The living room
Sleepytime Sinus Soother Tea
Pumpkin pie (expired)
I'm starting this at home. Will probably finish elsewhere.
This is why I never finish my housework. Well, this is partly why. Anyway.
If you think about it, there's only one true sin in the Bible. Everything else is only a sin under certain circumstances. Sex is not a sin, just premarital sex. Killing someone is not a sin, not at all. There are numerous passages delineating under what circumstances and by what method someone shall be put to death: female sorceresses, back-talking children, women who are raped who don't cry for help, but only if they live in the city because women who are raped in the country might not live close enough to someone who could have heard them so it's okay if they just didn't bother.
You can even steal someone else's land if you say God really wanted you to have it.
No, the only act that appears to be inherently sinful is disobedience. Everything else seems to have an asterisk. You can even put your beloved son on the alter if the big G tells you to. Obeying the command to kill your child is - in a biblical context - the righteous act. More righteous than obeying the standing order to not kill anybody (except where explicitly commanded to do so) because it was a direct order.
Even our military and police forces are expected to not obey a direct order if it conflicts with the laws established in the Constitution.
Oh, military and police forces... how you have so often failed to disobey... How often you have protected those among your ranks who have defiled their sacred obligations. Instead of casting these criminals out of your body, you have so very often closed in around them and formed a protective cyst, a tumor, and doomed your body to sickness.
Again and again and again...
Mix Bakeshop
Americano
Pumkin-something Macaroon
Biscotti
...And that's where I left it when the boys got home. Let's see if I can finish this before closing time.
Today, we went to the library. As the boys played with the Thomas the Train set in the kids section, we heard chanting and shouting outside. From the window we could see another Ferguson rally marching across the street, blocking the crosswalk for a time to address the stopped traffic, then continuing on to the heart of downtown.
"No justice! No peace!"
"Hands up! Don't shoot!"
As their voices receded Oliver began crying. He was upset because he had wanted to throw something into the recycling bin but Daddy had done it first. I thought how lucky we are that that's all he has to cry about. When I posted that later - the picture of the marchers and Oliver's incongruent despair - a friend of mine replied with "#FirstWorldProblems".
Amen, sister.
We live in another Gilded Age. As before the Great Crash, the news buzzes about the extraordinary wealth of our age, the billionaires being churned out by Wall Street. And the seeming normalcy of Middle America is only achieved through massive debt - student loans that may or may not be paid off before your children are ready for school, and the 30 year mortgage you had to refinance to get the loan to pay for the car repairs on that 2 door subcompact you were supposed to trade-up before you had the 2 car seats in the back, but now you can't afford to replace it so you have to string it along, and you can't put it on the credit card because you maxed it out on 4 crowns and 6 fillings - and that's with insurance! - and the Black Friday specials you sacrificed your Thanksgiving for because they told you it was your only chance to get it cheap enough and you could pay it off when you got your tax refund but then they cut the Earned Income Credit you were banking on so your interest rate just got jacked up to a rate you didn't know was legal. But you sure look comfortable. When everyone looks so comfortable, it's easy to think that it's your fault.
God forbid you get sick.
God forbid you're the victim of a hit and run while you're marching down to the Plaza for those among us who are dying in this Age of Gilded Freedom. That's your ER bill. Good luck.
This country is most definitely not well, but the worst part is that we cannot have the conversations we need to have to fix it because reality is obscured by the gilding of lies. Equal opportunity? Not a bit. Not economically, not legally... We don't even have an equal opportunity to stay alive just walking down the street.
Around the country, some of those who see the injustice, especially those who have been the victims of it, have taken to the streets to grieve, to demand change - they march. And some, they scream their grief, their frustration - their fear - they riot.
Song lyrics come to mind... "I need something to break!"
On the right, they have been stoking fear of the president, of immigrants, and those "thugs" who just happen to, ya know, bounce less light in the sun... Frankly, calling Obama a "tyrant" is an insult to the people of Syria and Libya and anyone else who has really lived under a tyrant. But the fearful shall defend themselves. They have been stockpiling their bunkers and talking openly of insurrection for years.
They want something to break, too.
What we do when we are afraid, when we are threatened... that is when we earn our humanity, or when we fail it.
When Henry David Thoreau saw the injustice of American aggression in his time, he simply stopped paying for his share of it. And he happily went to jail for it. He disobeyed, civilly. That was the righteous thing to do.
But what about today?
We do need change. A lot of it, on many fronts. You could use the term revolution. But I wouldn't go too far with that. I certainly would not say insurrection. So long as the basic structure remains in tact, we need to try to work within it.
I've known people who say we need to tear down the whole system and rebuild on whatever survives. I don't think highly of that kind of nihilism. I think of it as an immature human mind, the intellectual equivalent of a toddler's tantrum. So it's hard? So it's frustrating, and slow? So what? It's a lot harder to bury your sons and daughters sacrificed on the alter of revolution. And the societies built upon the ruins of revolutions most often do not survive, let alone thrive.
There are exceptions. But there is also a cost. Always a cost, not the least of which is our humanity.
I have no disrespect for someone who defends themselves or their families, but only when it is necessary. In the case in Ferguson, the only way Wilson might have needed to shoot Mike Brown dead from 150 feet away is if he mistook Mike Brown for Luke Skywalker and had a reasonable expectation that Mike Brown would imminently use The Force to steal his gun. Which is silly, of course, because Brown could have just choked him before Wilson could reach. Or tossed his police cruiser.
Which makes me think of burning witches. How stupid is that logic? If she's a witch, don't you think she could get out of it? In which case, the only people you'd end up burning would be innocent. Oh, the folly of the righteous... Committing obvious sins in the name of God. Murder, torture, destruction, violence... whatever... for the Greater Good.
Didn't we learn anything from the Lord of the Rings? You never use the weapon of the Enemy.
If killing someone, on purpose, is wrong, then it doesn't stop being wrong if you change the scenery or put the trigger in another person's hand. Injustice must be answered, and in a meaningful way, but you don't go outside the system you're trying to fix if there is any path at all left open. There is no social system that will ever be free of corruption. The strength of the institution comes from the ability to address and amend injustice within itself.
In Ferguson, there was clear abuse of power and corruption - and there are still paths left to address those trespasses of justice. And more broadly, there is wide-spread racial injustice and abuse of police authority - and that, too, can be addressed. There are white allies, and those in positions of power - yes, even white police officers, too - who see and will march alongside those seeking justice.
And even those of us who may only march our fingers across keyboards in suburban coffeehouses, we are doing our best to scrape the fool's gold off the bullshit that's being oversold, hand over bloodied fist, to keep us from seeing that one simply truth: There's no such thing as Other People. We're all in this together, and we can change things for the better and be our higher human selves.
I am such a damn hippy. Coffee shop is closing. Time to go.
I love you all.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Monday, December 1, 2014
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Cozy in my uncertainty
Rogue Valley Roasting Co.
16oz Coffee
Vegan Pumpkin Walnut Bread
Some people have a very dismissive or negative view of agnosticism. I've heard people refer to agnostics as if they were just indecisive or afraid to commit. I say "they" but I mean "we." I have said numerous times that I am agnostic. If you want a good understanding of what the term means, I recommend visiting its Wikipedia page. In a nutshell, the term means "without knowledge," and since it is usually used to describe someone's religious views, that generally means that the person has no knowledge to give them a belief in any kind of deity.
