Fast Food vs. Crock Pot Social Interaction

I'm a a Republican.  Surprisingly to some, I don't twirl my nonexistent mustache, rub my hands together feverishly, nor cackle maniacally as I rob cheat and steal candy from babies, and money from the middle class to fill my already full grain silos with even more money (especially since I'm in the middle class myself)

I'm not going to take away a woman's right to choose... regardless of my views on the subject-- I don't have that power (for that matter neither does the president... but that's a civics lesson for another day).  I'm not going to run around with duct tape trying to tape the mouths of Justices of the Peace shut so they can't perform weddings or civil unions for homosexuals.  I wouldn't want anyone telling me whom I can or can't love and marry, so why would I go around telling others whom they can or can't marry?

My religious and my political views are mutually exclusive.  I believe a person's relationship with their higher being of choice (or lack thereof) is very personal.  A person's religious or moral beliefs can be a compass, but should never be a map, for their political beliefs.  At the same time it's something that can be shared with other like minded individuals if one so chooses, but not something to be forced down the throats of those who do not agree.

Over the course of my life I've both made friends with and distanced myself from people of many different walks of life, political affiliations, ethnic backgrounds, sexual orientations.  Respect isn't a right, it's a privilege, it must be earned. I was raised to give everyone equal opportunity to earn my respect and I was raised with the belief that the respect others extend to me must also be earned.

A person's ethnic background, sexual orientation, religion, and political affiliation are all aspects of who a person is.  They aren't the whole.  They are parts of a whole.  My life experience has taught me that when it comes to the good people I know in my life, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.  Focusing on only the "parts" that make us up as individuals, we sometimes dismiss and miss out on the whole of that person, much to our own detriment.  I've also learned that learning "why" someone is, is far more enlightening and makes for far more enriching friendships and personal interactions than learning merely "what" or "who" they are.

Sadly, given the speed and pace of our culture, we've stopped taking the time to interact with one another.  We seek the safety of those who share our beliefs and backgrounds rather than the challenge of getting to know those who don't.  It's something we are ALL guilty of (self included).  Our whole culture, down to our interactions with one another has become "fast food/convenience" oriented.  We've stopped making the time to get to know one another better in favor of getting by on knowing just enough about one another to get by.  Assumptions are made and polarity based on those assumptions ensues.  Rather than focus on all the ingredients that separate us, instead we should search for the salt-- it's the ingredient found in everything, it's that which we all share.

Admit it, you meet a person for the first time and if the subject of politics comes up and that person self-identifies as conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican you make a snap judgment on that person's entire character and if that person's political affiliation differs from yours, walls go up and both of you end up going on the defensive.  It's something I believe we're all guilty of from time to time (although, not necessarily EVERY time).  Unfortunately, this is a product of being far too focused on our differences and not focused enough (or at all) on our similarities.

So skip the fast food, take the time to make your friendships and social interactions in crock pots, they taste better and are far more fulfilling.  Oh and please pass the salt.

On Christianity

With Easter and Passover fast approaching I tend to think about the differences between Catholicism, Protestantism, and Judaism. In a book I read awhile ago, in which most of the characters were Jewish, the main character asserted that there really wasn't much difference between Jews and Christians. The Jews are waiting for their Messiah, and the Christians are waiting for His return. We're all waiting.

But being a Christian, my interest tends to fall more on the differences between Catholics and Protestants. And Easter, more than any other time of year, the core of our differences are most apparent. Both Catholics and Protestants use a crucifix as a religious symbol. The difference between a Catholic crucifix and a Protestant crucifix is the presence of Jesus Christ. Jesus is present on the Catholic cross-- a reminder of the sacrifice he made for mankind, the very sacrifice the Christian faith is based upon. On the Protestant cross, Jesus is absent. The idea being that Jesus was resurrected on the third day. For Catholics the focus is on the crucifixion and the sacrifice. For Protestants the focus is on the resurrection and the promise of His return. I'm not saying either focus is necessarily right or wrong, good or bad. They're just different and that one difference is the very root of many of the other differences that exist between the two primary branches of the Christian faith. And I believe in understanding and appreciating that core difference once can better respect and appreciate the other differences between the two branches of the Christian faith.

Incidentally, this played into the exploration of the Americas in the sixteenth-eighteenth centuries. Let's take the French for example. The Hugenot explorers were Calvinists (or as they're called today Presbyterians), the core tenet of Calvinism is predestination. God was here before we were born, he'll be here after we're dead. All of our lives are predetermined by Him.
Therefore, the Hugenot explorers didn't try to convert any of the Natives to Christianity. They studied them from a more anthropological standpoint and did try to at least make their lives on Earth better. The Catholics however (not to mention some of the non-Calvinist Protestants) DID try to convert the natives to Christianity. Many of them saw their interaction with the Natives to be part of a Divine mission. They may not be able to do much to help them out in this life, but maybe they could at least save their souls (I know, through a 21st century lens, this appears rather elitist and possibly even pretentious, but keep in mind times were different then. Religion was much more intertwined into everyday life. In many cases the Church and State were not at all separated).

But back to the crux of things-- If you take the story of Christianity, how the religion came to be. It is a truly beautiful story. A man who loved the world so much he was willing to give his very life for it. He taught of not only love and tolerance but also forgiveness and a general sense of altruism. But then you look at what Christianity has turned into and, maybe it's just me, but I find it rather depressing. Where is the love? Where is the forgiveness? The tolerance? The altruism?

It seems that over the past 2000 years that message has been lost in the dogma, the sacraments, and all the other window dressing that organized religion has deemed necessary to add to Christianity. But this time of year, gives me hope... maybe in the message of resurrection, those who call themselves Christians in name (but who live lives that are from the examples which Christ taught) will forget about all the window dressing and remember the very beauty of the message the faith was founded on.

