest while immobilized in traction in hospital bed; he stopped only when the girl rang for a nurse
- A boy repeatedly molested in school auditorium, where priest/teacher bent boy over and rubbed his genitals against the boy until the priest ejaculated
- A priest regularly began forcing sex on two boys at once in his bed
- A boy woke up intoxicated in a priest's bed to find the Father sucking on his penis while three other priests watched and masturbated themselves
- Sorry, can't print this one, it's just too wrong. I'll let you find out on your own.
-Priest told 12 year old boy that his mother knew of and had agreed to the priest's repeated rape of her son.

I hesitated a bit to post this, but I got some good advice from a friend and I realized that this is fact - this actually happened, and you can't really whitewash it. You shouldn't whitewash it. And now that I think about it, I know of a few Catholics who I am sure were and are outraged - they're close friends of mine actually. But is there any place that talks about this issue, from a lay Catholic's point of view, about why people haven't been leaving the church in droves or demanding something to address the issue, or anything really, that might indicate that the people of the church are just as horrified and outraged as I am and NOT because their precious church, who apparently needs protection from people's opinions (though it is the "true" church of god and you'd think god could protect it), needs to be kept out of the media so that people's opinions about the church don't go downhill. Do Catholics care about the victims? I mean, I'm sure they must, but why does it seem that I only hear about the church protecting the priests and not these poor kids?

Thoughts on religion

2008-10-12T16:23:00.000-07:00

I came across this the other day, and since I live in this great free country of ours and have the right of free speech, which some people are against, I thought I'd post it on my blog. I thought it was both funny and insightful. Even though I think it's funny - I'm still allowed to be a citizen, and if I so choose, thanks to the constitution, I'll be able to run for office (though I might not get elected, of course!).
Clearly, criticizing religion is bad, and if we lived in biblical times, I'd be stoned or burned or smited by god. But we don't - and besides, even if I criticized religion and someone decided to stone me, I'd imagine they'd get tried and probably convicted of murder - I guess even the bible can be wrong about morality, what a shock!
Yes, that's right, you sense sarcasm, brought on by frustration; frustration of ignorance, really, and frustration of people who presume to judge others based on their own morality, which doesn't seem that moral to those who believe that murdering all the firstborn children to punish their parents is wrong.

Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

Bored

2008-10-08T19:48:00.000-07:00

I'm bored tonight, so even though I'm sure you all haven't had a chance to comment on my last post, I'm going to post something more. I just wondered what people thought of some of these random questions I have when I'm bored and my mind wanders.

1. What do you think of sperm donation?
2. Do any of you know how to make pad thai? I can never find a recipe that I think is easy enough to try.
3. Has any one wondered about WHY some foods seem to taste better from a restaurant rather than at home...you'd think it'd be the other way around.
4. Do you think insurance companies should cover Viagra?

I'm getting a little crazy with the posts

2008-10-07T21:22:00.000-07:00

Just in case you haven't seen them. How many of you laughed hard enough to fall out of your chair?

I love Queen Latifah!

Women

2008-10-06T16:41:00.001-07:00

This is a new blog I'll be linking to sometime in the future. In the past, I think we've discusses/debated/argued about the "role" of women in society and such. I thought you readers might be interested in reviving the discussion, since I never did figure out what women's natural "role" is - those of you who believe in such a thing could maybe help me? Anyway, here's the link. Feel free to peruse the rest of the sight, there are some interesting thoughts.

Moment of Zen (Who else wishes they knew ballet?)

And the link:
http://www.agnosticmom.com/2006/01/25/i-am-woman-hear-me-roar/

Click Me!

2008-10-05T17:48:00.000-07:00

Some people may find this offensive, but I thought it captured some of the frustration I was feeling when talking with people who are of a different mind than I when it comes to beliefs and religion and such. For the record, I'm not trying to be offensive, just working through some of my frustration and reading a lot about humanism, secularism, and religion, and one of the ways I work through it is by laughter.