The nuances of that meaning diverge from that point. Some will say "I don't know - can't know - and neither can anyone else." I keep it a little more close. The concept of god, by definition, goes beyond the typical objective reality with which we are familiar. That is not to say god is not part of our reality, just that god doesn't function in a way that we can define in our usual physical terms. In other words, old-school miracles - like the creation of all existence - cannot be duplicated in a laboratory.
And yet, that which used to seem miraculous to our ancestors has been revealed to be very normal, predictable phenomena. It's good to remember, sometimes, that most all religious texts were written before human beings understood the water cycle (evaporation, condensation, precipitation, all that). If any religion was truly inspired by divine words, remember that they flowed through human messengers.
For myself, I believed in God as a child because everyone around me talked about God as if He was a done deal. I asked my father why, then, were there other religions if everyone knew about these miracles Jesus had performed. Surly, with so many witnesses, there would be extensive contemporaneous accounts to validate that these had, in fact, taken place (yes, I was a weird 8 year-old). So my father explained that these accounts were recorded by just a couple people decades after Jesus' death, and there were not the innumerable written or oral accounts I would expect, so people have to choose to believe or not believe that these things had taken place.
Oh, these are stories?!
And I became an atheist, because it was too much to be asked to believe these stories of spectacular miracles unless there was some really strong evidence that they had actually occurred.
But I got older, and I kept thinking and pondering and listening to the great thinkers and ponderers of human history. And I softened my views a bit. Because how do I know there isn't a god, anyway? Maybe human beings are screwy and can't get the story straight, but maybe there's a god in spite of all that.
The point is what we know and what is knowable. Right now, I can't see a way for the human mind to be able to know with demonstrable certainty that god exists. I have heard the smartest people in modern society argue with authority that it's illogical to think there is no god. And I have heard equally brilliant minds argue that it's illogical to think that there is a god. The problem is that logic doesn't have an imperative when it comes to how the divine is or isn't. At least, none that I can see. Perhaps someday we will find a way to know definitively one way or another.
Most people who believe, it seems to me, believe because they feel a personal connection to the divine. They have opened themselves to the Holy Spirit(s) and have felt a divine presence. And it doesn't matter which religion you're talking about, from the outside, every practitioner sounds the same. They know The Truth. All the other religions are actually false and their practitioners are deceiving themselves, or are being deceived. Once they, and I, leave behind these self-deceptions and open our hearts to The True Religion, we'll know the difference; we'll Know. The. Truth.
It all sounds the same from here. But epiphanies, as I've said before, can be the most true and least reliable form of knowledge. Maybe one of these groups has it right. I can't say they are wrong or right from the outside. But you can't convert me based on your certainty. And, as I said before, logic breaks down. So, what's left? Empiricism? You want me to believe my lyin' eyes?
Empiricism used to "prove" spontaneous generation, proof of god, because you could see meat miraculously turn into maggots. When it was shown that it was not an act of the divine, that maggots were actually fly larvae, religious minds resisted the truth because they thought it invalidated the existence of God. Likewise, many refused to believe in any kind of micro-biology in spite of the fact that... oh, what's his name... proved that women were dying in childbirth needlessly because doctors were not washing their hands in between deliveries. Or after eating. Or pooping. Or ever. The point is that what you see, what you hear, what you feel in the most intimate crevices of your senses, does not necessarily mean what you think it does.
And yet... we exist. There is ...stuff. Why is there something instead of nothing? Even if we are nothing more than a dream in the mind of some slumbering divine entity and all we see or feel or experience is an illusion - we are still the dream. The dream is. I am okay not knowing all the answers. I don't know if there is a greater purpose to all this. I'm okay not ascribing grand notions of purpose or grand destinies if I don't feel a compelling certainty in them.
I am open to listen to what you believe is true. But I am not seeking some answer. Try not to be too disappointed if you try to say, for example:
1. I have problems.
2. I am not a Christian.
3. Ergo, I should be Christian.
And I will reply with:
1. You're right - I have problems.
2. I am not a Buddhist.
3. Ergo, I should be a Buddhist.
Actually, Buddhism has a lot to offer. But so do most religions, to an extent. They tend to break down when you get to dealing with people who don't follow the same religion or who deviate within the religious order. But the 'be kind and respectful to others' part - that's pretty solid. I am willing to accept the parts of any religion that I feel hold true outside of the confines of that religion. If a particular doctrine is consistent with reason and empathy, I have no reason to reject it. I just don't embrace it solely because it was given by an authority figure.
To those who still think that agnosticism is weak or non-committal or wishy-washy, you still misunderstand. It is commitment the pursuit of truth that keeps agnostics from going any further. The scientific mind says only what it can say. This is what we know, this is what we know is knowable, and this is what can be said given that. That doesn't preclude there being more than that. That doesn't mean we won't be able to know more someday. We just don't try to make things fit to make the world more comfortable for us. That would be faithless and false.
What about the afterlife? What if there is a god and its followers have been trying to tell me the grand Truth but I have rejected it this whole time? It's not so much rejection as much as not accepting it without reason. But aren't I afraid of going to some hell? Aren't I afraid of some divine punishment? Frankly, I don't think much of any deity who would condemn me to eternal suffering for having a reasonable doubt and not bearing false witness.
Damnation for utilizing the spectacular mental faculties we have been gifted with? What a douche!
Fear of divine wrath is not a reason for believing in the divine. That falls under "incentive." Like, in the checkout aisle at the grocery store, if I buy two pieces of candy, I can get two more free! That's an incentive. But the reality is: I need no candy.
If there is some kind of afterlife, I will have to accept whatever consequences await me. Maybe I just think more highly of god, but I don't tremble in fear for not following some other person's dogma, no matter how popular. Maybe there is an afterlife, maybe there is nothing. Maybe the remnants of our holographic mind continue. Maybe they dissipate. Maybe we are reincarnated. Maybe we just turn into mulch.
All I know is that who I am now ends at my death. If a part of me continues, it will be in some other form. I will not again walk in this body and be just as I am now. If I exist in spirit, I am still not quite the same as me now - I will know things unknowable now. If I am reincarnated, then who I am will continue to change and evolve. I can never live this story of me, exactly, ever again.
So, why wait for the answer of what is beyond this life? All I can do is make this life the best that I can. If you've ever met me and wondered why I often wear an ankh (sorry, not a cross, folks) it's because it is the symbol of life. I wear it to remind myself to live while I'm alive. Because agnosticism is not living without morality or fear of eternal consequence. It is living with the accountability of your earthly actions. It is not disregarding any possibility of the after. It is about truly living within the now.
I feel like I've said all of this before. Apologies for my redundancy. And love to all.
16oz Coffee
Vegan Pumpkin Walnut Bread
Some people have a very dismissive or negative view of agnosticism. I've heard people refer to agnostics as if they were just indecisive or afraid to commit. I say "they" but I mean "we." I have said numerous times that I am agnostic. If you want a good understanding of what the term means, I recommend visiting its Wikipedia page. In a nutshell, the term means "without knowledge," and since it is usually used to describe someone's religious views, that generally means that the person has no knowledge to give them a belief in any kind of deity.
The nuances of that meaning diverge from that point. Some will say "I don't know - can't know - and neither can anyone else." I keep it a little more close. The concept of god, by definition, goes beyond the typical objective reality with which we are familiar. That is not to say god is not part of our reality, just that god doesn't function in a way that we can define in our usual physical terms. In other words, old-school miracles - like the creation of all existence - cannot be duplicated in a laboratory.
