This isn't so much of a rant as just a jotting down of impressions. If you want something that's passionate and (kind of) well thought out, look elsewhere.
So on my way to work today, there was a story on the radio about the Tea Party in Michigan; something to do with a Democratic plot to start a fake Tea Party to split the vote on the right (which, if true, is vile). Anyway, one quote that struck me was an actual Tea Party member saying something along the lines of: "We don't want a political party; we just want to elect politicians who believe in the Constitution." Huh. Maybe I'm hopelessly naive, but I guess I thought that most politicians currently in office, on both sides of the aisle, do "believe in the Constitution." Why else would they bother being politicians?
Then I realized that the subtext behind the woman's statement was that there's pretty much only one way to interpret the Constitution, and that the Tea Party wants to elect politicians who believe in the Constitution in the "right" way. Which also got me started thinking about people who take the Bible literally, or at least who believe that there is only one way to interpret it.
I really don't want to make any value judgments about people who believe in a "strict" interpretation of either the Constitution or the Bible. But for me that kind of concrete thinking just doesn't work. I'm glad it works for them. I just can't imagine having that kind of certainty, that there is only one way to look at things and that my way is the right way.
So then I started thinking about concrete/literal thought versus abstract/figurative thought. It seems like some people believe that the former is better, more real. Which is true a lot of the time. In the real world, you have to put real food on the table, or you really will starve.
But I also think that there is something powerful about figurative thought that can feed the human soul. That sometimes literalism needs to be put aside so that the metaphor can speak to us more loudly. I think that millenia of human art speaks to this: sometimes a painting of a lilypad contains more lilypad-truthiness than a picture of one, or even the real thing. Sometimes there is more Truth to be found in the figurative than the literal.
Hence my Facebook status today.
Liz asked about the status as I was writing this, and after I explained (poorly) my train of thought, she wondered aloud whether those people who prefer concrete or literal interpretations might not also have less interest in art (or, as she put it, "less art in their lives"). It's an interesting question...
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
A couple thoughts on abortion
OK, I'm not going to launch into a whole big thing about abortion, because honestly I'm conflicted and I don't have all the facts. But the subject has come up twice today, in two otherwise unrelated instances, and so now my typical abortion thoughts are sloshing around my head. So here are my main two thoughts which occur to me every time the subject comes up, but seem to get very little airplay in the general discourse:
1) Our bodies can't keep up with our culture
Our bodies were designed to function perfectly in a culture and environment that no longer exists. There are a few of ways in which this problem manifests itself, but the one which is germane (I've used that word TWICE today!) to this topic is the fact that our bodies now become sexually mature a full ten years or so before we become socially mature. For the vast majority of human history, young people became sexually mature at roughly the same time that they entered into social maturation: a young woman became capable of childbirth at roughly the same time she was expected to get married, in her mid-teens. In our current culture, however, young women are hitting puberty at younger and younger ages and putting off having kids later and later. There is this widening gap between sexual maturation and the age at which it is wise to have children. Even "young" mothers who get married and have their babies in their early twenties have about a five year gap. Which is why I'm surprised that "pro-life" and "abstinence only" seem to go together so often. It seems so impractical. You really expect the vast majority of American women to remain abstinent for five to ten years after their sexual maturity? It has never been a problem before, because women didn't wait so long to have babies before. But in the society we live in now, a woman severely limits her financial, educational and professional choices if she opts to have children in her mid-teens or early twenties. I'm not saying abstinence is BAD, not at all. I have the utmost respect for young adults who make that choice for themselves. But expecting ALL young adults to be willing and able to live up to that standard is preposterous, to be honest. So it seems to me like practical people who understand human biology should support some kind of reproductive rights...
2) Let's stop fighting and try to support women and babies instead
As I said earlier, I am conflicted about abortion. I don't know that I could ever have one myself, even in the case of rape. I am happy, however, that I get to make that choice for myself. I also realize that I have been lucky enough to be well-educated and well-loved by supportive family and friends, and that this is not true for every woman or girl. Probably because I am conflicted, it really irks me that the debate is so polarized. I honestly wish we lived in a world where no one had to make that awful choice; so why can't we work together to make that world? I would be much happier to see abortion made illegal if we lived in a country where high-quality birth control was readily available to everyone, preferably for free; where high-quality childcare and early childhood education were affordable; where adoption was easier; where quality choices in prenatal care and childbirth were affordable and accessible; where all single parents who were willing to work could make a living wage for their families. Anyone who really cares about reducing the number of abortions in this country should focus their efforts on health care reform and workers' rights. Maybe I'm naive, but I firmly believe that most women who have a choice, a real choice, would choose to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term.
