I was tagged by Earthbound Spirit for the “8 random facts about myself” meme- so here goes. Those tagged are supposed to post this first:
1. We have to post these rules before we give you the facts.
2. Players start with eight random facts/habits about themselves.
3. People who are tagged need to write their own blog about their eight things and post these rules.
4. At the end of your blog, you need to choose eight people to get tagged and list their names.
5. Don’t forget to leave them a comment telling them they’re tagged, and to read your blog.
I’m going to violate rules 4 & 5; most of those I’d have tagged have already posted, and if we go by powers of eight, we’ll have tagged the known universe by Thursday. So anyway...
1. I have no talent for languages whatsoever. I had a year of Spanish in grade school, and never learned more than how to say “My name is...”- and have forgotten even that. I had three years of French, actually visited France several times, brushing up before each visit, and attend my wife’s Alliance Francaise club meetings, and still can do little more than order dinner or follow French television news. Oh, and I was also able to follow French coverage of a Colts game, (they were playing “les tetes de fromage”) and “Pimp My Ride” in French, but that’s about it.
2. Possibly related to the above, I have never been able to master a musical instrument, nor read music, despite my love of music. (There was a time when I would have sold my soul to be able to sing like Chuck Negron or Harry Nilson) In grade school I was able to memorize the finger positions on the recorder corresponding to written notes, but was never able to read music and hum the tune- I just seem to have some kind of mental block in those arenas. Does anyone know if music and language skills are related?
3. I was born in the same year that “Rock Around The Clock”- the beginning of rock and Roll, according to historians- was released; Rock and I have grown up together.
4. I have the unusual artistic talent of being able to convert photographs into line drawings for easy reproduction using just a ballpoint pen. I used to pick up cigarette and beer money doing that for newsletters, etc., before computers and improved photocopiers rendered that skill obsolete.
5. Because I’m fat, I have very few lines and wrinkles; I fear that as I lose weight, I’ll appear to age suddenly. Which is kind of funny, as I’d never considered myself vain before.
6. Despite being a six-foot male natural born Hoosier, I’ve never really liked basketball, watching or playing. If you know anything about Indiana, you’ll know how suspect- possibly even treasonous- that is.
7. I continually surprise myself discovering how much my tastes- in food, art, everything- have changed over the years. Yes, that’s a standard observation- I remember a comedian talking about this, saying, “...for example, when I was a kid, I hated being spanked.” I guess the real surprise is finding out that cliches apply to me, too- i used to think myself unique. Which is probably another cliche.
8. One cliche that doesn’t apply- I love my in-laws, including (especially) my mother in law, whom I don’t see as often as I’d like because she lives on the other side of the continent. I also love my in-laws who live only half a continent away, in various parts of the west, which realistically is no easier to get to despite technically being closer. An extended family reunion would rack up enough frequent-flier miles to earn a trip into space on Virgin Galactic.
Tag: Anyone who has never participated in a meme before!
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Harry Potter review
The best review I have seen of the latest Harry Potter book, one I agree with, and cannot state better, is here .
Monday, July 23, 2007
O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us...
To see oursels as others see us.* And how do others see us- that is, UUs and liberal Christians? A glimpse can be gotten in this review of a new book, The Sum of All Christian Fears . The book paints a future for America that all conservative Christians fear- “Imagine a world where children are taken from their families in order to stop them from turning their children into terrorists. Now imagine that on the list of potential terrorists whose children must be taken or re-educated are home schoolers, active pro-lifers, and many other average Evangelical Christians. This is the all-too-believable plot behind Jodi Cowles novel, “The Minor Protection Act” (TMPA) in which a President of the United States, with help from a slick attorney, gets a bill passed through Congress that has federal agents remove children from their traditionalist Christian homes and families to stop the children from learning “intolerance” that leads to “hate crimes” and “terrorism.””
Judging only from the book review, this novel is not one of those that fulminates wildly, but rather sets the situation up in a believable manner. “One thing Cowles can't be accused of is demonizing political opponents. Even the lesbian couples that are charged by the state with raising kidnapped Christian Children are portrayed as fairly decent folks. Each character who plays their part in the President's plot has understandable, even sympathetic motives...If pro-lifers are basically terrorists, if Christian fundamentalism is harmful to our world, if disapproval of homosexuality is the same as racism, why on Earth shouldn't the government take away these children? Thoughts and ideas have consequences, and for me, TMPA brought this point home.”
What reason could Christians possibly have for these fears? For one thing, one of the top sellers in religious books of recent history is Richard Dawkins; he has been the topic of more interviews and blog entries than any other religious writer of late... and he is quoted in this review: “Recently, Richard Dawkins pondered taking away other people's children, "It's one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society to be stepping in? What about bringing up children to believe manifest falsehoods?”” Of course, that’s one man’s opinion, but he also quotes blogs: “Those fighting words. Terms like “The Religious Reich,” “The American Taliban,” and “Christian Sharia Law” are throw away lines on leftist blogs.” How many of us here in the UU blogosphere can truthfully say we are free of such fighting words? I can- (though I have used different fighting words about different people), and a few others... but I sure see them a lot. When even the official websites can get snarky about conservative Christians, is it really paranoid for those Christians to fear us?
Even if you conclude that conservative Christians ARE paranoid to think this way about us, the simple fact is that they do, and their fears did not spring from whole cloth. Really, can’t liberals- both religious and political- tone down the rhetoric a bit? And yes, I know I will receive 3, 267 emails saying “But they say terrible things about us; just yesterday, Rush Limbaugh said...” Well, here’s my answer: if you think you’re better than they are, (and you do, admit it), why don’t you act like it?
P.S. Coming soon: my “8 random things” meme entry.
P.P.S. * Proof that I don’t belong in the mental ward; I belong in the Burns unit!
Judging only from the book review, this novel is not one of those that fulminates wildly, but rather sets the situation up in a believable manner. “One thing Cowles can't be accused of is demonizing political opponents. Even the lesbian couples that are charged by the state with raising kidnapped Christian Children are portrayed as fairly decent folks. Each character who plays their part in the President's plot has understandable, even sympathetic motives...If pro-lifers are basically terrorists, if Christian fundamentalism is harmful to our world, if disapproval of homosexuality is the same as racism, why on Earth shouldn't the government take away these children? Thoughts and ideas have consequences, and for me, TMPA brought this point home.”
What reason could Christians possibly have for these fears? For one thing, one of the top sellers in religious books of recent history is Richard Dawkins; he has been the topic of more interviews and blog entries than any other religious writer of late... and he is quoted in this review: “Recently, Richard Dawkins pondered taking away other people's children, "It's one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society to be stepping in? What about bringing up children to believe manifest falsehoods?”” Of course, that’s one man’s opinion, but he also quotes blogs: “Those fighting words. Terms like “The Religious Reich,” “The American Taliban,” and “Christian Sharia Law” are throw away lines on leftist blogs.” How many of us here in the UU blogosphere can truthfully say we are free of such fighting words? I can- (though I have used different fighting words about different people), and a few others... but I sure see them a lot. When even the official websites can get snarky about conservative Christians, is it really paranoid for those Christians to fear us?