And yet, that which used to seem miraculous to our ancestors has been revealed to be very normal, predictable phenomena. It's good to remember, sometimes, that most all religious texts were written before human beings understood the water cycle (evaporation, condensation, precipitation, all that). If any religion was truly inspired by divine words, remember that they flowed through human messengers.
For myself, I believed in God as a child because everyone around me talked about God as if He was a done deal. I asked my father why, then, were there other religions if everyone knew about these miracles Jesus had performed. Surly, with so many witnesses, there would be extensive contemporaneous accounts to validate that these had, in fact, taken place (yes, I was a weird 8 year-old). So my father explained that these accounts were recorded by just a couple people decades after Jesus' death, and there were not the innumerable written or oral accounts I would expect, so people have to choose to believe or not believe that these things had taken place.
Oh, these are stories?!
And I became an atheist, because it was too much to be asked to believe these stories of spectacular miracles unless there was some really strong evidence that they had actually occurred.
But I got older, and I kept thinking and pondering and listening to the great thinkers and ponderers of human history. And I softened my views a bit. Because how do I know there isn't a god, anyway? Maybe human beings are screwy and can't get the story straight, but maybe there's a god in spite of all that.
The point is what we know and what is knowable. Right now, I can't see a way for the human mind to be able to know with demonstrable certainty that god exists. I have heard the smartest people in modern society argue with authority that it's illogical to think there is no god. And I have heard equally brilliant minds argue that it's illogical to think that there is a god. The problem is that logic doesn't have an imperative when it comes to how the divine is or isn't. At least, none that I can see. Perhaps someday we will find a way to know definitively one way or another.
Most people who believe, it seems to me, believe because they feel a personal connection to the divine. They have opened themselves to the Holy Spirit(s) and have felt a divine presence. And it doesn't matter which religion you're talking about, from the outside, every practitioner sounds the same. They know The Truth. All the other religions are actually false and their practitioners are deceiving themselves, or are being deceived. Once they, and I, leave behind these self-deceptions and open our hearts to The True Religion, we'll know the difference; we'll Know. The. Truth.
It all sounds the same from here. But epiphanies, as I've said before, can be the most true and least reliable form of knowledge. Maybe one of these groups has it right. I can't say they are wrong or right from the outside. But you can't convert me based on your certainty. And, as I said before, logic breaks down. So, what's left? Empiricism? You want me to believe my lyin' eyes?
Empiricism used to "prove" spontaneous generation, proof of god, because you could see meat miraculously turn into maggots. When it was shown that it was not an act of the divine, that maggots were actually fly larvae, religious minds resisted the truth because they thought it invalidated the existence of God. Likewise, many refused to believe in any kind of micro-biology in spite of the fact that... oh, what's his name... proved that women were dying in childbirth needlessly because doctors were not washing their hands in between deliveries. Or after eating. Or pooping. Or ever. The point is that what you see, what you hear, what you feel in the most intimate crevices of your senses, does not necessarily mean what you think it does.
And yet... we exist. There is ...stuff. Why is there something instead of nothing? Even if we are nothing more than a dream in the mind of some slumbering divine entity and all we see or feel or experience is an illusion - we are still the dream. The dream is. I am okay not knowing all the answers. I don't know if there is a greater purpose to all this. I'm okay not ascribing grand notions of purpose or grand destinies if I don't feel a compelling certainty in them.
I am open to listen to what you believe is true. But I am not seeking some answer. Try not to be too disappointed if you try to say, for example:
1. I have problems.
2. I am not a Christian.
3. Ergo, I should be Christian.
And I will reply with:
1. You're right - I have problems.
2. I am not a Buddhist.
3. Ergo, I should be a Buddhist.
Actually, Buddhism has a lot to offer. But so do most religions, to an extent. They tend to break down when you get to dealing with people who don't follow the same religion or who deviate within the religious order. But the 'be kind and respectful to others' part - that's pretty solid. I am willing to accept the parts of any religion that I feel hold true outside of the confines of that religion. If a particular doctrine is consistent with reason and empathy, I have no reason to reject it. I just don't embrace it solely because it was given by an authority figure.
To those who still think that agnosticism is weak or non-committal or wishy-washy, you still misunderstand. It is commitment the pursuit of truth that keeps agnostics from going any further. The scientific mind says only what it can say. This is what we know, this is what we know is knowable, and this is what can be said given that. That doesn't preclude there being more than that. That doesn't mean we won't be able to know more someday. We just don't try to make things fit to make the world more comfortable for us. That would be faithless and false.
What about the afterlife? What if there is a god and its followers have been trying to tell me the grand Truth but I have rejected it this whole time? It's not so much rejection as much as not accepting it without reason. But aren't I afraid of going to some hell? Aren't I afraid of some divine punishment? Frankly, I don't think much of any deity who would condemn me to eternal suffering for having a reasonable doubt and not bearing false witness.
Damnation for utilizing the spectacular mental faculties we have been gifted with? What a douche!
Fear of divine wrath is not a reason for believing in the divine. That falls under "incentive." Like, in the checkout aisle at the grocery store, if I buy two pieces of candy, I can get two more free! That's an incentive. But the reality is: I need no candy.
If there is some kind of afterlife, I will have to accept whatever consequences await me. Maybe I just think more highly of god, but I don't tremble in fear for not following some other person's dogma, no matter how popular. Maybe there is an afterlife, maybe there is nothing. Maybe the remnants of our holographic mind continue. Maybe they dissipate. Maybe we are reincarnated. Maybe we just turn into mulch.
All I know is that who I am now ends at my death. If a part of me continues, it will be in some other form. I will not again walk in this body and be just as I am now. If I exist in spirit, I am still not quite the same as me now - I will know things unknowable now. If I am reincarnated, then who I am will continue to change and evolve. I can never live this story of me, exactly, ever again.
So, why wait for the answer of what is beyond this life? All I can do is make this life the best that I can. If you've ever met me and wondered why I often wear an ankh (sorry, not a cross, folks) it's because it is the symbol of life. I wear it to remind myself to live while I'm alive. Because agnosticism is not living without morality or fear of eternal consequence. It is living with the accountability of your earthly actions. It is not disregarding any possibility of the after. It is about truly living within the now.
I feel like I've said all of this before. Apologies for my redundancy. And love to all.
Monday, November 10, 2014
God, man, and my body.
Downtowne Coffeehouse
12oz Soy Campfire Mocha
Vegan Peanut Butter Cookie
I think I said in my last blog that I could dedicate a whole blog to my comment about the hijab. Here's the tweet in question, from November 2nd:
"There are two ways you could make me wear a hijab: convince me you're right, or use violent manipulation.
Only one might save my soul."
Well, I'm glad I waited to tackle the topic because I got a reply to my original tweet with an article in support of wearing it. I read the article, and replied within my limited 140 characters that I appreciated the article but remained unconvinced. My correspondent has replied with links to two more articles, but I have delayed responding because I knew that I was going to need a lot more than 140 characters.
These are the links he sent, for your reference:
On the prohibition of wearing the hijab in French schools...
A shorter one on the ideas of oppression and liberation...
On the impact of psychoanalysis...
Firstly, I greatly appreciate this correspondence as a civil attempt to win over my heart and mind, so to speak. To be clear, the man in the 60 Minutes interview that prompted my initial comment about the hijab, didn't seem to care what I thought about it, so long as I submitted to it. My correspondent, on the other hand, I believe holds more peaceful and hopeful intentions. Even though I disagree with a number of his assumptions, I could not ask for more than to approach this dialogue with that spirit. So...