I know Christmas is more the time for wishes-- but that is my wish for Easter. Happy Easter and Happy Passover (to any of my Jewish friends who happen to stumble upon this post).

Interesting perspectives

On the radio earlier today I heard a rather intriguing exchange between conservative talk show hostess, Laura Ingraham, and second-lady, Lynn Cheney. Cheney was talking about all the bad music, literature, movies, and TV that's out there that kids are getting exposed to and how best to shield children from that. Ingraham countered that she doesn't think it's possible to shield children from "the bad stuff" and instead suggested that rather than shielding them, exposing them to as much of the "good stuff" as possible would be a far better tactic. That way, when exposed to "the bad stuff" they'd have a basis of comparison.

Besides it's also human nature to want what you can't have, and as children and even moreso as adolescents that desire for the forbidden is quite strong. Trying to shield children from the negative influences out there would likely only serve to cause them to gravitate more towards those negative influences.

To extrapolate on this, I believe the religious right is going about delivering their "message" all wrong. If the message really is that good, really is that noble-- it should be able to stand up against the messages of society and of other religions, right? Trying to block out opposing ideas and influences only serves to call into question the strength of one's own arguments. That is to say, if your social/political/religious ideas are really that good they should be able to withstand the challenges posed by those with differing viewpoints.

I am a Christian and am constantly frustrated and disenfranchised by how organized religion has taken such a beautiful and simple message of love and tolerance and twisted it and distorted it to their own means and ends. And the thing is the message at the heart of Christianity-- when you strip away all the extra dogma that organized religion had added to Christianity (that has only served to complicate a message that is really quite simple) the message is not only quite beautiful, it bears a striking resemblance to the messages of Buddhism and other religions.

I believe I became the man I am today not because of what my parents shielded me from (which wasn't much really) but because of what they exposed me to. In exposing me to the movies, music, TV, places, and people they did they also instilled in my a compass to guide me in the right direction and an ability to filter the "good stuff" from the "bad stuff."

Religion

I was going through a website I once posted over on geocities and have long since left neglected. Among the contents of that site I found this photo I'd taken of the sun setting on the Gulf of Mexico in Treasure Island, FL (just west of St. Petersburg) back in March of 2000. That was one of the last vacations I went on with my parents. I remember we'd gone to a JFK exhibit that was passing through St. Petersburg at the time earlier in the day. On that same trip we'd also checked out the Salvador Dali exhibit in St. Petersburg.

When I see sunsets like that I can't help but believe there's a God. Something so beautiful, so breathtaking can't just be an accident of science. I realize there is a scientific explanation as to why the sky reddens as the sun descends beneath the horizon. But the circumstances that must exist for that science to work to me are far more than mere coincidence... Just as the miracle of life on our planet. There had to be a specific set of circumstances in place for life to have evolved on our planet, for life to have taken hold. There had to be just the right chemical ingredients present in the biological soup that eventually evolved into what we are today... And while I do respect the science beyond the explanations for life (human and otherwise) on our planet, one still has to concede that those scientific conditions necessary for us to get from where we were to where we are now are far too specific, far too special for life to be a mere accident of science.

But this brings me to another tangent, believing in God, I also believe that God granted us free will. Our God is not an interventionist any more than that God is a He or a She. Assigning God a gender is a human construct to try to make something beyond our comprehension understandable. The fact that he was assigned the XY rather than the XX gender has more to do with the patriarchal nature of the civilizations which have deemed to organize religion... religion that was initially organized for reasons of survival, an organization that ended up growing increasingly political over the years. Whether it's the elders of the Sanhedrin who ordered Christ be put to death for instilling in people the idea that we're still ALL Gods children, that God is not and has never been one to exclude people based on where they were born or whom their parents are/were or the modern day leaders of the Catholic, Protestant, Shiite, and Sunni faiths who rather than follow God or Allah's word instead twist it to justify their policies of discrimination and hate.

So today we have a bastardization of God/Allah's message being perpetuated by political zealots. The hate and discrimination which is legislated and perpetuated by religion isn't the fault of God or Allah's message. God/Allah is not fallible, man is... the hate/fear/discrimnation is from man's flawed and twisted interpretation of a beautiful message of loving, trusting, and caring for one another.

Is this too over-simplified?

Over on Urban Monk's blog, he recently posted of an experience with his boss in regards to a search for what basically would amount to a Cliff Notes version of the Bible. I suggested he relate the following encapsulation of the New Testament which I tossed together on the fly:

A right bloke, JC, is born to a special sheila named Mary and his stepdad, Joseph. JC keeps to himself until he's about 30 then Dear old Dad (God) gives him a call to give up carpentry and enter the ministry. So JC gathers 12 of his best mates including a tax collector and a handful of fishermen and they go around telling people the world might just be a better place if people were a bit nicer, more accepting, and tolerant of those with different ideas and beliefs. In addition to being a good stick, JC becomes quite popular with the blokes and sheilas when he turns water into wine at a wedding, helps a few lame people walk, a few blind people see, and even ressurects a dead bloke. In the process he manages to piss off the sanhedrin by performing miracles on the
Sabbath and condemning the Church elders for money-lending inside dear old Dad's house (the synagogue). He pisses off the sanhedrin so much they get the Romans to nail him to a tree. But in the end you can't keep a good mate down, JC performs the ultimate party trick following the last supper by coming back to life 3 days after getting nailed to said tree by the Romans.

Isn't that pretty much it?

Current Music: Katie Melua - Lilac Wine