A few bonus thoughts, since Erik is too busy right now to proofread this:
I find it extremely disingenuous when people 1) claim they are not homophobic and don't hate homosexuals; 2) support abstinence only programs and; 3) do not support gay marriage. I see: they don't HATE gay people, they just don't think they should have sex. Ever. Never, ever.
I hate it when people say "pro-abortion" instead of "pro-choice." Like, no one is pro-abortion. Seriously. OK, maybe some seriously twisted people, but the great majority of people who believe in a woman's right to choose still do not think abortion is some great thing. They're not all, "Yay! Abortion! Woot!" So stop being a jerk.
I also get irritated by the pro-life billboards that proclaim "My heart was beating 18 days from conception!" and then show a picture of a six month old. You know why they show a picture of a six month old? Because six month old babies are cute and 18 day old embryos are not. They don't even look human. They look like this:
1) Our bodies can't keep up with our culture
Our bodies were designed to function perfectly in a culture and environment that no longer exists. There are a few of ways in which this problem manifests itself, but the one which is germane (I've used that word TWICE today!) to this topic is the fact that our bodies now become sexually mature a full ten years or so before we become socially mature. For the vast majority of human history, young people became sexually mature at roughly the same time that they entered into social maturation: a young woman became capable of childbirth at roughly the same time she was expected to get married, in her mid-teens. In our current culture, however, young women are hitting puberty at younger and younger ages and putting off having kids later and later. There is this widening gap between sexual maturation and the age at which it is wise to have children. Even "young" mothers who get married and have their babies in their early twenties have about a five year gap. Which is why I'm surprised that "pro-life" and "abstinence only" seem to go together so often. It seems so impractical. You really expect the vast majority of American women to remain abstinent for five to ten years after their sexual maturity? It has never been a problem before, because women didn't wait so long to have babies before. But in the society we live in now, a woman severely limits her financial, educational and professional choices if she opts to have children in her mid-teens or early twenties. I'm not saying abstinence is BAD, not at all. I have the utmost respect for young adults who make that choice for themselves. But expecting ALL young adults to be willing and able to live up to that standard is preposterous, to be honest. So it seems to me like practical people who understand human biology should support some kind of reproductive rights...
2) Let's stop fighting and try to support women and babies instead
As I said earlier, I am conflicted about abortion. I don't know that I could ever have one myself, even in the case of rape. I am happy, however, that I get to make that choice for myself. I also realize that I have been lucky enough to be well-educated and well-loved by supportive family and friends, and that this is not true for every woman or girl. Probably because I am conflicted, it really irks me that the debate is so polarized. I honestly wish we lived in a world where no one had to make that awful choice; so why can't we work together to make that world? I would be much happier to see abortion made illegal if we lived in a country where high-quality birth control was readily available to everyone, preferably for free; where high-quality childcare and early childhood education were affordable; where adoption was easier; where quality choices in prenatal care and childbirth were affordable and accessible; where all single parents who were willing to work could make a living wage for their families. Anyone who really cares about reducing the number of abortions in this country should focus their efforts on health care reform and workers' rights. Maybe I'm naive, but I firmly believe that most women who have a choice, a real choice, would choose to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term.
A few bonus thoughts, since Erik is too busy right now to proofread this:
I find it extremely disingenuous when people 1) claim they are not homophobic and don't hate homosexuals; 2) support abstinence only programs and; 3) do not support gay marriage. I see: they don't HATE gay people, they just don't think they should have sex. Ever. Never, ever.
I hate it when people say "pro-abortion" instead of "pro-choice." Like, no one is pro-abortion. Seriously. OK, maybe some seriously twisted people, but the great majority of people who believe in a woman's right to choose still do not think abortion is some great thing. They're not all, "Yay! Abortion! Woot!" So stop being a jerk.