As I initially replied to the first article, I agree that France's decision to ban headscarves - a de facto ban on a Muslim girl's observance of her religious obligation - is hypocritical and intolerant. America has plenty of this "stupid" too. Schools all over this country have no idea how to deal with dress codes, in general, and get especially stupid when it comes to religion.
In general, this country has not uniformly figured out how to handle religious plurality and the government's relationship to it. The predominant trend seems to be to try to make schools, or other government institutions, religiously aseptic. They dither and quake and create prohibitions about any references to any religion, for fear of lawsuits, usually. I remember before we could learn about the rise of Islam in our history class, the teacher had to spend a good ten minutes disclaiming how the school was not in any way endorsing or promoting Islam or any other religion, but simply spending the time to discuss the impact of the development and expansion of the religion on the events of world history.
Or, if a school or government courthouse, for instance, has some religious artifact or custom - a copy of the Ten Commandments, or pre-game prayer - that they wish to hang on to, they may offer, rhetorically, to also provide time or space to any other religion that wishes to be represented. To avoid being sued. This is why I find it so amusing when the Satanists demand to put a statue in the rotunda and they have to allow it lest they lose their own preferred religious artifacts. That's not because I support Satanism, but because I love to see people called out on their hypocrisy.
Here's how I feel about school and religion in a nutshell: if it doesn't actually demonstrably prevent the other kids from being able to learn, there is no reason to prohibit any religious accoutrement or observance. And I do not recognize "distraction" or intolerance as valid reasons for preventing learning. If anything, the kids who are distracted by or hostile towards the kids who are different are the most in need of some more learnin'.
Lastly, this country has wisely learned to make reasonable accommodations for people living with physical or mental disabilities - making wheelchair accessible ramps, incorporating special education into the regular school system. It would take significantly less effort to just not ban certain religiously-prescribed clothing, or to adjust the class schedule slightly to allow a student to observe a prescribed prayer time.
I'm not equating religion with a disability, by the way. Just clarifying that it is incredibly easy to make space when we recognize differences as being a part of the unified whole.
As for other government institutions, while I don't think there is any need to inhibit any individual's ability to practice and be faithful to their religious belief, I think it is simply inappropriate to incorporate any religious concept, artifact, or practice into the actual government structure. I think it is totally inappropriate to have "In God we trust" on our money, or "one nation under God" in our pledge of allegiance. The far more accurate and appropriate pledge would be something like the one illustrated by artist and author, Micah Wright, which pledged to the Constitution (instead of the flag) and the "one nation of many peoples" it created.
The problem of allowing religion - any religion - to be used as the foundation for the establishment of any law, is that it requires universal agreement on, not only which religion and denomination is to be used, but also the interpretation of dogma set forth therein. For instance, my grandfather is a retired Methodist minister and, while the official position of the United Methodist Church is currently against marriage equality, my grandfather supports it. More and more ministers within the Methodist Church are also beginning to openly support it, even officiating same-sex marriages. It seems very possible that the organization will, in time, also come to support it. Yet, if that denomination were recognized as the basis for all laws of the land, where would the right to marry stand in the meantime? We have immutable divine law one day, then a different immutable law the next?
The other problem is, what if we don't all agree with the predominant religious views of the land? Such a system can't protect my religious freedom to not be ruled by what I might view as the heretical religious practices of others. What if I did agree, initially, but then had a crisis of faith? If the divine imperative behind the law were lost, and if our premise is that a law ought to be followed because it comes from a divine authority, what then would be my compelling incentive to abide by that law? As it is, the hope is that our religiously open social contract must use universal reasoning, and empathy, to construct our laws, not supposedly divine authoritarianism. We have set down certain governing principles that should apply to all human beings, and we endeavor to construct our laws in keeping with those first principles.
That's the idea, anyway. As I said before, we still got a whole lot of stupid around here. Anytime the majority forgets its humility, that it is ultimately no different and no less vulnerable than any minority group, the majority will tend to try to establish laws that benefit it best - unless we cultivate the safeguards necessary to protect against this.
...to be continued at another coffeehouse that is not closing in 15 minutes...
Dobra Teahouse
(open til 10pm - woo-hoo!)
Shakespeare's Tea
(found in The Winter Tale, Act IV, Scene 4 - so good and winter-y)
So, where was I two hours ago?
Ah, yes - god, government, authority. That was the part of that first article that I agreed with - the hypocrisy. What I did not agree with was the assumption that the discrimination was against modesty. I think the example that less-dressed women were currently being afforded more protection than more completely dressed women was ironic, not indicative of men still imposing their preferences on women. I think the matter was entirely about religious intolerance.
That being said, I think supposedly liberated cultures like ours are, in fact, still dealing with pressure to abide by men's preferences in our beauty standards. That does not, then, mean that women are only "liberated" when they "free" themselves from the lustful stares of men by covering themselves from head to foot. That's a pretty Orwellian interpretation - "Freedom is slavery" kind of thinking.
When societies make a great shift in their institutions or ways of thinking, they rarely have a totally healthy "correct" alternative structure or philosophy ready to take its place. We found tyrannical monarchy unacceptable and moved towards democracy as keeping with a truer state for mankind. And we kept slavery at the same time. It takes a long time to shake all the stupid out of better ideas. We're still working on it. And since the freedoms women are finally being granted are fairly recent recognitions, we're still dealing with the vestiges of the mentality we are trying to leave behind.
Feminists use the term "Patriarchy," but it should be understood that is meant to refer to male-gendered dominance, not some inherently masculine values or behaviors. Feminism, if you need it spelled out, is not about hating men. It's about valuing men and women equally, allowing people the freedom to define themselves by whatever traits they feel fit them best, and to exercise their wills with equal freedom.
If a woman must hide herself in public, she is inherently not exercising her will freely. Even if you don't agree that she has to be completely covered to be considered modestly dressed, her attire should not be a requisite to be treated respectfully or to go about her life safely. To say that she must dress a certain way to keep men from lusting after her to such intensity that they are driven to assault her, or engage in other criminal or deviant acts in their sexual madness - that is absurd. It assumes men are savage and cannot cope with their emotions.
And if men are so weak, shouldn't they be the ones who should wear blindfolds to protect women and the greater population, being led around by their obviously superior female family members who are somehow capable of mastering their own desires?
I have grown up surrounded by men - my single father, brothers, uncles, even male family friends who lived with us at different periods of time. None of these men suffered any kind of ungovernable lust or psychosis because of the abundance of female skin in our society. My parents' generation, in fact, threw off many cultural norms, including, for some of them - clothing. Nudity was embraced as the natural state of being for many of their peers. They viewed clothing as representing old religiously-based fears of sexuality, especially woman's sexuality. And all the convoluted garments the women of their parents' generation were expected to contort into, were viewed as extensions of the same old desire for men to control women's bodies - from bodice to Burka to brassiere.
And while I happen to think they are generally right, and though I happen to be wearing flowers in my hair right now, I have no desire to strip down and run around like the Flower Children of my parents' generation. I'm just not there. Plus, it's chilly out. And that's why I don't think clothes are going anywhere in our modern society. Because we now build permanent structures for our jobs and permanent homes from whence to go to those jobs, we are stuck in environments with variable weather, necessitating weather-appropriate outerwear.
Also, I've worked a number of food jobs - I want the people handling my food to wear underwear!