Even if you conclude that conservative Christians ARE paranoid to think this way about us, the simple fact is that they do, and their fears did not spring from whole cloth. Really, can’t liberals- both religious and political- tone down the rhetoric a bit? And yes, I know I will receive 3, 267 emails saying “But they say terrible things about us; just yesterday, Rush Limbaugh said...” Well, here’s my answer: if you think you’re better than they are, (and you do, admit it), why don’t you act like it?
P.S. Coming soon: my “8 random things” meme entry.
P.P.S. * Proof that I don’t belong in the mental ward; I belong in the Burns unit!
Friday, July 20, 2007
Joel the prankster
CC posted her results fromThe 3 Variable Funny Test
- so I had to run off and take it, too.
your humor style:
CLEAN COMPLEX LIGHT
Your humor has an intellectual, even conceptual slant to it. You're not pretentious, but you're not into what some would call 'low humor' either. You'll laugh at a good dirty joke, but you definitely prefer something clever to something moist.
You probably like well-thought-out pranks and/or spoofs and it's highly likely you've tried one of these things yourself. In a lot of ways, yours is the most entertaining type of humor because it's smart without being mean-spirited.
PEOPLE LIKE YOU: Conan O'Brian - Ashton Kutcher
The 3-Variable Funny Test!
- it rules -
If you're interested, try my best friend's best test: The Genghis Khan Genetic Fitness Masterpiece
- so I had to run off and take it, too.
Your Score: the Prankster
(23% dark, 30% spontaneous, 10% vulgar)
CLEAN COMPLEX LIGHT
Your humor has an intellectual, even conceptual slant to it. You're not pretentious, but you're not into what some would call 'low humor' either. You'll laugh at a good dirty joke, but you definitely prefer something clever to something moist.
You probably like well-thought-out pranks and/or spoofs and it's highly likely you've tried one of these things yourself. In a lot of ways, yours is the most entertaining type of humor because it's smart without being mean-spirited.
PEOPLE LIKE YOU: Conan O'Brian - Ashton Kutcher
The 3-Variable Funny Test!
- it rules -
If you're interested, try my best friend's best test: The Genghis Khan Genetic Fitness Masterpiece
| Link: The 3 Variable Funny Test written by jason_bateman on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the The Dating Persona Test |
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Evidence for the existence of God
Dawkins-style evangelical atheists frequently say that it’s up to the theist to prove the existence of the Divine- “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.” Fair enough- but the most plentiful form of evidence is always dismissed out of hand, usually without discussion- or, at least without polite discussion: direct personal experience, also known (in the clinical, analytical language UUs love to use in discussion) as Unverified Personal Gnosis.
UPG comes in many forms; the shaking and quaking of the Shakers and the Quakers; the speaking in tongues of Pentecostals and others; being taken by the spirit in many Baptist and other Protestant congregations; drawing down the Moon for Wiccans; channeling a Loa for Voodoo. Sometimes it is an adrenaline rush of the soul, which leaves in it’s wake not words, exactly, but a sure and certain knowledge: “She will survive this”, or “You are loved”. Foxchild gives a wonderful description of such an experience in her blog The Unveiling Of A Pagan Spirit : “At the moment that realization took hold, it was as if something in my being shifted. It made room for something that had not been able to find its way in before. Somewhere deep in the core of me it spread. It was a fiery caress deep in the marrow of my bones that roared through me in a liquid burn. It was as if I were feeling every powerful emotion in that fire. Passion, hate, anger, ecstasy, fury, lust, desire, love. Not the sweet tender kind of love. It was the kind that could rip you apart if you tried to harness it instead of letting it run free. All were felt for what they are, neither positive nor negative, but gifts from the Universe.
Call it Goddess, God, Universe. Whatever “it” was, it was the flow of understanding what it means to let go and trust the Universe.”
Such evidence is rarely brought up in debate anymore as it is- at best- an invitation to ridicule. I have been told on more than one occasion that the proper term for this experience was “a psychotic break”. Such contempt for mankind the speakers of those words must feel; hundreds of millions of people have felt the Divine presence- and not just the “snake handling trailer trash” one of them mentioned, but some of the finest intellects to have ever walked this Earth, from Thomas Aquinas to our own Rev. Sinkford. Does the fact that this evidence cannot be weighed on a triple beam balance or register on a Radio Shack Multitester mean that it’s not real evidence? If so, I would argue that human intelligence does not exist- the evidence for it is every bit as subjective.
The problem may be the words we use- “faith”, and “belief.” I don’t believe the Divine exists- I know it. I know the Earth exists, I can touch it; I know the Divine exists, I have felt her touch.
UPG comes in many forms; the shaking and quaking of the Shakers and the Quakers; the speaking in tongues of Pentecostals and others; being taken by the spirit in many Baptist and other Protestant congregations; drawing down the Moon for Wiccans; channeling a Loa for Voodoo. Sometimes it is an adrenaline rush of the soul, which leaves in it’s wake not words, exactly, but a sure and certain knowledge: “She will survive this”, or “You are loved”. Foxchild gives a wonderful description of such an experience in her blog The Unveiling Of A Pagan Spirit : “At the moment that realization took hold, it was as if something in my being shifted. It made room for something that had not been able to find its way in before. Somewhere deep in the core of me it spread. It was a fiery caress deep in the marrow of my bones that roared through me in a liquid burn. It was as if I were feeling every powerful emotion in that fire. Passion, hate, anger, ecstasy, fury, lust, desire, love. Not the sweet tender kind of love. It was the kind that could rip you apart if you tried to harness it instead of letting it run free. All were felt for what they are, neither positive nor negative, but gifts from the Universe.
Call it Goddess, God, Universe. Whatever “it” was, it was the flow of understanding what it means to let go and trust the Universe.”
Such evidence is rarely brought up in debate anymore as it is- at best- an invitation to ridicule. I have been told on more than one occasion that the proper term for this experience was “a psychotic break”. Such contempt for mankind the speakers of those words must feel; hundreds of millions of people have felt the Divine presence- and not just the “snake handling trailer trash” one of them mentioned, but some of the finest intellects to have ever walked this Earth, from Thomas Aquinas to our own Rev. Sinkford. Does the fact that this evidence cannot be weighed on a triple beam balance or register on a Radio Shack Multitester mean that it’s not real evidence? If so, I would argue that human intelligence does not exist- the evidence for it is every bit as subjective.
The problem may be the words we use- “faith”, and “belief.” I don’t believe the Divine exists- I know it. I know the Earth exists, I can touch it; I know the Divine exists, I have felt her touch.
Why get married?
Hadfidha Sofia has a fine entry on her blog entitled “Getting married phase 2: Why am I doing this? , in which she explores her feelings about the impending wedding. It occurred to me while reading it that there’s a principle involved that applies to another marriage issue we’ve been debating in the UU blogosphere.