I also get irritated by the pro-life billboards that proclaim "My heart was beating 18 days from conception!" and then show a picture of a six month old. You know why they show a picture of a six month old? Because six month old babies are cute and 18 day old embryos are not. They don't even look human. They look like this:
Friday, May 21, 2010
Gay Marriage
I've decided I'm going to start all my posts like Jerry Seinfeld:
WHAT is UP with Gay Marriage?
OK, maybe not. But, honestly, what is up? I don't see how the anti-gay-marriage folks have a leg to stand on. Let's break down their arguments, shall we? We'll start off easy:
God says homosexuality is a sin
First off, even that premise is up for debate. I will most likely get into a more detailed analysis in a later post, but for starters the Bible doesn't even mention lesbians. But even assuming that God cares what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms, since when have we passed laws based on Scripture? We don't. There are no laws against divorce or working on Sunday. There's no law enforcing the beatitudes. There ARE specific laws ensuring the rights of non-Christians, including atheists. God's Law is not federal.
Allowing gay marriage would be an unprecedented redefinition of an ancient tradition
Do you know which definition of marriage has the longest tradition? The one where two families haggle over a political and financial contract, and the wife, often a teen-aged girl or younger, is chattel. The most revolutionary redefinition of marriage was when it became something that two adults chose for themselves out of love (or something like it). "Traditional marriage" as we know it in the United States today is only about 100 years old. Not much of a tradition, and certainly not an iron-clad one. In reality, the "definition" of marriage has been pretty fluid throughout history and across societies. The only thing that has remained constant is that it is the convention by which we as a society recognize the creation of a new family. Gay marriage will certainly not change that.
Gay marriage threatens straight marriage
Huh? This doesn't even make any sense. For me, the strength of my marriage is based on the strength of the bond between me and my husband. It has nothing to do with other people or what their marriages look like. The strength of individual marriages shouldn't depend on what anybody else is doing. If your straight marriage is so fragile that the nice gay couple down the street gettin' hitched is somehow a threat, you might want to consider looking for a divorce lawyer regardless.
Marriage is about children, and homosexuals can't have kids
Wrong on both counts. Marriage is not fundamentally about children and it never has been. As mentioned above, it has historically been a business transaction. But even now we don't bar infertile couples or post-menopausal women from marrying, nor do we require all fertile married couples to procreate. And plenty of gay couples have kids. They have them in the same ways straight couples often do: adoption, artificial insemination, surrogacy and/or having them from a previous marriage. If you care at all about families, you should know that the children of gay parents deserve the stability of the institution of marriage.
But what about the children?
I was going to do a section on the "children need both a mother and a father" misconception, but when I looked online to find sources I was pleased to find that most new studies claim that lesbians actually make better moms! Go ahead, Google it. But I'd like to break down the old argument anyway. The studies that "prove" that kids "do best" with a mom and a dad are based on data comparing straight, two-parent homes with single-mother homes. Hmmmm, let me see if I can find the fallacy in that logic... Don'cha think that the number of parents might be more important than the gender, maybe? One of these so-called scientists, Dr. A. Dean Byrd, also came out with a study which "detailed the significant physical and emotional health risks of those who identify as homosexuals, including a reduced lifespan, suicidality, drug and alcohol abuse, depression, and domestic violence." Once again he completely disregards context and confuses correlation for causation. You know who also had an increased risk for reduced lifespan, suicidality, drug and alcohol abuse, depression, and domestic violence? Black people in the Jim Crow south. These "studies" are a joke.
Gay people already can get all the rights married people have
This may be partially to mostly true in some states, but so what? Separate but equal is not equal. I never quite understood what a big deal this was until one of my friends started detailing for me all the money she had to spend and red tape she had to go through in order to change her last name, get power of attorney for her partner, list her partner as their son's parent, etc. All the things that were free and easy for me as a married person were expensive, difficult and time-consuming for her and her partner. It's absolutely unfair and completely pointless.
It's a slippery, slippery slope
This one has always bugged me, but only recently did I fully understand why. I can't remember the source (thank goodness this is just a rant and not a scholarly paper!), but I read somewhere an analysis of why this argument is deeply misogynistic. The argument usually goes, "Well, if a man can marry another man, what's going to stop him from marrying his dog!" Hardee-har-har. But notice, it's never a woman marrying her dog. That's because the underlying supposition is that marriage is something a man does, and that the consent of the partner is irrelevant. How insulting. Once you realize that marriage is an agreement between consenting individuals, the slippery-slope, beastiality, pedophelia arguments become silly. I suppose that technically polygamy and incest are still on the table, but since historically both of those things have also involved lack of consent from one (or more) parties, they still cannot be logically compared to gay marriage.