The problems in our society are not nudity or semi-nudity. Our problem is the sexualization of nudity, and a latent fear of sexuality, itself. Frankly, it's just a body. It does not inherently drive a person to lust and craziness. I remember in one anthropology class, seeing a video of an indigenous tribe of ... New Guinea, I think... and the members of the tribe were almost totally naked. Men tended to have something tied to their boy-bits, and women routinely wore a kind of long net sack on their heads, running down their back. That was their form of modesty because, for that particular tribe, a woman's back was the most alluring feature. Which made me think, "It's always something, damn it." But the exposure of all the rest of a woman's body was completely incidental. That particular society had no problem with that much feminine nudity, and exhibited no disproportionate amount of violence or "deviant" behavior within the tribe.
The truth is there is no level of modesty that will keep a woman safe from male violence. There is no age that will keep her safe, no number on the scale, no disfigurement or degree of ugliness to make her so repellent that she will be left alone. This culture has a real problem with sexual violence, but neither modesty nor religion, alone, will stop it, because the problem lies more within the presumed authority of men that still lingers. How do I make this assertion? Because that's what the statistics say.
Women in Burkas get raped. Little boys and girls nowhere near sexual maturity or "desirability" get raped. Old women get raped. Fat people, thin people, sinner and saint. They all are within the statistics. And they have been for centuries - even when Western women's ankles were scandalous - and all around the world. This is the World Health Organization's study on the subject, which includes the statistic that 37% of women in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (including many Muslim countries that require women to wear the hijab) have been victims of violence by an intimate partner or sexual violence by a non-partner. There's more to be said about the details of those statistics. The point is simply that the violence exists even where "modesty" is common practice.
The most attractive thing to a predator is opportunity. And opportunity is not just proximity, a dark and convenient venue for the crime. Opportunity is also about the ability to get away with it, the permissiveness of the culture which collectively assumes the victim did something to deserve what she - or he - got, or that the victim is lying. Sometimes the culture just collectively assumes that rape isn't really rape because, oh, he paid for dinner, or she had said yes once before. Or because it was her husband. This is rape culture, and it allows some predators to believe that they are not even predators. We are most definitely dealing with this reality. At least, we are beginning to deal with it.
And that is the first step to changing it, because it absolutely can be changed. First, we acknowledge that it's happening. Second, we put the responsibility to change the behavior on those perpetrating it - not the victims of it.
There was a viral video of a woman in America walking to work where she was cat-called - the common term for street harassment - 100 times. In response, a model in New Zealand recreated the video. She was not subjected to a single cat-call. The only difference is how that culture deals with men who engage in street harassment. Men here just need to be taught better. It is as simple as that.
When a man sees a woman walking down the street - no matter what or how much she's wearing - that he finds particularly attractive, he does not need to feel bad about having that feeling. It's normal and healthy. It's also healthy to view her as a whole being, essentially no different than him. Just another human being walking down the street. And instead of following her, or hollering out what he thinks is a compliment, or leering at her with that creep smile we women know only too well, he can just quietly "bank it for later" and leave her, the person, alone to go about her day.
And when I say "bank it for later," yes, I am talking about masturbation. Because that, like sex, is healthy. Healthy for everybody - of an appropriate age - when practiced safely and consensually. Desire to dominate and abuse someone else, is not healthy or normal. It does not originate with lust or arousal, but with suppression and fear of those and other emotions, and with an implicit belief in superiority over others.
Women feel lust. We can look at a man walking down the street and think that he is attractive, even experience arousal. (In fact, if women never experienced sexual arousal, sexual intercourse would be an exceptionally painful experience every time, because it is her body's arousal that provides the lubrication for the act). But the reason women are almost never the abuser, is because we are not taught that we have any implicit authority over men.
The first article I referenced above included this passage:
"The believers are directed in the Quran:
"And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards God, that ye may attain Bliss. [Quran 24:31]"
It is reasonable to think that men of the same biological family would not normally be attracted to women of their family (there have been studies to this affect - in one, women found the sweat of men most genetically different to be the most appealing), and thus, could safely view their beauty. But there are a few men on that list that are permitted to view the beauty of women not biologically related to them. What is to stop them from lust-driven acts because of this open exposure (at home, anyway) to female attractiveness? Rules, Commandments, social norms? If they are capable of overcoming this supposedly inherent animal aggression when they view these select few women, why can't they extend that ability to all women? Do they not also have obligations to all women? Obligations to respect them and their autonomy?
Ultimately, I am not trying to talk anyone out of practicing their own religious customs. I point these things out to say that the logic and assumptions behind these customs don't fly with me. Since I am agnostic and have no religious regulations to adhere to, there is no rationale left for me to abide by these customs. I don't believe men are incapable of self-control. I don't believe women are safe when they conform to any standard of cultural modesty - or beauty, for that matter. I believe objective statistics, including historical accounts, confirm that. I believe that reason confirms that.
Finally, I will say that, while I think there is nothing overtly sexual in simple nudity, I don't believe that anyone has the right to force the exposure of anyone's body. I think the recent publication of nude celebrity photos is a kind of sexual violence. Because we do still have cultural taboos about nudity, and it is a fundamental violation of a woman's consent to share her nudity with whom she pleases. It is akin to being stripped down in the middle of town, over and over again, against her will. I hope some day we will recognize that act, the sharing nudity without consent, as the shameful act it is.
But that's another aspect of this culture we need to work on. And that makes me hopeful, because we are so very capable of change - for the better.
12oz Soy Campfire Mocha
Vegan Peanut Butter Cookie
I think I said in my last blog that I could dedicate a whole blog to my comment about the hijab. Here's the tweet in question, from November 2nd:
"There are two ways you could make me wear a hijab: convince me you're right, or use violent manipulation.
Only one might save my soul."
Well, I'm glad I waited to tackle the topic because I got a reply to my original tweet with an article in support of wearing it. I read the article, and replied within my limited 140 characters that I appreciated the article but remained unconvinced. My correspondent has replied with links to two more articles, but I have delayed responding because I knew that I was going to need a lot more than 140 characters.
These are the links he sent, for your reference:
On the prohibition of wearing the hijab in French schools...
A shorter one on the ideas of oppression and liberation...
On the impact of psychoanalysis...
Firstly, I greatly appreciate this correspondence as a civil attempt to win over my heart and mind, so to speak. To be clear, the man in the 60 Minutes interview that prompted my initial comment about the hijab, didn't seem to care what I thought about it, so long as I submitted to it. My correspondent, on the other hand, I believe holds more peaceful and hopeful intentions. Even though I disagree with a number of his assumptions, I could not ask for more than to approach this dialogue with that spirit. So...
As I initially replied to the first article, I agree that France's decision to ban headscarves - a de facto ban on a Muslim girl's observance of her religious obligation - is hypocritical and intolerant. America has plenty of this "stupid" too. Schools all over this country have no idea how to deal with dress codes, in general, and get especially stupid when it comes to religion.
In general, this country has not uniformly figured out how to handle religious plurality and the government's relationship to it. The predominant trend seems to be to try to make schools, or other government institutions, religiously aseptic. They dither and quake and create prohibitions about any references to any religion, for fear of lawsuits, usually. I remember before we could learn about the rise of Islam in our history class, the teacher had to spend a good ten minutes disclaiming how the school was not in any way endorsing or promoting Islam or any other religion, but simply spending the time to discuss the impact of the development and expansion of the religion on the events of world history.
Or, if a school or government courthouse, for instance, has some religious artifact or custom - a copy of the Ten Commandments, or pre-game prayer - that they wish to hang on to, they may offer, rhetorically, to also provide time or space to any other religion that wishes to be represented. To avoid being sued. This is why I find it so amusing when the Satanists demand to put a statue in the rotunda and they have to allow it lest they lose their own preferred religious artifacts. That's not because I support Satanism, but because I love to see people called out on their hypocrisy.