One of the reasons for getting married that’s seldom mentioned is that there is a profound psychological difference between making a promise and taking a vow or swearing an oath. An oath or vow plays into your deepest ego, your image of who and what you are... nearly all people- even hardened criminals- hold themselves to certain standards, things they simply will not do because that’s not who they are, they’re not that kind of person- and we know down deep that “oath breaker” is one of the oldest and vilest pejoratives. A public wedding evokes that kind of imagery in most people, even if only subconsciously. This psychological effect is what makes marriage, as challenged as it is, the most stable of relationships. Even absent children, married people are statistically less likely to go to prison, die in traffic accidents, get fired, etc., and more likely to save, invest, and have insurance. This is true for both sexes, all ages and demographic groups, and as near as I can find out, all cultures.
This is an important reason why gays and polyamorists should have the right to solemnize their relationships in formal public weddings. Given our society, they will have more stresses on their relationships than “normal“- shouldn’t they have every help they can get in holding their relationship together? Isn’t it better for all of society that they have “normal” marriages, allowing them- and us!- to reap the benefits there from?
One of the reasons for getting married that’s seldom mentioned is that there is a profound psychological difference between making a promise and taking a vow or swearing an oath. An oath or vow plays into your deepest ego, your image of who and what you are... nearly all people- even hardened criminals- hold themselves to certain standards, things they simply will not do because that’s not who they are, they’re not that kind of person- and we know down deep that “oath breaker” is one of the oldest and vilest pejoratives. A public wedding evokes that kind of imagery in most people, even if only subconsciously. This psychological effect is what makes marriage, as challenged as it is, the most stable of relationships. Even absent children, married people are statistically less likely to go to prison, die in traffic accidents, get fired, etc., and more likely to save, invest, and have insurance. This is true for both sexes, all ages and demographic groups, and as near as I can find out, all cultures.
This is an important reason why gays and polyamorists should have the right to solemnize their relationships in formal public weddings. Given our society, they will have more stresses on their relationships than “normal“- shouldn’t they have every help they can get in holding their relationship together? Isn’t it better for all of society that they have “normal” marriages, allowing them- and us!- to reap the benefits there from?
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
An inconvenient toothfish
Al Gore- the poster boy for “Do as I say, not as I do”- is being criticized by the Humane Society for serving an endangered species at his daughter‘s wedding . “Gore and his guests at the weekend ceremony dined on Chilean sea bass - arguably one of the world's most threatened fish species. Also known as Patagonian toothfish, the species is under pressure from illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing activities in the Southern Ocean, jeopardising the sustainability of remaining stocks.”
Actually, it seems his environmental sin is a two-for: “For many years HSI has expressed concern over the huge numbers of seabirds that die each year on the hooks of illegally set demersal longlines, threatening the long-term viability of those populations.” Way to go Al- even the illegal tuna fishers who still kill dolphins are only killing one species- you’re working both sides of the net!
Actually, it seems his environmental sin is a two-for: “For many years HSI has expressed concern over the huge numbers of seabirds that die each year on the hooks of illegally set demersal longlines, threatening the long-term viability of those populations.” Way to go Al- even the illegal tuna fishers who still kill dolphins are only killing one species- you’re working both sides of the net!
Monday, July 16, 2007
Why isn’t this news?
I found this article in the Telegraph (am I the only nerd here who reads foreign newspapers? I find the Telegraph and Le Monde fascinating): “Addressing a gathering of atheists in his home state of Minnesota, Keith Ellison, a Democrat, compared the 9/11 atrocities to the destruction of the Reichstag, the German parliament, in 1933. This was probably burned down by the Nazis in order to justify Hitler's later seizure of emergency powers.
"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that," Mr. Ellison said. "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader [Hitler] of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."
The thing I found most interesting about this story is that it wasn’t news in America- not even on Fox. Why was this story not considered newsworthy? I see several possibilities:
1. It happens so often that it’s no longer news when important elected Democratic officials compare Republicans to Nazis.
2. As Mr. Ellison is the first Muslim in Congress, he will never be criticized by mainstream media because they are afraid of being seen as judgmental or bigoted.
3. His remarks were seen by editors as so obvious and true as to not be controversial.
I’m not sure which explanation would be worse.
"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that," Mr. Ellison said. "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader [Hitler] of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."
The thing I found most interesting about this story is that it wasn’t news in America- not even on Fox. Why was this story not considered newsworthy? I see several possibilities:
1. It happens so often that it’s no longer news when important elected Democratic officials compare Republicans to Nazis.
2. As Mr. Ellison is the first Muslim in Congress, he will never be criticized by mainstream media because they are afraid of being seen as judgmental or bigoted.
3. His remarks were seen by editors as so obvious and true as to not be controversial.
I’m not sure which explanation would be worse.
Movie reviews
I’m now able to get out and do things, and used part of that freedom to catch a couple flicks, so I thought I’d review them for you!
Ratatouille The best Pixar movie yet! I can’t think of a single bad thing to say about it- the story is an excellent mixture of comedy and pathos, never allowing either slapstick or tear-jerking to dominate. The visuals are stunning- although most of the human characters resemble Sims characters, all of the sets and backgrounds feel three dimensional, are perfectly lighted and shadowed, and so realistic that they actually had to include in the credits a disclaimer that the movie was 100% animated; there were no retouched photographs or Rotoscoping. Like all Pixar projects, there was plenty to please children and adults alike, and the story could be appreciated at several levels
Harry Potter: The Order of the Phoenix I have mixed feelings about this one. It had the usual Harry Potter quality effects and acting, but moved so quickly and with so little explanation that I’m afraid that if you didn’t already know what was going on, you’d likely get lost. But this effect was unavoidable. I have a number of TV and movie scripts, along with the studio format instructions- page layout, type fonts and sizes, etc.- and they are designed so that it averages one page per minute of finished show. (this makes early directorial decisions easier) This means that the average movie is 100-150 pages long... and “The Order of the Phoenix” is an 870 page novel! Remember that little detail before complaining about how many story lines were deleted or compressed to a single line of dialogue. I think they did the best they could without converting it into a miniseries.
Ratatouille The best Pixar movie yet! I can’t think of a single bad thing to say about it- the story is an excellent mixture of comedy and pathos, never allowing either slapstick or tear-jerking to dominate. The visuals are stunning- although most of the human characters resemble Sims characters, all of the sets and backgrounds feel three dimensional, are perfectly lighted and shadowed, and so realistic that they actually had to include in the credits a disclaimer that the movie was 100% animated; there were no retouched photographs or Rotoscoping. Like all Pixar projects, there was plenty to please children and adults alike, and the story could be appreciated at several levels
Harry Potter: The Order of the Phoenix I have mixed feelings about this one. It had the usual Harry Potter quality effects and acting, but moved so quickly and with so little explanation that I’m afraid that if you didn’t already know what was going on, you’d likely get lost. But this effect was unavoidable. I have a number of TV and movie scripts, along with the studio format instructions- page layout, type fonts and sizes, etc.- and they are designed so that it averages one page per minute of finished show. (this makes early directorial decisions easier) This means that the average movie is 100-150 pages long... and “The Order of the Phoenix” is an 870 page novel! Remember that little detail before complaining about how many story lines were deleted or compressed to a single line of dialogue. I think they did the best they could without converting it into a miniseries.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
A victory for women’s health
A fashion show in Rome has carried out it’s early threats, and banned 15 models for being too skinny . When one looks at these models, the following quote is hardly surprising: "One girl fainted during the trials," he said, adding, "I had to give her a ham sandwich.” The only question is whether even the Roman standards are enough- there is every reason to believe that even the “healthy” weights are too skinny:
1. I used to sell life insurance, and was surprised to learn that the insurance industry has it’s own “ideal weight” charts- and they average 20% heavier than the doctor’s charts! The instructor in the licensing class said, “I’m not permitted to say that people are healthier at these weights- I’m not licensed to practice medicine. But we do know that they live longer; we know, we write the checks.”