Marriage is a sacrament and churches shouldn't be forced to allow gay marriage
This one actually makes some sense to me. Freedom to practice one's own religion is a right I hold dear. It is regrettable that our society has so entangled the civil institution of marriage with the religious sacrament. If it were possible to revoke ALL civil marriages and replace them with civil unions, leaving marriage to the religions, I would support that in a heartbeat. But that's not going to happen; they are too tightly linked and "marriage" shows up in our laws too much. But as I stated before, separate but equal is not equal, so I feel we have no choice but to legalize gay marriage with the caveat that various religions are protected and can continue to make their own rules about who they will or will not marry. Seeing as the Catholic Church still doesn't allow women to be priests, I am hopeful that the religious protection will stand.
Seriously, what about the children?!
The silliest, and newest, argument against gay marriage has something to do with what kids are taught in schools. Seriously? You guys are really grasping at straws, now. How do you make the connection between legal gay marriage and being forced to give kindergartners graphic details about homosexual sex? There is no connection. In my high school sex ed class, which was pretty comprehensive I'm happy to say, there was no "how to" component. Yes, we were taught about various sex acts, but only so we could learn the relative risks of each; it was never graphic or detailed. And unless you gays and lesbians are holding out on something really spectacular, we covered everything in my "straight" sex ed class, anyway. As for kids being taught in school that being gay is OK as part of some larger discussion about what marriage is, we never had a "marriage" unit in any class I ever took. I honestly can't recall ever discussing the definition of marriage in school. Teachers don't teach kids about what marriage is, so that's a moot point.
OK. I'm done. Any arguments I didn't think of?
Listen: we live in a country where individual freedoms are held sacred. That means that there are a lot of things other people are free to do that I might not like very much. But I will fight for your right to participate in a KKK march or wear a thong in public because, no matter how disgusting I personally find it, you have the right to do those things. You should have the right to do those things. Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone. Legalizing gay marriage would help so many families already living in the United States right now. Everyone should have the right to marry the person they love.
WHAT is UP with Gay Marriage?
OK, maybe not. But, honestly, what is up? I don't see how the anti-gay-marriage folks have a leg to stand on. Let's break down their arguments, shall we? We'll start off easy:
God says homosexuality is a sin
First off, even that premise is up for debate. I will most likely get into a more detailed analysis in a later post, but for starters the Bible doesn't even mention lesbians. But even assuming that God cares what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms, since when have we passed laws based on Scripture? We don't. There are no laws against divorce or working on Sunday. There's no law enforcing the beatitudes. There ARE specific laws ensuring the rights of non-Christians, including atheists. God's Law is not federal.
Allowing gay marriage would be an unprecedented redefinition of an ancient tradition
Do you know which definition of marriage has the longest tradition? The one where two families haggle over a political and financial contract, and the wife, often a teen-aged girl or younger, is chattel. The most revolutionary redefinition of marriage was when it became something that two adults chose for themselves out of love (or something like it). "Traditional marriage" as we know it in the United States today is only about 100 years old. Not much of a tradition, and certainly not an iron-clad one. In reality, the "definition" of marriage has been pretty fluid throughout history and across societies. The only thing that has remained constant is that it is the convention by which we as a society recognize the creation of a new family. Gay marriage will certainly not change that.
Gay marriage threatens straight marriage
Huh? This doesn't even make any sense. For me, the strength of my marriage is based on the strength of the bond between me and my husband. It has nothing to do with other people or what their marriages look like. The strength of individual marriages shouldn't depend on what anybody else is doing. If your straight marriage is so fragile that the nice gay couple down the street gettin' hitched is somehow a threat, you might want to consider looking for a divorce lawyer regardless.
Marriage is about children, and homosexuals can't have kids
Wrong on both counts. Marriage is not fundamentally about children and it never has been. As mentioned above, it has historically been a business transaction. But even now we don't bar infertile couples or post-menopausal women from marrying, nor do we require all fertile married couples to procreate. And plenty of gay couples have kids. They have them in the same ways straight couples often do: adoption, artificial insemination, surrogacy and/or having them from a previous marriage. If you care at all about families, you should know that the children of gay parents deserve the stability of the institution of marriage.