Here's how I feel about school and religion in a nutshell: if it doesn't actually demonstrably prevent the other kids from being able to learn, there is no reason to prohibit any religious accoutrement or observance. And I do not recognize "distraction" or intolerance as valid reasons for preventing learning. If anything, the kids who are distracted by or hostile towards the kids who are different are the most in need of some more learnin'.
Lastly, this country has wisely learned to make reasonable accommodations for people living with physical or mental disabilities - making wheelchair accessible ramps, incorporating special education into the regular school system. It would take significantly less effort to just not ban certain religiously-prescribed clothing, or to adjust the class schedule slightly to allow a student to observe a prescribed prayer time.
I'm not equating religion with a disability, by the way. Just clarifying that it is incredibly easy to make space when we recognize differences as being a part of the unified whole.
As for other government institutions, while I don't think there is any need to inhibit any individual's ability to practice and be faithful to their religious belief, I think it is simply inappropriate to incorporate any religious concept, artifact, or practice into the actual government structure. I think it is totally inappropriate to have "In God we trust" on our money, or "one nation under God" in our pledge of allegiance. The far more accurate and appropriate pledge would be something like the one illustrated by artist and author, Micah Wright, which pledged to the Constitution (instead of the flag) and the "one nation of many peoples" it created.
The problem of allowing religion - any religion - to be used as the foundation for the establishment of any law, is that it requires universal agreement on, not only which religion and denomination is to be used, but also the interpretation of dogma set forth therein. For instance, my grandfather is a retired Methodist minister and, while the official position of the United Methodist Church is currently against marriage equality, my grandfather supports it. More and more ministers within the Methodist Church are also beginning to openly support it, even officiating same-sex marriages. It seems very possible that the organization will, in time, also come to support it. Yet, if that denomination were recognized as the basis for all laws of the land, where would the right to marry stand in the meantime? We have immutable divine law one day, then a different immutable law the next?
The other problem is, what if we don't all agree with the predominant religious views of the land? Such a system can't protect my religious freedom to not be ruled by what I might view as the heretical religious practices of others. What if I did agree, initially, but then had a crisis of faith? If the divine imperative behind the law were lost, and if our premise is that a law ought to be followed because it comes from a divine authority, what then would be my compelling incentive to abide by that law? As it is, the hope is that our religiously open social contract must use universal reasoning, and empathy, to construct our laws, not supposedly divine authoritarianism. We have set down certain governing principles that should apply to all human beings, and we endeavor to construct our laws in keeping with those first principles.
That's the idea, anyway. As I said before, we still got a whole lot of stupid around here. Anytime the majority forgets its humility, that it is ultimately no different and no less vulnerable than any minority group, the majority will tend to try to establish laws that benefit it best - unless we cultivate the safeguards necessary to protect against this.
...to be continued at another coffeehouse that is not closing in 15 minutes...
Dobra Teahouse
(open til 10pm - woo-hoo!)
Shakespeare's Tea
(found in The Winter Tale, Act IV, Scene 4 - so good and winter-y)
So, where was I two hours ago?
Ah, yes - god, government, authority. That was the part of that first article that I agreed with - the hypocrisy. What I did not agree with was the assumption that the discrimination was against modesty. I think the example that less-dressed women were currently being afforded more protection than more completely dressed women was ironic, not indicative of men still imposing their preferences on women. I think the matter was entirely about religious intolerance.
That being said, I think supposedly liberated cultures like ours are, in fact, still dealing with pressure to abide by men's preferences in our beauty standards. That does not, then, mean that women are only "liberated" when they "free" themselves from the lustful stares of men by covering themselves from head to foot. That's a pretty Orwellian interpretation - "Freedom is slavery" kind of thinking.
When societies make a great shift in their institutions or ways of thinking, they rarely have a totally healthy "correct" alternative structure or philosophy ready to take its place. We found tyrannical monarchy unacceptable and moved towards democracy as keeping with a truer state for mankind. And we kept slavery at the same time. It takes a long time to shake all the stupid out of better ideas. We're still working on it. And since the freedoms women are finally being granted are fairly recent recognitions, we're still dealing with the vestiges of the mentality we are trying to leave behind.
Feminists use the term "Patriarchy," but it should be understood that is meant to refer to male-gendered dominance, not some inherently masculine values or behaviors. Feminism, if you need it spelled out, is not about hating men. It's about valuing men and women equally, allowing people the freedom to define themselves by whatever traits they feel fit them best, and to exercise their wills with equal freedom.
If a woman must hide herself in public, she is inherently not exercising her will freely. Even if you don't agree that she has to be completely covered to be considered modestly dressed, her attire should not be a requisite to be treated respectfully or to go about her life safely. To say that she must dress a certain way to keep men from lusting after her to such intensity that they are driven to assault her, or engage in other criminal or deviant acts in their sexual madness - that is absurd. It assumes men are savage and cannot cope with their emotions.
And if men are so weak, shouldn't they be the ones who should wear blindfolds to protect women and the greater population, being led around by their obviously superior female family members who are somehow capable of mastering their own desires?
I have grown up surrounded by men - my single father, brothers, uncles, even male family friends who lived with us at different periods of time. None of these men suffered any kind of ungovernable lust or psychosis because of the abundance of female skin in our society. My parents' generation, in fact, threw off many cultural norms, including, for some of them - clothing. Nudity was embraced as the natural state of being for many of their peers. They viewed clothing as representing old religiously-based fears of sexuality, especially woman's sexuality. And all the convoluted garments the women of their parents' generation were expected to contort into, were viewed as extensions of the same old desire for men to control women's bodies - from bodice to Burka to brassiere.
And while I happen to think they are generally right, and though I happen to be wearing flowers in my hair right now, I have no desire to strip down and run around like the Flower Children of my parents' generation. I'm just not there. Plus, it's chilly out. And that's why I don't think clothes are going anywhere in our modern society. Because we now build permanent structures for our jobs and permanent homes from whence to go to those jobs, we are stuck in environments with variable weather, necessitating weather-appropriate outerwear.
Also, I've worked a number of food jobs - I want the people handling my food to wear underwear!
The problems in our society are not nudity or semi-nudity. Our problem is the sexualization of nudity, and a latent fear of sexuality, itself. Frankly, it's just a body. It does not inherently drive a person to lust and craziness. I remember in one anthropology class, seeing a video of an indigenous tribe of ... New Guinea, I think... and the members of the tribe were almost totally naked. Men tended to have something tied to their boy-bits, and women routinely wore a kind of long net sack on their heads, running down their back. That was their form of modesty because, for that particular tribe, a woman's back was the most alluring feature. Which made me think, "It's always something, damn it." But the exposure of all the rest of a woman's body was completely incidental. That particular society had no problem with that much feminine nudity, and exhibited no disproportionate amount of violence or "deviant" behavior within the tribe.
The truth is there is no level of modesty that will keep a woman safe from male violence. There is no age that will keep her safe, no number on the scale, no disfigurement or degree of ugliness to make her so repellent that she will be left alone. This culture has a real problem with sexual violence, but neither modesty nor religion, alone, will stop it, because the problem lies more within the presumed authority of men that still lingers. How do I make this assertion? Because that's what the statistics say.