2. Following a tip from my wife, I did a little research of the medical industry’s numbers. They may have changed them in the last couple years since I did the research, but at the time I found this: if you take an average woman at the “ideal” weight, and use their formulae for the daily calorie count needed for maintenance, and spend those calories according to their food pyramid, it’s impossible for that woman to get the minimum RDA of several vitamins and minerals without taking supplements!
I can only hope the Roman example becomes an industry trend.
1. I used to sell life insurance, and was surprised to learn that the insurance industry has it’s own “ideal weight” charts- and they average 20% heavier than the doctor’s charts! The instructor in the licensing class said, “I’m not permitted to say that people are healthier at these weights- I’m not licensed to practice medicine. But we do know that they live longer; we know, we write the checks.”
2. Following a tip from my wife, I did a little research of the medical industry’s numbers. They may have changed them in the last couple years since I did the research, but at the time I found this: if you take an average woman at the “ideal” weight, and use their formulae for the daily calorie count needed for maintenance, and spend those calories according to their food pyramid, it’s impossible for that woman to get the minimum RDA of several vitamins and minerals without taking supplements!
I can only hope the Roman example becomes an industry trend.
Good news for Pagans
The Pope’s latest document stating that only the Catholic, and to a lesser extent, Orthodox, churches are true churches is actually good news for Pagans. From now on, any time someone (Bush? The Veteran’s Administration? the missionaries at your door?) says that your coven/grove/heath/ covenant group is not a real church, if they’re not Catholic or Greek Orthodox you can reply, “Yeah? Well, the Pope says your church isn’t a real church, either- and who has a better theological education, you or the Pope?”
Quo vadis, affiliates?
In all the discussions about Polyamory, I have seen nothing about the rest of the UUA Affiliates. I am deeply troubled about the new guidelines for affiliate status- I believe they totally miss the raison d’etre for these groups in the first place. Here are a few quotes from the official UUA websites that may explain the situation: “The new criteria mandate that to gain affiliation, groups must have a broad focus, a mission that relates directly to the UUA’s Purposes, and functional connections with UU congregations, and that they work in coalition or collaboration with other groups.” “If UUs are to make a difference in a world that desperately needs to hear our message, it will be because our congregations are empowered to make that message manifest in the world...That said, we wonder how our longstanding structure of Independent Affiliates has served the UUA, as an association of congregations. To us, it appears that we have developed a growing number of separate groups, each of which may be doing excellent work, but with little or no connection (that we can discern) to other Independent Affiliates or the congregations that make up the UUA.”
Can you spot what’s missing in those new requirements, or the questions asked? The individual. A church does not exist to change the world- that should be the result of the church’s existence, not it’s purpose. A church does not exist to provide fellowship and camaraderie; as I noted in a previous post, that can be had in a Star Trek club. A church does not exist to provide a moral framework for the faxes you fire off to your congressman; that is implied in any position statement- have you ever heard anyone say, “Do this because it’s the immoral thing to do?” Churches exist to minister to the individual.
The UUA needs plenty of help in this type of ministry; there are few if any UU texts on theological matters. Oh, there are plenty of pre-merger Unitarian texts, and there are plenty of pre-merger Universalist texts- but if there are any such UU texts, they are well hidden. If a UU member feels in the need of soul-work, it’s rarely helpful to look at some generic RE paper that has the approved “broad focus”- s/he needs something specific enough to provide personal answers to specific problems. This is where the affiliated groups come in- to provide specifically Christian, or Pagan, or whatever type of help. The members of these groups are not demanding the entire UUA become Christian or Pagan, they just want their sub groups within the UUA to minister to their specific needs.
The answer suggested by the UUA, that these groups merge into broad focus categories, would render them too generic to be of use. As Peacebang says, “I can tell you this: from what I’ve heard, and what I feel myself, UU Buddhists, Jews, Pagans, Humanists and Christians — all of whom have beloved, thriving Independent Affiliate groups, are hardly at all interested in becoming one big organization of UUs Who Still Care About Theology. Not even if they get a cute name like the BuddhiHumiChristiJewPas.” I can see where such an omnibus group would help the GA organizers; they would no longer need to find time and space for the inconvenient believers, they could just cram them all into a God Talk Ghetto- but it certainly wouldn’t help the needs of the individuals. I know that politically many UUs believe that the individual exists to serve the State, but that now seems to be unconsciously affecting their theology- they seem to be saying that the individual exists to serve the church.
Can you spot what’s missing in those new requirements, or the questions asked? The individual. A church does not exist to change the world- that should be the result of the church’s existence, not it’s purpose. A church does not exist to provide fellowship and camaraderie; as I noted in a previous post, that can be had in a Star Trek club. A church does not exist to provide a moral framework for the faxes you fire off to your congressman; that is implied in any position statement- have you ever heard anyone say, “Do this because it’s the immoral thing to do?” Churches exist to minister to the individual.
The UUA needs plenty of help in this type of ministry; there are few if any UU texts on theological matters. Oh, there are plenty of pre-merger Unitarian texts, and there are plenty of pre-merger Universalist texts- but if there are any such UU texts, they are well hidden. If a UU member feels in the need of soul-work, it’s rarely helpful to look at some generic RE paper that has the approved “broad focus”- s/he needs something specific enough to provide personal answers to specific problems. This is where the affiliated groups come in- to provide specifically Christian, or Pagan, or whatever type of help. The members of these groups are not demanding the entire UUA become Christian or Pagan, they just want their sub groups within the UUA to minister to their specific needs.
The answer suggested by the UUA, that these groups merge into broad focus categories, would render them too generic to be of use. As Peacebang says, “I can tell you this: from what I’ve heard, and what I feel myself, UU Buddhists, Jews, Pagans, Humanists and Christians — all of whom have beloved, thriving Independent Affiliate groups, are hardly at all interested in becoming one big organization of UUs Who Still Care About Theology. Not even if they get a cute name like the BuddhiHumiChristiJewPas.” I can see where such an omnibus group would help the GA organizers; they would no longer need to find time and space for the inconvenient believers, they could just cram them all into a God Talk Ghetto- but it certainly wouldn’t help the needs of the individuals. I know that politically many UUs believe that the individual exists to serve the State, but that now seems to be unconsciously affecting their theology- they seem to be saying that the individual exists to serve the church.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Polyamory and Satanism
If you go to your local Pagan Pride festival, the odds are twenty to one that you’re not going to see a booth or table about Satanism, nor find books about it displayed above the table. If you inquire, and the person you asked was Wiccan, you’re likely to get a lecture about Satan being a Christian deity, and how Satanism was invented by Christians as an excuse to persecute witches during the burning times. Even if the person you asked was a veteran Pagan who has been around the Tarot deck a few times, it’s still even odds they’ll go all fluffy bunny and answer in vague generalities that say nothing and invite a change of subject... despite their knowing full well that both types of Satanism- those who worship themselves, and those who actually do worship the Prince of Darkness- are thriving here in America.
