Tag Archives: religious right

Easter Female-Fertility Festivities

20 Apr

mallards in CO

I like Easter.  I think I say this about every holiday when that holiday is near, but it’s one of my vag quiltfavorites.  It’s an important religious event, but I also like the Pagan meanings of the day–fertility.  It’s a day of spring, and new life, baby animals, egg hunts–just joy.  So I feel I can embrace both the Christian and the Feminist and the Pagan and Native American aspects of the day all at once.  I don’t have to chose or limit myself, and I like that.  So you know the typical traditional events of Easter, but here are some suggestions to appreciate nature and fertility:

-Go out for a walk and look for signs of spring: robins, nests being built, flowers buds, bulbs shoots, plants starting to green
-Buy a new broom for magical or mundane cleaning
-Do meditations focused on new beginnings or growth
-Make paper flowers and use them to decorate your home
-Have an egg hunt
-Learn about the migration of butterflies or the plight of the honey bee. Vow to take steps to help them on their way
-Have a seed blessing ritual
-Start seeds indoors or out
-Eat eggs for breakfast on Ostara morning and bury the rinsed shells in your garden to promote prosperity and abundance of your crops
-Try to incorporate at least one traditional correspondence into you daily life through the spring season: cook with seasonal foods, use traditionally colored cloth napkins, display a vase of wildflowers on your table, burn traditionally scented incense, etc.

bud (3)

Enhanced by Zemanta

It’s Not What You Think

27 Sep

I don’t know what is more scary–the fact I got this brochure at the Spokompton Fair–or the fact there were many enthusiastic people staffing their booth.  Produced by Heritage House, I find the contents ignorant, and. . .  Well, let’s just leave it at ignorant.

263958_1683544987583_1806375435_1120314_1916163_n

On the Front:

“Planned Parent Hood (sic) It’s not what you think”  picture of a snake on a bouquet of pink flowers.  “Lantana.  The beauty of this flower is known for attracting children, but then it causes poisoning and death when eaten.”

Quotes w/in:

“It’s all about abortion.”

-“First and foremost Planned Parenthood is all about aborting children.”

-“Abortions were performed 98.6% of the time.”

“It’s all about Money.”

-“As a non-for-profit. . .  34% of this billion dollars came from you, the taxpayer.”

-“Income from abortions total in the $190,000,000 range.”

“It’s all about Sex.”

-“You teen can view informative videos showing how to put on a condom!”

-“A lot of teens choose to skip intercourse and practice outercourse instead, which can include kissing and                body rubbing.”

“It’s all about Deception.”

-“Every year, nearly 25,000 affiliate volunteers and staff provide sexual and reproductive health care,            education, and information to nearly 5 million women, men, and teens in the U.S.!”

feminism is necessary

Gasp!  Providing information and health care?!  Unbelievable.  I won’t even justify this mis-information and scare-tactics with any response.  You can look at higher, legitimate sources–cited and substantiated, of course–for yourself and come to your own conclusions.  My thoughts–education can never, never be a bad thing.

Scripture is a Distance-Maker

27 Jun

Mostly it makes me sad when Dayton has ignorant, hateful, judgments.

Here is my rambling rant sadness:  And quoting verse only creates more of a divide.  When religious people dehumanize thegod hates fag idiot argument and start quoting verses, it does 2 things:  Quickly renders the more liberal or gay person quiet–as they (usually) cannot, from memory, quote opposing verses.  Squarely places the argument inside a book that does not have an equal value to each side of the argument.  The church person has placed faith into the word of the book as coming straight from God, while the other side, may think the book is inaccurate, pieced together by the most influential people of the day, interpreted in such a way as to accomplish current ends, and not scientifically proven.  No matter what the thoughts about the Bible, each side is now focusing on its contents rather than the current effects on actual human lives and relationships.

What I think church is supposed to do for people:

-Give them a safe, hopeful feeling because life, choices, death, and the after-life are in someone else’s capable hands.

*This requires faith.

-Bring people closer together.  Through common beliefs, values, and goals.

*This means pledging allegiance to the doctrine, attending group services and events, and having a common cause.

-Support those less fortunate and educate them.

*”less fortunate” is subjective, as in the case of Native Americans.  Educate means indoctrinate into the popularly held religious convictions.

rainbow 3 (2)I’m not saying these goals or the requirements to achieve them are right or wrong.  Religion can be a very positive, uplifting thing.  BUT we have to remember religion is an institution with a power structure.  And capital behind it.  So good intentions can be skewed by those at the top in order to make money ultimately.  Churches need more and increasing members to pay their bills.  They need those people to unquestioningly act for their church.  And the goals may get icky depending on the political agenda of the leaders.

So back to Dayton.  A small, conservative town, where the biggest employer is the school district.  This means most education goes as high as a Masters degree.  It also means the incomes stop in the $50,000/year mark.  If that.  And peopleVC cemetary may or may not have experienced travel and diversity.  I suspect most people have taken 1-2 big trips to other cultures and viewpoints if any.  So I’m not judging my town, but there are reasons they may have a more narrow life view.