Women in Burkas get raped. Little boys and girls nowhere near sexual maturity or "desirability" get raped. Old women get raped. Fat people, thin people, sinner and saint. They all are within the statistics. And they have been for centuries - even when Western women's ankles were scandalous - and all around the world. This is the World Health Organization's study on the subject, which includes the statistic that 37% of women in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (including many Muslim countries that require women to wear the hijab) have been victims of violence by an intimate partner or sexual violence by a non-partner. There's more to be said about the details of those statistics. The point is simply that the violence exists even where "modesty" is common practice.
The most attractive thing to a predator is opportunity. And opportunity is not just proximity, a dark and convenient venue for the crime. Opportunity is also about the ability to get away with it, the permissiveness of the culture which collectively assumes the victim did something to deserve what she - or he - got, or that the victim is lying. Sometimes the culture just collectively assumes that rape isn't really rape because, oh, he paid for dinner, or she had said yes once before. Or because it was her husband. This is rape culture, and it allows some predators to believe that they are not even predators. We are most definitely dealing with this reality. At least, we are beginning to deal with it.
And that is the first step to changing it, because it absolutely can be changed. First, we acknowledge that it's happening. Second, we put the responsibility to change the behavior on those perpetrating it - not the victims of it.
There was a viral video of a woman in America walking to work where she was cat-called - the common term for street harassment - 100 times. In response, a model in New Zealand recreated the video. She was not subjected to a single cat-call. The only difference is how that culture deals with men who engage in street harassment. Men here just need to be taught better. It is as simple as that.
When a man sees a woman walking down the street - no matter what or how much she's wearing - that he finds particularly attractive, he does not need to feel bad about having that feeling. It's normal and healthy. It's also healthy to view her as a whole being, essentially no different than him. Just another human being walking down the street. And instead of following her, or hollering out what he thinks is a compliment, or leering at her with that creep smile we women know only too well, he can just quietly "bank it for later" and leave her, the person, alone to go about her day.
And when I say "bank it for later," yes, I am talking about masturbation. Because that, like sex, is healthy. Healthy for everybody - of an appropriate age - when practiced safely and consensually. Desire to dominate and abuse someone else, is not healthy or normal. It does not originate with lust or arousal, but with suppression and fear of those and other emotions, and with an implicit belief in superiority over others.
Women feel lust. We can look at a man walking down the street and think that he is attractive, even experience arousal. (In fact, if women never experienced sexual arousal, sexual intercourse would be an exceptionally painful experience every time, because it is her body's arousal that provides the lubrication for the act). But the reason women are almost never the abuser, is because we are not taught that we have any implicit authority over men.
The first article I referenced above included this passage:
"The believers are directed in the Quran:
"And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards God, that ye may attain Bliss. [Quran 24:31]"
It is reasonable to think that men of the same biological family would not normally be attracted to women of their family (there have been studies to this affect - in one, women found the sweat of men most genetically different to be the most appealing), and thus, could safely view their beauty. But there are a few men on that list that are permitted to view the beauty of women not biologically related to them. What is to stop them from lust-driven acts because of this open exposure (at home, anyway) to female attractiveness? Rules, Commandments, social norms? If they are capable of overcoming this supposedly inherent animal aggression when they view these select few women, why can't they extend that ability to all women? Do they not also have obligations to all women? Obligations to respect them and their autonomy?
Ultimately, I am not trying to talk anyone out of practicing their own religious customs. I point these things out to say that the logic and assumptions behind these customs don't fly with me. Since I am agnostic and have no religious regulations to adhere to, there is no rationale left for me to abide by these customs. I don't believe men are incapable of self-control. I don't believe women are safe when they conform to any standard of cultural modesty - or beauty, for that matter. I believe objective statistics, including historical accounts, confirm that. I believe that reason confirms that.
Finally, I will say that, while I think there is nothing overtly sexual in simple nudity, I don't believe that anyone has the right to force the exposure of anyone's body. I think the recent publication of nude celebrity photos is a kind of sexual violence. Because we do still have cultural taboos about nudity, and it is a fundamental violation of a woman's consent to share her nudity with whom she pleases. It is akin to being stripped down in the middle of town, over and over again, against her will. I hope some day we will recognize that act, the sharing nudity without consent, as the shameful act it is.
But that's another aspect of this culture we need to work on. And that makes me hopeful, because we are so very capable of change - for the better.
Sunday, July 6, 2014
The Unprotected Sex
Mix Bake Shop
Americano
Anise Shortbread
I don't know where to start. I have found myself shouting and/or writing the word "motherfucker" frequently following the Supreme Court's ruling on the Hobby Lobby case. The anthropomorphic personification of a business arrangement has been granted primacy over my body, my sexuality, and my religious beliefs. The most sexist, slut-shaming-ist corners of a single religion have been given preference over all other interpretations of a loving and tolerant deity - or a loving and tolerant society, for that matter. Pseudoscience has been legitimized by the same method as getting Tinkerbell fly: clap your hands and say, "I do believe that a zygote is a person even before a woman is pregnant!"
Motherfuckers.
This is one of the most ridiculous interpretations of the law that I've seen in my lifetime. First, just because it is "precedent" for corporations to be considered people, doesn't mean the interpretation was ever valid in the first place. That interpretation can, and should, be struck down at any time. But even the liberal justices seem disinclined to rock that boat, so it's going to have to take an act of Congress - the most inactive body of government - to explicitly undo corporate personhood.
Second, no person has the right to deny their employee their due compensation, nor to direct them in what they can or cannot do with their wages. Not for any reason. You can't say, "I'm not giving Phil his paycheck because he smokes and drinks and I have a deep moral opposition to those behaviors - you can't make me pay for it!" You don't get to decide. It's not your money anymore. If Phil put in his time and did the work, then he is now entitled to his compensation, whatever form it takes. Withholding it would be illegal. Unless, apparently, Phil is a Philomena.
Next, by what logic does this particular belief get its special exception? Logically, how does this differ? Because this person behind the corporate person thinks that contraception is a form of abortion? So what? First, that's not accurate. There are numerous articles out there circulating that explain the real science behind all these forms of contraception. Second, abortion is a legal right and should be protected, though it is continually infringed or outright assaulted.
If we all agreed that the abortion of a fetus was murder, then it would not be legal. But we don't. Hence, it is still nominally legal for a woman to decide what happens in and to her own body. To be clear, I don't believe that a fetus is devoid of personhood, but I do not believe that it is of equivalent personhood to that of a born child. And I certainly don't believe that whatever rights it has are superior to those of the mother carrying it. I believe that we need special "grey laws" that try to address the interests of the potential person and the undeniably real person carrying it.
And a woman is more than just a baby incubator. That developing fetus that will one day, if all goes well, become a child is altered continually by the conditions of the mother's condition. And vice versa. The mother's diet, physical activity, her worries, affect the developing fetus, and the very act of carrying the child alters the woman in profound ways. Her chemistry, her mental health, her physicality all change in unknown and dramatic ways. And who best to say whether or not those changes or conditions should be continued for the mother and the one-day-maybe child?
Certainly not the abstract legally-incarnated bogeyman withholding her paycheck.
Here's a little insight for you sexist bosses who want to pretend that depriving a woman of her healthcare will prevent you from being complicit in her "consequence free sex" life. If she can't prevent her unintended pregnancy from happening through not-actually-abortive contraception, she's going to use the money you give her in her paycheck to pay for the real, actual abortion a few weeks later. Which is costlier in every possible way...
And I'm just gonna leave this little link here to one of my earlier blogs, wherein I totally demolish any opposition to the idea of contraception: To the new pope...