Why is this? Most Reconstructionist Pagans and virtually all NeoPagans hold religious tolerance as one of their core beliefs, giving “full faith and credence”; there is no rational or logical reason for refusing Satanists fellowship. The answer is simple: they’re an embarrassment. Whenever there’s a bad headline- really bad, as opposed to goofy- it’s bound to involve a self described Satanist. No church- with the possible exception of the Church of the SubGenius- is more controversial. (Although I find the honest narcissism of the Satanist much less obnoxious than the vicious “humor” of the SubGenius) The existence of Satanists is the confirmation of every fundamentalists’ sermon on the slippery slope of Paganism; they’re a living Jack Chick tract.
The rest of the Pagan community knows that if they publicly befriended and defended Satanists, they would lose much of the good will they have slowly built up in mainstream society. Many Christian churches and publications supported the Wiccan lawsuit demanding that the V.A. permit the Wiccan Pentacle on veterans’ headstones... but not one of them would have been onboard had the Pentacle been inverted. Therefore, many NeoPagans are willing to compromise one of their core beliefs- acceptance of their neighbors’ faith- in their pursuit of mainstream recognition.
It seems to me that we have exactly the same phenomenon going on with the UUA and Polyamory. As Philocrites points out, “When conservatives charge that polyamory is next on the slippery slope, how is it helpful to have liberals urging us to start slipping? . . .” We are already the Berkeley of churches; if there’s any bizarre or ludicrous new trend in religion, we tried it first. But we do have limits; the UUA does not want to become the poster boy for The Decline Of Morals In America. We do not want other liberal churches shunning us for fear of guilt by association... and so it seems we must pretend the Polyamorists do not exist.
But how can we do so without compromising our principles? Does “marriage equality” mean adopting the Christian Fundamentalists’ definition of marriage, with one slight alteration- “Marriage shall consist of one person and one other person”? Shall we demonstrate our acceptance of all faiths by telling fundamental Mormons and Muslims that their multiple marriages are immoral? Shall we send missionaries to Africa to tell them how unstable and dangerous for their children group marriages are? That might be problematical in Senegal, where 47% of all marriages are polygamous... And would we refuse fellowship to immigrants involved in such marriages?
Does it really make sense for us to take it to the streets over whether Heather can have two mommies, and then denounce Heather having two mommies and a daddy? With the epidemic of children being raised outside of marriage- and that being the best predictor of future drug use and jail time- does it really make sense to rule out yet another form of marriage? Do you truly, objectively believe one can make a case against Polyamory without sounding exactly like a fundamentalist arguing against gay marriage?
Why is this? Most Reconstructionist Pagans and virtually all NeoPagans hold religious tolerance as one of their core beliefs, giving “full faith and credence”; there is no rational or logical reason for refusing Satanists fellowship. The answer is simple: they’re an embarrassment. Whenever there’s a bad headline- really bad, as opposed to goofy- it’s bound to involve a self described Satanist. No church- with the possible exception of the Church of the SubGenius- is more controversial. (Although I find the honest narcissism of the Satanist much less obnoxious than the vicious “humor” of the SubGenius) The existence of Satanists is the confirmation of every fundamentalists’ sermon on the slippery slope of Paganism; they’re a living Jack Chick tract.
The rest of the Pagan community knows that if they publicly befriended and defended Satanists, they would lose much of the good will they have slowly built up in mainstream society. Many Christian churches and publications supported the Wiccan lawsuit demanding that the V.A. permit the Wiccan Pentacle on veterans’ headstones... but not one of them would have been onboard had the Pentacle been inverted. Therefore, many NeoPagans are willing to compromise one of their core beliefs- acceptance of their neighbors’ faith- in their pursuit of mainstream recognition.
It seems to me that we have exactly the same phenomenon going on with the UUA and Polyamory. As Philocrites points out, “When conservatives charge that polyamory is next on the slippery slope, how is it helpful to have liberals urging us to start slipping? . . .” We are already the Berkeley of churches; if there’s any bizarre or ludicrous new trend in religion, we tried it first. But we do have limits; the UUA does not want to become the poster boy for The Decline Of Morals In America. We do not want other liberal churches shunning us for fear of guilt by association... and so it seems we must pretend the Polyamorists do not exist.
But how can we do so without compromising our principles? Does “marriage equality” mean adopting the Christian Fundamentalists’ definition of marriage, with one slight alteration- “Marriage shall consist of one person and one other person”? Shall we demonstrate our acceptance of all faiths by telling fundamental Mormons and Muslims that their multiple marriages are immoral? Shall we send missionaries to Africa to tell them how unstable and dangerous for their children group marriages are? That might be problematical in Senegal, where 47% of all marriages are polygamous... And would we refuse fellowship to immigrants involved in such marriages?
Does it really make sense for us to take it to the streets over whether Heather can have two mommies, and then denounce Heather having two mommies and a daddy? With the epidemic of children being raised outside of marriage- and that being the best predictor of future drug use and jail time- does it really make sense to rule out yet another form of marriage? Do you truly, objectively believe one can make a case against Polyamory without sounding exactly like a fundamentalist arguing against gay marriage?
Friday, July 06, 2007
Sometimes, neither science nor religion has the answer
In the debates of Creationism and/or Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution, those favoring creation love to find anomalies around the edges of evolution to use as a wedge, to pick it apart- Hell, even though I believe in Evolution as to our physical bodies, I’ve done some of that picking myself . And, of course, those that favor Evolution can easily do the same thing. But sometimes a given anomaly cannot be used by either side; it is a two-edged sword. I’ve been contemplating the question of pain- and cannot find an answer in either philosophy.
Religion cannot answer why we feel pain from disease and internal problems that are not related to behavior- cancer and the like. Some try to say that it’s a punishment, but that won’t wash; as the song says, “everybody hurts, sometimes”, and everybody dies- if it were a punishment, it would imply that nobody is ever saved. Some say it’s a test- but if God knows all, why does he need to test our reactions to cancer? And even if there were some value in revealing our reaction, how does that explain the suffering of animals who cannot by nature sin? In the end, all religions have to fall back to “It’s a mystery.”