Instead of judgement, I would like to see compassion.  Instead of heated arguments about verse, I want each side to stand in the shoes of the other party.  Really, I believe arguing with a fool–makes two.  I think the best way to handle such hateful attitudes is to be that person that lives an upstanding life.  A person that those Dayton people didn’t realize was gay.  It would show them the same person they always knew and liked, is still the same despite being gay too.  That is what really makes people change their views–knowing someone personally who doesn’t fall under the stereotypes.  Someone good, and kind, and educated.  I hope by living an upstanding life, and showing people through my actions that their hate and judgement is wrong–not the way I love, that real change can occur.

And I’m proud of my mom for having the courage and inclination to post a gay-positive sentiment on her Facebook, even if it was quickly shot down by well-intentioned, though ignorant people of Dayton.  I hope that doesn’t discourage her from changing her own mind to a more accepting viewpoint.

Janeane Garofalo

21 Aug

I liked her dry humor and sarcasm when she was popular.  Where did she go, anyway? Did she retire, stop getting hired, settle down, move?  I always wonder. . .  She was all over the screen in the 1990s, and now you hardly hear from her.

When I did hear from her, she was doing some Seattle comedy TV special. And she tried to tell the audience that she was A-sexual. Meaning she doesn’t have sex with anyone.  Which is fine.  It’s a thing, I guess.  Though I have to wonder why.  But if you don’t wanna have relationships or sex your entire life–have at it.  Or don’t, I guess.  Except, in Garofalo’s case, I don’t buy it. She’s a total lesbian!  Total.  I think the only reason she claims/thinks she’s A-sexual is that her family is staunch Catholic. And gay and Catholic don’t mix well in most cases. At the very least, combining both is very, very difficult.  So I think rather then take the hard road, she gave up love and sex all-together.

Or maybe that’s just what she says to escape conflict and she’s secretly shaking up with a woman somewhere. . .

On the same track, why do celebrities/people say, “My sexuality is nobody’s business” ???  True, explicit details of sex lives are not all that relevant to the public–this holds true for everyone.  But sexuality has to be actively hidden.  The person in question has to mindfully avoid pronouns, secretively date/live, and be constantly careful.  It’s more then just protecting your personal business, it is (internally) homophobic to try to keep such a big piece of life on the D.L.

It would be akin to a Jewish person saying their religion is nobody’s business then actively trying to hide it and not acknowledge their religion/heritage.  I think people say their sexuality is nobody’s business are really saying that it is nobody’s right to judge such a personal, important, pervasive, and unchangeable part of themselves.  Because, sure, it’s nobody’s business, but it does come up naturally.

Possible internal homophobia and +/- closeted behavior aside, I can really get behind a person who says:  “I guess I just prefer to see the dark side of things. The glass is always half empty. And cracked. And I just cut my lip on it. And chipped a tooth.”  Quote courtesy of Wiki.

A Serious Topic

16 May

Death.  This is heavy, and belief-laden.

It’s really confuses me when religious (churchy) people seem to have a difficult time dealing with death. Whether it’s their pet or a loved human or someone they don’t know very well, I am surprised when they struggle with it.  Isn’t that a major tennent of organized religion?  Going to heaven, reuniting with passed loved ones, possibly meeting God/Jesus/whoever your belief-system requires?

I’m not afraid of death.  Of course I miss people and pets close to me who are no longer here:  Grandma Reathel (especially!), Max and Jellybean, Toby the turtle, Squirt, Buddha-Bob, Ladybug, Anja and Tucker. . .  And I don’t like when someone really young dies, or if a person/animal were taken in a really unexpected or particularly tragic way.  Or–worst of all–if a pet is euthanized for financial reasons.  But, But, But:  I believe there are things much worse then death.  I feel bad for loved ones left behind (and me)–but I know whoever died is much better off then they are here.

Also, I know the dead are with me–in my memories, in my dreams, and maybe even in spirit.  They are with me when I need them, and they still live in my mind.  Not in a *hearing voices, hallucinating* way, but just in the sense they positively impacted my life, and that cannot be erased.  That goes for any person that has survived the death of a loved one.

A lot of people mistake my views as a lack of compassion.  I do FEEL.  I know everyone deals with these things differently.  There is no one way to grieve.  I just find it peculiar when a person with strong religious conviction seems terrified of death, slow to end a pet’s misery and suffering, or reacts strongly even when a stranger passes.  I feel they should have an inner calm about the process if they do in fact believe in their spiritual teachings.