As was noted by Justice Ginsberg and others, the Pill and other contraceptive devices are frequently used for other medical purposes (right here, guys!). The not-able-to-get-pregnant feature is a side-effect the woman and her healthcare provider have to take into consideration when deciding whether or not to utilize it. What about other medical treatments that cause temporary or permanent infertility? Should we allow those treatments to be denied as well, even if we could cure somebody's cancer?
The day after this decision came down we immediately saw, not just the hypothetical ways in which this ruling would enable "non-favored" (non-Christian) religious beliefs being imposed on workers by for-profit corporations, but the new actual legal challenges by employers trying to deny workers various rights because of "sincerely held beliefs." Specifically, they're goin' after the gays.
And why is it that sincere religious beliefs are imbued with a variety of protections, but my sincere beliefs founded on reason and empathy get bupkis? How many people just go along with what they were told to believe when they were little? Somebody hundreds or thousands of years ago came up with a story full of dos and don'ts and somebody else just said, "Okay," and, ta-da! - you're exempt. I put years of thoughtful consideration into the guiding principles of my life and it's, "Pay your taxes and burn in hell, hippy!"
Again, motherfuckers.
(Yes, I know many devout people do reflect upon the tenants of their faith. I'm just saying there are millions mailing it in and still getting preferential treatment.)
I have the right to believe and do as I choose, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. The burden of being an American is protecting the rights of those you disagree with. It doesn't matter to my employer what I choose to read or watch or listen to, just as long as I'm polite to the customers. It doesn't matter whether or not I eat a vegan diet and go hiking, or if I love bacon and barely leave the house, so long as I can lift box A and put it on shelf B. My employer doesn't get to dock my pay if I get drunk one weekend, make out with some random lesbian at a party, and show up on Monday with a new neck tattoo, so long as I show up and do my job - in a turtleneck.
As other great thinkers have said:
If I wanna take a guy home with me tonight
It's none of your business
And she wanna be a freak and sell it on the weekend
It's none of your business
Now you shouldn't even get into who I'm givin' skins to
It's none of your business
So don't try to change my mind, I'll tell you one more time
It's none of your business
But, alas, sex is not a protected right in this country.
Sexism, however, has just been thrown a box of Trojans and a bottle of Viagra.
Americano
Anise Shortbread
I don't know where to start. I have found myself shouting and/or writing the word "motherfucker" frequently following the Supreme Court's ruling on the Hobby Lobby case. The anthropomorphic personification of a business arrangement has been granted primacy over my body, my sexuality, and my religious beliefs. The most sexist, slut-shaming-ist corners of a single religion have been given preference over all other interpretations of a loving and tolerant deity - or a loving and tolerant society, for that matter. Pseudoscience has been legitimized by the same method as getting Tinkerbell fly: clap your hands and say, "I do believe that a zygote is a person even before a woman is pregnant!"
Motherfuckers.
This is one of the most ridiculous interpretations of the law that I've seen in my lifetime. First, just because it is "precedent" for corporations to be considered people, doesn't mean the interpretation was ever valid in the first place. That interpretation can, and should, be struck down at any time. But even the liberal justices seem disinclined to rock that boat, so it's going to have to take an act of Congress - the most inactive body of government - to explicitly undo corporate personhood.
Second, no person has the right to deny their employee their due compensation, nor to direct them in what they can or cannot do with their wages. Not for any reason. You can't say, "I'm not giving Phil his paycheck because he smokes and drinks and I have a deep moral opposition to those behaviors - you can't make me pay for it!" You don't get to decide. It's not your money anymore. If Phil put in his time and did the work, then he is now entitled to his compensation, whatever form it takes. Withholding it would be illegal. Unless, apparently, Phil is a Philomena.
Next, by what logic does this particular belief get its special exception? Logically, how does this differ? Because this person behind the corporate person thinks that contraception is a form of abortion? So what? First, that's not accurate. There are numerous articles out there circulating that explain the real science behind all these forms of contraception. Second, abortion is a legal right and should be protected, though it is continually infringed or outright assaulted.
If we all agreed that the abortion of a fetus was murder, then it would not be legal. But we don't. Hence, it is still nominally legal for a woman to decide what happens in and to her own body. To be clear, I don't believe that a fetus is devoid of personhood, but I do not believe that it is of equivalent personhood to that of a born child. And I certainly don't believe that whatever rights it has are superior to those of the mother carrying it. I believe that we need special "grey laws" that try to address the interests of the potential person and the undeniably real person carrying it.
And a woman is more than just a baby incubator. That developing fetus that will one day, if all goes well, become a child is altered continually by the conditions of the mother's condition. And vice versa. The mother's diet, physical activity, her worries, affect the developing fetus, and the very act of carrying the child alters the woman in profound ways. Her chemistry, her mental health, her physicality all change in unknown and dramatic ways. And who best to say whether or not those changes or conditions should be continued for the mother and the one-day-maybe child?
Certainly not the abstract legally-incarnated bogeyman withholding her paycheck.
Here's a little insight for you sexist bosses who want to pretend that depriving a woman of her healthcare will prevent you from being complicit in her "consequence free sex" life. If she can't prevent her unintended pregnancy from happening through not-actually-abortive contraception, she's going to use the money you give her in her paycheck to pay for the real, actual abortion a few weeks later. Which is costlier in every possible way...
And I'm just gonna leave this little link here to one of my earlier blogs, wherein I totally demolish any opposition to the idea of contraception: To the new pope...
As was noted by Justice Ginsberg and others, the Pill and other contraceptive devices are frequently used for other medical purposes (right here, guys!). The not-able-to-get-pregnant feature is a side-effect the woman and her healthcare provider have to take into consideration when deciding whether or not to utilize it. What about other medical treatments that cause temporary or permanent infertility? Should we allow those treatments to be denied as well, even if we could cure somebody's cancer?
The day after this decision came down we immediately saw, not just the hypothetical ways in which this ruling would enable "non-favored" (non-Christian) religious beliefs being imposed on workers by for-profit corporations, but the new actual legal challenges by employers trying to deny workers various rights because of "sincerely held beliefs." Specifically, they're goin' after the gays.
And why is it that sincere religious beliefs are imbued with a variety of protections, but my sincere beliefs founded on reason and empathy get bupkis? How many people just go along with what they were told to believe when they were little? Somebody hundreds or thousands of years ago came up with a story full of dos and don'ts and somebody else just said, "Okay," and, ta-da! - you're exempt. I put years of thoughtful consideration into the guiding principles of my life and it's, "Pay your taxes and burn in hell, hippy!"
Again, motherfuckers.
(Yes, I know many devout people do reflect upon the tenants of their faith. I'm just saying there are millions mailing it in and still getting preferential treatment.)
I have the right to believe and do as I choose, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. The burden of being an American is protecting the rights of those you disagree with. It doesn't matter to my employer what I choose to read or watch or listen to, just as long as I'm polite to the customers. It doesn't matter whether or not I eat a vegan diet and go hiking, or if I love bacon and barely leave the house, so long as I can lift box A and put it on shelf B. My employer doesn't get to dock my pay if I get drunk one weekend, make out with some random lesbian at a party, and show up on Monday with a new neck tattoo, so long as I show up and do my job - in a turtleneck.
As other great thinkers have said:
If I wanna take a guy home with me tonight
It's none of your business
And she wanna be a freak and sell it on the weekend
It's none of your business
Now you shouldn't even get into who I'm givin' skins to
It's none of your business
So don't try to change my mind, I'll tell you one more time
It's none of your business
But, alas, sex is not a protected right in this country.
Sexism, however, has just been thrown a box of Trojans and a bottle of Viagra.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)