But what about the children?
I was going to do a section on the "children need both a mother and a father" misconception, but when I looked online to find sources I was pleased to find that most new studies claim that lesbians actually make better moms! Go ahead, Google it. But I'd like to break down the old argument anyway. The studies that "prove" that kids "do best" with a mom and a dad are based on data comparing straight, two-parent homes with single-mother homes. Hmmmm, let me see if I can find the fallacy in that logic... Don'cha think that the number of parents might be more important than the gender, maybe? One of these so-called scientists, Dr. A. Dean Byrd, also came out with a study which "detailed the significant physical and emotional health risks of those who identify as homosexuals, including a reduced lifespan, suicidality, drug and alcohol abuse, depression, and domestic violence." Once again he completely disregards context and confuses correlation for causation. You know who also had an increased risk for reduced lifespan, suicidality, drug and alcohol abuse, depression, and domestic violence? Black people in the Jim Crow south. These "studies" are a joke.
Gay people already can get all the rights married people have
This may be partially to mostly true in some states, but so what? Separate but equal is not equal. I never quite understood what a big deal this was until one of my friends started detailing for me all the money she had to spend and red tape she had to go through in order to change her last name, get power of attorney for her partner, list her partner as their son's parent, etc. All the things that were free and easy for me as a married person were expensive, difficult and time-consuming for her and her partner. It's absolutely unfair and completely pointless.
It's a slippery, slippery slope
This one has always bugged me, but only recently did I fully understand why. I can't remember the source (thank goodness this is just a rant and not a scholarly paper!), but I read somewhere an analysis of why this argument is deeply misogynistic. The argument usually goes, "Well, if a man can marry another man, what's going to stop him from marrying his dog!" Hardee-har-har. But notice, it's never a woman marrying her dog. That's because the underlying supposition is that marriage is something a man does, and that the consent of the partner is irrelevant. How insulting. Once you realize that marriage is an agreement between consenting individuals, the slippery-slope, beastiality, pedophelia arguments become silly. I suppose that technically polygamy and incest are still on the table, but since historically both of those things have also involved lack of consent from one (or more) parties, they still cannot be logically compared to gay marriage.
Marriage is a sacrament and churches shouldn't be forced to allow gay marriage
This one actually makes some sense to me. Freedom to practice one's own religion is a right I hold dear. It is regrettable that our society has so entangled the civil institution of marriage with the religious sacrament. If it were possible to revoke ALL civil marriages and replace them with civil unions, leaving marriage to the religions, I would support that in a heartbeat. But that's not going to happen; they are too tightly linked and "marriage" shows up in our laws too much. But as I stated before, separate but equal is not equal, so I feel we have no choice but to legalize gay marriage with the caveat that various religions are protected and can continue to make their own rules about who they will or will not marry. Seeing as the Catholic Church still doesn't allow women to be priests, I am hopeful that the religious protection will stand.
Seriously, what about the children?!
The silliest, and newest, argument against gay marriage has something to do with what kids are taught in schools. Seriously? You guys are really grasping at straws, now. How do you make the connection between legal gay marriage and being forced to give kindergartners graphic details about homosexual sex? There is no connection. In my high school sex ed class, which was pretty comprehensive I'm happy to say, there was no "how to" component. Yes, we were taught about various sex acts, but only so we could learn the relative risks of each; it was never graphic or detailed. And unless you gays and lesbians are holding out on something really spectacular, we covered everything in my "straight" sex ed class, anyway. As for kids being taught in school that being gay is OK as part of some larger discussion about what marriage is, we never had a "marriage" unit in any class I ever took. I honestly can't recall ever discussing the definition of marriage in school. Teachers don't teach kids about what marriage is, so that's a moot point.
OK. I'm done. Any arguments I didn't think of?