But science is no better at explaining such pain. Yes, there is considerable evolutionary advantage to pain from external sources- “Once bitten, twice shy”, but what conceivable evolutionary advantage is there to pain from ailments that are not behaviorally related? Sometimes even a relatively minor internal ailment can cause debilitating pain that renders one non-functional; that’s actually contra-survival. Other diseases that will eventually be terminal, but would allow months or years of useful parenting or reproduction have those years cut short by debilitating pain- again, that’s contra-survival. Even non-fatal ailments can have pain that is inexplicable by evolution, because we heal much faster when carrying out our normal activities, rather than staying bed ridden- and the pain can prevent that from happening... again, a survival disadvantage. Evolution has given us bodies with little or no nerve endings in various places- try pinching the point of your elbow, for example- why was it necessary for us to feel such agony over internal diseases we have no control over?
Doctors, Priests, Philosophers, in three part harmony: “It’s a mystery.”
Religion cannot answer why we feel pain from disease and internal problems that are not related to behavior- cancer and the like. Some try to say that it’s a punishment, but that won’t wash; as the song says, “everybody hurts, sometimes”, and everybody dies- if it were a punishment, it would imply that nobody is ever saved. Some say it’s a test- but if God knows all, why does he need to test our reactions to cancer? And even if there were some value in revealing our reaction, how does that explain the suffering of animals who cannot by nature sin? In the end, all religions have to fall back to “It’s a mystery.”
But science is no better at explaining such pain. Yes, there is considerable evolutionary advantage to pain from external sources- “Once bitten, twice shy”, but what conceivable evolutionary advantage is there to pain from ailments that are not behaviorally related? Sometimes even a relatively minor internal ailment can cause debilitating pain that renders one non-functional; that’s actually contra-survival. Other diseases that will eventually be terminal, but would allow months or years of useful parenting or reproduction have those years cut short by debilitating pain- again, that’s contra-survival. Even non-fatal ailments can have pain that is inexplicable by evolution, because we heal much faster when carrying out our normal activities, rather than staying bed ridden- and the pain can prevent that from happening... again, a survival disadvantage. Evolution has given us bodies with little or no nerve endings in various places- try pinching the point of your elbow, for example- why was it necessary for us to feel such agony over internal diseases we have no control over?
Doctors, Priests, Philosophers, in three part harmony: “It’s a mystery.”
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Back Soon
I’ve received notes of concern, private and comments, and I wish to thank everyone for caring so much- it means more than you know. Complete recovery will take a few more months, but I’m already leaving the can’t-think-of-anything-else phase and entering the merely-a-damned-nuisance phase. I’m off the narcotic painkillers, so I’m starting to think linearly enough to make sense again- I’ll be resuming regular blogging soon.
Even though I haven’t been contributing, I’ve been enjoying my favorite blogs, and they’ve been a Godsend in helping take my mind off things. Of course ChaliceChick and Ms. Kitty are always good reads, but I particularly want to bring to everyone’s attention an excellent post by Jamie Goodwin that deserves better kudos than I’m currently capable of- it wouldn’t be fair for me to say “You took the words right out of my mouth” when he said it better than I could have.
Again, thanks everyone. What an amazing community the blogosphere is.
Even though I haven’t been contributing, I’ve been enjoying my favorite blogs, and they’ve been a Godsend in helping take my mind off things. Of course ChaliceChick and Ms. Kitty are always good reads, but I particularly want to bring to everyone’s attention an excellent post by Jamie Goodwin that deserves better kudos than I’m currently capable of- it wouldn’t be fair for me to say “You took the words right out of my mouth” when he said it better than I could have.
Again, thanks everyone. What an amazing community the blogosphere is.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
I have an empassioned suitor
Pain. Pain is a harsh mistress. She is insanely jealous; any attempt to think of another causes her to clasp me in an embace that cannot be denied. Like any abusive spouse, she separates me from my other loves; she causes me to adopt her habits of bad temper; when rivals speak to me, she whispers into my ear so that I cannot follow their conversations; she causes me to talk of nothing but her. Of all rivals for her attention, only the gentle daughters of the Goddess Lethe, Oxycontin and Hydrocodone, can get a word in edgewise- but she waits impatiently, balefully, to grasp me all the stonger when they weaken.
The seers, the Oracles of Aescapulus, assure me that in a couple weeks she will loose interest and embrace another... and she laughs. "What is time," she whispers, "A few weeks with the right person is eternity."
Sorry, my loves, I must go; my mistress is calling.
The seers, the Oracles of Aescapulus, assure me that in a couple weeks she will loose interest and embrace another... and she laughs. "What is time," she whispers, "A few weeks with the right person is eternity."
Sorry, my loves, I must go; my mistress is calling.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
I'm afraid of my apples
I worry about the Granny Smith apples in the fridge. We have a drought on here in Indiana, no lawn sprinkling allowed, etc. But if it don't rain in Indianapolis in the summertime, then God didn't make little green apples. And yet, there they are. Are they Satanic apples?
And I still hurt.
And I want to cry.
With all the complications they warned me about from undergoing two different surgeries at the same time, nobody mentioned any of these.
And I still hurt.
And I want to cry.
With all the complications they warned me about from undergoing two different surgeries at the same time, nobody mentioned any of these.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Installing Love
Here's an oldie, but a goodie:
Customer Service Rep: Can you install LOVE?
Customer: I can do that. I'm not very technical, but I think I am ready to install now. What do I do first?
Customer Service Rep: The first step is to open your HEART. Have you located your HEART?
Customer: Yes I have, but there are several programs running right now. Is it okay to install while they are running?
Customer Service Rep: What programs are running?
Customer: Let me see.... I have PASTHURT.EXE, LOWESTEEM.EXE, GRUDGE.EXE, and RESENTMENT.COM running right now.
Customer Service Rep: No problem. LOVE will automatically erase PASTHURT.EXE from your current operating system. It may remain in your permanent memory, but it will no longer disrupt other programs. LOVE will eventually overwrite LOWESTEEM.EXE with a module of its own called HIGHESTEEMEXE. However, you have to completely turn off GRUDGE.EXE and RESENTMENT.COM. Those programs prevent LOVE from being properly installed. Can you turn those off?
Customer: I don't know how to turn them off. Can you tell me how?
Customer Service Rep: My pleasure. Go to your Start menu and invoke FORGIVENESS.EXE. Do this as many times as necessary until GRUDGE.EXE and RESENTMENT.COM have been completely erased.
Customer: Okay, I'm done. LOVE has started installing itself automatically. Is that normal?
Customer Service Rep: Yes it is. You should receive a message that says it will reinstall for the life of your HEART. Do you see that message?
Customer: Yes I do. Is it completely installed?
Customer Service Rep: Yes, but remember that you have only the base program. You need to begin connecting to other HEARTS in order to get the upgrades.
Customer: Oops...I have an error message already. What should I do?
Customer Service Rep: What does the message say?
Customer: It says, "ERROR 412 - PROGRAM NOT RUN ON INTERNAL COMPONENTS". What does that mean?
Customer Service Rep: Don't worry, that's a common problem. It means that the LOVE program is set up to run on external HEARTS but has not yet been run on your HEART. It is one of those complicated programming things, but in non-technical terms it means you have to "LOVE" your own machine before it can "LOVE" others.
Customer: So what should I do?
Customer Service Rep: Can you find the directory called "SELF-ACCEPTANCE"?
Customer: Yes, I have it.