Partisan Politics are Stupid

13 Dec

I don’t understand how a country founded on the premise of wanting individual rights could so blindly follow the hard.  We could get a lot more accomplished if each party fought less with each other and tried to gain progress.  And it really makes me crazy when congress gets paid all this money, gets all these benefits, has a lot of holidays and vacation, and sick-leave that the American people are wanting for, then they can not make decisions.  It seems they send a lot more time trying to block so-and-sos idea because that person is part of the opposing party, then trying to advocate change for the better.

When I hear the republicans thought one way, until our Democratic president tried to do that exact same thing, then they voted against that thing they had formerly supported–just to make him look bad. . .  Well, it infuriated me.  That is why I just try to disengage politics.  I think anyone who gets that far has to be crooked.  Once you get campaign money and owe somebody something, you can no longer have ethics and ideals.  It’s too bad.  And not what our forefathers intended.

Aren’t politicians supposed to represent what regular citizens want.  Uphold the values of the majority of people in the country.  Do things that benefit most people.  I think most people are moderate, and lie somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum.  Without hype and lack of education, I think we would have a lot less extremism in this country.  It’s really ashame people do not think for themselves, and instead let the lobbiests with monetary interests drive their opinions.  And while we’re on that subject–how is lobbying democratic?  Isn’t that called buying votes or pandering?  I know if I sent cookies to the vet school admissions board, it would be seen as bribery and inappropriate.  They certainly couldn’t accept my gift.  And they definitely would not admit me because I sent them such goodies!

 

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/08/22/24-policies-that-republicans-supported-before-they-were-against-them/

Why Gay Marriage is Not a Threat to Marriage [not by me]

17 Jan
By Steve Chapman
Nov 5, 2006

It used to be thought that women had no business voting. But when women got the vote, men didn’t suddenly decide their once-exclusive prerogative was worthless. Blacks were once barred from owning property. When the laws changed, whites didn’t suddenly give up buying in favor of renting.

Admitting an excluded group to an institution doesn’t necessarily weaken the institution. When the subject is matrimony, however, self-styled defenders of marriage say that if it isn’t restricted, it will promptly wither and die. They think allowing gays to wed would soon cause heterosexuals to abandon marriage, start propagating offspring out of wedlock and slide into degeneracy.

American treatment of homosexuality has come a long way. Though many people view it as a sin, it’s no longer a crime. Gays and lesbians can now live their lives openly.

Changes like these were unimaginable 50 years ago, but they haven’t led to a collapse of the social order. Yet we are told that allowing homosexuals to join in legally sanctioned unions will reduce Western civilization to a smoking ruin.

That’s one of the chief rationales for efforts to block same-sex marriage. On Tuesday, eight states are offering ballot initiatives against it, and most, if not all, are expected to pass.

Supporters of these bans warn that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would damage it beyond repair. Maggie Gallagher, head of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, writes that gay marriage would grossly shortchange the needs of children “in order to further adult interests in sexual freedom.”

Now, it will come as a shock to heterosexual couples that marriage can further sexual freedom. But never mind that. As it happens, sodomy laws have been struck down by the Supreme Court. Gays are already at liberty to have commitment-free trysts with members of Congress, evangelical pastors and anyone else they choose. Unfettered sex is already abundantly available to gays who want it.

What same-sex marriage offers, by contrast, is a safe harbor for those who prefer responsible monogamy to free love. It’s not a rejection of the values of traditional marriage — it’s an affirmation.

Gallagher and others say conventional marriage serves to reconcile “the erotic, social, sexual and financial needs of men and women with the needs of their partner and their children.” Funny — that’s also what gay marriage does. It provides a durable framework in which two people can commit themselves to an exclusive sexual relationship while assuring a stable environment for their children.

Gallagher insists that youngsters are better off in a home with both a mother and a father. But thanks in part to liberal divorce laws — which conservatives are not mobilizing to repeal — many children are already deprived of the model family.

Some kids are already being brought up by same-sex partners. Conservatives think children of straight couples are better off if their parents are married. So how can children of gay couples be better off if their parents are not?

The argument that gay marriage will increase family instability by pushing heterosexuals away from marriage is ingenious but unfounded. In this realm, as Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. said, a page of history is worth a volume of logic. Some European countries have allowed gays to enter into registered partnerships (which closely resemble marriage) for years, and the results are reassuring.

M.V. Lee Badgett, an economist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, looked at the data from Scandinavia and the Netherlands and found, “Divorce rates have not risen since the passage of partnership laws, and marriage rates have remained stable or actually increased.” It’s true that out-of-wedlock births have risen — but they were rising long before this change, and, reports Badgett, they rose just as fast in the countries that don’t sanction same-sex unions.

William Eskridge Jr. and Darren Spedale document the same patterns in their new book, “Gay Marriage: For Better or For Worse?” And they note that “children in Denmark and Sweden (and the Netherlands) are much more likely to be raised by their parents than American children.” If banning gay marriage is supposed to help American kids, it isn’t working.

There are lots of things that could be done in this country to encourage marriage, prevent divorce and improve the well-being of children. Keeping same-sex couples from the altar is not one of them.