Customer Service Rep: Excellent, you are getting good at this.
Customer: Thank you.
Customer Service Rep: You're welcome. Click on the following files and then copy them to the "MYHEART" directory: FORGIVESELF.DOC, SELFESTEEM.TXT, REALIZEWORTH.TXT, and GOODNESS.DOC. The system will overwrite any conflicting files and begin patching any faulty programming. Also, you need to delete SELFCRITIC.EXE from all directories, and then empty your recycle bin afterwards to make sure it is completely gone and never comes back.
Customer: Got it. Hey! My HEART is filling up with really neat files. SMILE.MPG is playing on my monitor right now and it shows that WARMTH.COM, PEACE.EXE, and CONTENTMENT.COM are copying themselves all over my HEART!
Customer Service Rep: Then LOVE is installed and running. You should be able to handle it from here. One more thing before I go...
Customer: Yes?
Customer Service Rep: LOVE is freeware. Be sure to give it and its various modules to everybody you meet. They will in turn share it with other people and they will return some really neat modules back to you.
Customer: I will. Thank you for your help.
Customer Service Rep: Can you install LOVE?
Customer: I can do that. I'm not very technical, but I think I am ready to install now. What do I do first?
Customer Service Rep: The first step is to open your HEART. Have you located your HEART?
Customer: Yes I have, but there are several programs running right now. Is it okay to install while they are running?
Customer Service Rep: What programs are running?
Customer: Let me see.... I have PASTHURT.EXE, LOWESTEEM.EXE, GRUDGE.EXE, and RESENTMENT.COM running right now.
Customer Service Rep: No problem. LOVE will automatically erase PASTHURT.EXE from your current operating system. It may remain in your permanent memory, but it will no longer disrupt other programs. LOVE will eventually overwrite LOWESTEEM.EXE with a module of its own called HIGHESTEEMEXE. However, you have to completely turn off GRUDGE.EXE and RESENTMENT.COM. Those programs prevent LOVE from being properly installed. Can you turn those off?
Customer: I don't know how to turn them off. Can you tell me how?
Customer Service Rep: My pleasure. Go to your Start menu and invoke FORGIVENESS.EXE. Do this as many times as necessary until GRUDGE.EXE and RESENTMENT.COM have been completely erased.
Customer: Okay, I'm done. LOVE has started installing itself automatically. Is that normal?
Customer Service Rep: Yes it is. You should receive a message that says it will reinstall for the life of your HEART. Do you see that message?
Customer: Yes I do. Is it completely installed?
Customer Service Rep: Yes, but remember that you have only the base program. You need to begin connecting to other HEARTS in order to get the upgrades.
Customer: Oops...I have an error message already. What should I do?
Customer Service Rep: What does the message say?
Customer: It says, "ERROR 412 - PROGRAM NOT RUN ON INTERNAL COMPONENTS". What does that mean?
Customer Service Rep: Don't worry, that's a common problem. It means that the LOVE program is set up to run on external HEARTS but has not yet been run on your HEART. It is one of those complicated programming things, but in non-technical terms it means you have to "LOVE" your own machine before it can "LOVE" others.
Customer: So what should I do?
Customer Service Rep: Can you find the directory called "SELF-ACCEPTANCE"?
Customer: Yes, I have it.
Customer Service Rep: Excellent, you are getting good at this.
Customer: Thank you.
Customer Service Rep: You're welcome. Click on the following files and then copy them to the "MYHEART" directory: FORGIVESELF.DOC, SELFESTEEM.TXT, REALIZEWORTH.TXT, and GOODNESS.DOC. The system will overwrite any conflicting files and begin patching any faulty programming. Also, you need to delete SELFCRITIC.EXE from all directories, and then empty your recycle bin afterwards to make sure it is completely gone and never comes back.
Customer: Got it. Hey! My HEART is filling up with really neat files. SMILE.MPG is playing on my monitor right now and it shows that WARMTH.COM, PEACE.EXE, and CONTENTMENT.COM are copying themselves all over my HEART!
Customer Service Rep: Then LOVE is installed and running. You should be able to handle it from here. One more thing before I go...
Customer: Yes?
Customer Service Rep: LOVE is freeware. Be sure to give it and its various modules to everybody you meet. They will in turn share it with other people and they will return some really neat modules back to you.
Customer: I will. Thank you for your help.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
How can you possibly disagree with me?
Here I am, about sixty six hours out of surgery- surgery made much more complicated and invasive than expected because during the course of the scheduled procedures, they found and removed a two-lb benign tumor! I’ve been advised not to make any important decisions, sign any contracts, nor attempt to drive or cook because I’m taking narcotic pain pills, muscle relaxants, anti-inflamatories, and ferrous sulfate in the hopes of someday having red blood cells. So what’s a guy in my position supposed to do? Why, blog of course!
I’ve been wanting (during the lucid moments) for a month to comment on something the Ranting Rev said. I always read his stuff- while we don’t agree often, he has the enormously valuable knack of asking the right question. The “right question” I wished to address he asked in the comments section of Helpless But Not Hopeless : “Begs the question of how can positions be different if principles are alike?” This question is at the heart of all the devisive, bitter debate in America today- because most would say “They can’t- you must be either stupid, evil, or both.”
That belief- rarely stated aloud (except about Bush; people glory in calling HIM names) but always in the back of people’s minds- is the cause of all the shouts of “Nazi”, “Commie”, “Fascist”, and often “Racist” or “Homophobe”. As almost no one actually studies rhetoric or debate these days, it’s incomprehensible to most people how two people with the same morals, values, and desires can disagree about some pretty fundamental things. It is worth the effort to understand how this could be, both to civilize the state of politics and to understand how to come to a compromise everyone can live with.
The first thing to understand is that no belief or position is an island, complete unto itself. The “interdependent web” applies to concepts and ideas as much as to the environment. Any position will have ramifications and consequences- some of them unintended- that your opponent may be considering. For example, twenty-some odd years ago I opposed Gay Marriage. Was I a Bible-bashing fascist homophobe (as I was accused of being)? No- I was a small businessman who could only afford a really crappy health insurance plan for my employes. These were the early days of AIDS; the only treatments available were costing upwards of a quarter of a million dollars a year, and insurance companies were trying to find ways to dump gays from existing policies and prevent them from signing up for new ones. I was afraid that without insurance reform first, Gay Marriage would push all married couples into the same high-risk group and make health insurance out of reach. Fortunately, several major corporations decided to extend health coverage to spouses of gay employees, and used their clout to force the reforms Congress didn’t have the courage to pass. Stumbling point removed; I could now support Gay Marriage.
Sometimes your opponent may have experience or perspective that calls the basic precepts of your position into question. For example, many opponents of the new immigration reform bill call it an amnesty plan; proponents say that it is not because it calls for more enforcement, more papers, etc. Opponents say we’ve heard all that before- dating all the way back to Eisenhower, every immigration reform law has promised closed borders, more officers, more clerks to keep paperwork up to date- and fifty years later we’re still waiting. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. So are the proponents of the bill spending all their efforts trying to reassure everyone that this time the comprehensive parts really will happen? No- they’re just calling them anti-Hispanic bigots and saying they don’t know what’s good for America.
There is a truism in business that if a plan has no downsides to it, you’re missing something- go over it again. It helps to grill all your positions now and again to see if conditions have changed, if it still makes sense. Read your opponents positions to see if they also make sense- do NOT presume that you know why he opposes you. There was an exercise in debate class that I found invaluable for personal growth in finding my way philosophically and politically. This was a formal debate that you had a week to prepare for, and winning it was major extra credit. The catch? You didn’t know until you took the podium which side you would be arguing, for or against! Can you imagine how much I studied that subject? Can you say that you have given all your positions the same comprehensive study from both sides?
Of course you can. But most people just read the proposal, say “This is a civil rights issue; therefore I’m for it. Anyone against it is a bad guy.” and believe the issue settled. From then on, they aren’t debating the issue, they’re debating the morals of their opponents. This is a shame. I had friendships cool over the Gay Marriage issue- were they rekindled once we were on the same side? No; I do not enjoy being insulted, and I found I could not respect the thought processes of someone who would do so. Who knows? Had they listened to me at the time, and joined with me in writing Congressmen, we might today have better health insurance laws AND Gay Marriage.
I’ve been wanting (during the lucid moments) for a month to comment on something the Ranting Rev said. I always read his stuff- while we don’t agree often, he has the enormously valuable knack of asking the right question. The “right question” I wished to address he asked in the comments section of Helpless But Not Hopeless : “Begs the question of how can positions be different if principles are alike?” This question is at the heart of all the devisive, bitter debate in America today- because most would say “They can’t- you must be either stupid, evil, or both.”
That belief- rarely stated aloud (except about Bush; people glory in calling HIM names) but always in the back of people’s minds- is the cause of all the shouts of “Nazi”, “Commie”, “Fascist”, and often “Racist” or “Homophobe”. As almost no one actually studies rhetoric or debate these days, it’s incomprehensible to most people how two people with the same morals, values, and desires can disagree about some pretty fundamental things. It is worth the effort to understand how this could be, both to civilize the state of politics and to understand how to come to a compromise everyone can live with.
The first thing to understand is that no belief or position is an island, complete unto itself. The “interdependent web” applies to concepts and ideas as much as to the environment. Any position will have ramifications and consequences- some of them unintended- that your opponent may be considering. For example, twenty-some odd years ago I opposed Gay Marriage. Was I a Bible-bashing fascist homophobe (as I was accused of being)? No- I was a small businessman who could only afford a really crappy health insurance plan for my employes. These were the early days of AIDS; the only treatments available were costing upwards of a quarter of a million dollars a year, and insurance companies were trying to find ways to dump gays from existing policies and prevent them from signing up for new ones. I was afraid that without insurance reform first, Gay Marriage would push all married couples into the same high-risk group and make health insurance out of reach. Fortunately, several major corporations decided to extend health coverage to spouses of gay employees, and used their clout to force the reforms Congress didn’t have the courage to pass. Stumbling point removed; I could now support Gay Marriage.
Sometimes your opponent may have experience or perspective that calls the basic precepts of your position into question. For example, many opponents of the new immigration reform bill call it an amnesty plan; proponents say that it is not because it calls for more enforcement, more papers, etc. Opponents say we’ve heard all that before- dating all the way back to Eisenhower, every immigration reform law has promised closed borders, more officers, more clerks to keep paperwork up to date- and fifty years later we’re still waiting. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. So are the proponents of the bill spending all their efforts trying to reassure everyone that this time the comprehensive parts really will happen? No- they’re just calling them anti-Hispanic bigots and saying they don’t know what’s good for America.
There is a truism in business that if a plan has no downsides to it, you’re missing something- go over it again. It helps to grill all your positions now and again to see if conditions have changed, if it still makes sense. Read your opponents positions to see if they also make sense- do NOT presume that you know why he opposes you. There was an exercise in debate class that I found invaluable for personal growth in finding my way philosophically and politically. This was a formal debate that you had a week to prepare for, and winning it was major extra credit. The catch? You didn’t know until you took the podium which side you would be arguing, for or against! Can you imagine how much I studied that subject? Can you say that you have given all your positions the same comprehensive study from both sides?
Of course you can. But most people just read the proposal, say “This is a civil rights issue; therefore I’m for it. Anyone against it is a bad guy.” and believe the issue settled. From then on, they aren’t debating the issue, they’re debating the morals of their opponents. This is a shame. I had friendships cool over the Gay Marriage issue- were they rekindled once we were on the same side? No; I do not enjoy being insulted, and I found I could not respect the thought processes of someone who would do so. Who knows? Had they listened to me at the time, and joined with me in writing Congressmen, we might today have better health insurance laws AND Gay Marriage.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Personal update, plus random notes
A number of people have written, both email and comments, asking how I was doing- and I'm grateful for the concern. I haven't been posting because I've frankly felt terrible. My red cell count had gotten down to 6.5, (13-14 is normal), for which I received a transfusion. It's currently hovering around 10, which is good enough to stand up with only dizziness rather than fainting, but still leaves me too weak (especially when combined with pain that mere Vicodin is no longer coping with) to even follow long posts, let alone write one. In about 12 hours I will be undergoing two operations that should clear most of this up, followed a few weeks later by a procedure in which I swallow a digital camera that radios pictures to a receiver/recorder I will be wearing. (surprizingly enough, they don't want the camera back) I hope to be back to regular blogging by then. Until then, everyone else keep up the good work and I'll follow you care of UUpdater.
As to the current controversies, I have little new to add, so I'll just recycle some old quotes. About the disaffiliated independent affiliates- don't do anything to make them feel not wanted. I said this in another context, and I believe it still applies: "... if all the UU Christians and UU Pagans left, the average age of the average congregation would approach triple digits, and the membership list would drop down to double digits- and half of them would be Buddhist."
About the brown bag controversy- this quote from another context sums it up well for me: "... and the UUA plays more with rhetoric than any other denomination I’m aware of. If the UUA could be considered to have a central doctrine at all, it would be that controling the rhetoric controls the reality."
So goodbye for now, and assuming I don't die on the table, I hope to be back blogging regularly in one-to weeks. Thanks, friends.
UPDATE
I'm told that both operations were successful! Recovery mode, full speed ahead!
As to the current controversies, I have little new to add, so I'll just recycle some old quotes. About the disaffiliated independent affiliates- don't do anything to make them feel not wanted. I said this in another context, and I believe it still applies: "... if all the UU Christians and UU Pagans left, the average age of the average congregation would approach triple digits, and the membership list would drop down to double digits- and half of them would be Buddhist."
About the brown bag controversy- this quote from another context sums it up well for me: "... and the UUA plays more with rhetoric than any other denomination I’m aware of. If the UUA could be considered to have a central doctrine at all, it would be that controling the rhetoric controls the reality."
So goodbye for now, and assuming I don't die on the table, I hope to be back blogging regularly in one-to weeks. Thanks, friends.
UPDATE
I'm told that both operations were successful! Recovery mode, full speed ahead!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)