Listen: we live in a country where individual freedoms are held sacred. That means that there are a lot of things other people are free to do that I might not like very much. But I will fight for your right to participate in a KKK march or wear a thong in public because, no matter how disgusting I personally find it, you have the right to do those things. You should have the right to do those things. Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone. Legalizing gay marriage would help so many families already living in the United States right now. Everyone should have the right to marry the person they love.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Our America
So there's been a lot of talk lately about how some people "want my country back" and how Obama is destroying the "real" America and so on. To which I ask, "What America is that?" When did the US reach its pinnacle of American-ness that you yearn to return to? When were these good old days? It seems like these people have a view of America as a land of opportunity; a place where anyone with gumption can work hard and raise themselves up by their bootstraps, so long as the pesky government doesn't get in their way. But when was that American Dream ever truly a reality for all Americans? Since women and minorities didn't have even remotely equal rights in this country until the last 40 or so years, the good old days have to be fairly recent (and, by the way, gays and lesbians still don't have equal rights). So when in the last four decades were the good old days? I'm guessing that the Tea Partiers and their ilk would point to the 1980s. Ah, yes, Reagan years were the ultimate era of governmental restraint and personal freedoms! Those halcyon days! News flash, folks: taxes were HIGHER under Reagan. That's right! Obama, the tax-and-spend-socialist-America-destroying-anti-Christ would have to RAISE TAXES in order to equal those under Saint Ronnie.
But the American Dream is a beautiful dream. I believe in the American Dream, and I believe that it starts with opportunity. No amount of gumption or work ethic in the world is going to do you any good if you don't have an opportunity to apply them. Opportunity comes from high-quality public education available to everyone. Opportunity comes from freedom from being exploited. Opportunity comes from a reliable and safe infrastructure of roads, utilities and telecommunications. I'm happy to pay my fair share to ensure these opportunities for every American, even the ones who don't look or live like me.
For all their rhetoric of being in touch with the "real America" and the "heartland", the Tea Partiers seem to have a pretty low opinion of actual Americans. They seem to think that a strong infrastructure and a robust social safety net will lure Americans into complacency and dependence on the government. They seem to think that Americans are inherently lazy. I couldn't disagree more. I believe in American innovation, and I believe that it is strengthened, not hampered, by the sense of security which comes from knowing that if you fail, you will have the opportunity to try again. From knowing that even in the face of an medical emergency or the whims of Wall Street or a natural disaster you will have a chance to rise up again. I hope I never have to use this country's social safety net, but I am awfully glad it's there and I am glad to pay for it.
Ultimately, I believe in the greatness of our country and the ideals upon which it was founded. I believe that together we can put those ideals more strongly into practice. The government, elected and held accountable by the people, is our biggest, best and strongest tool to that end. Together we can create an America where every American is free to dream and strive and work and grow and create and reach for the American Dream in whatever way appeals to them, secure in the knowledge that should failure or misfortune befall them, their basic needs would be provided for. Imagine the world we could create then!
But the American Dream is a beautiful dream. I believe in the American Dream, and I believe that it starts with opportunity. No amount of gumption or work ethic in the world is going to do you any good if you don't have an opportunity to apply them. Opportunity comes from high-quality public education available to everyone. Opportunity comes from freedom from being exploited. Opportunity comes from a reliable and safe infrastructure of roads, utilities and telecommunications. I'm happy to pay my fair share to ensure these opportunities for every American, even the ones who don't look or live like me.
For all their rhetoric of being in touch with the "real America" and the "heartland", the Tea Partiers seem to have a pretty low opinion of actual Americans. They seem to think that a strong infrastructure and a robust social safety net will lure Americans into complacency and dependence on the government. They seem to think that Americans are inherently lazy. I couldn't disagree more. I believe in American innovation, and I believe that it is strengthened, not hampered, by the sense of security which comes from knowing that if you fail, you will have the opportunity to try again. From knowing that even in the face of an medical emergency or the whims of Wall Street or a natural disaster you will have a chance to rise up again. I hope I never have to use this country's social safety net, but I am awfully glad it's there and I am glad to pay for it.
Ultimately, I believe in the greatness of our country and the ideals upon which it was founded. I believe that together we can put those ideals more strongly into practice. The government, elected and held accountable by the people, is our biggest, best and strongest tool to that end. Together we can create an America where every American is free to dream and strive and work and grow and create and reach for the American Dream in whatever way appeals to them, secure in the knowledge that should failure or misfortune befall them, their basic needs would be provided for. Imagine the world we could create then!
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Wicca 101
NOTE: I wrote this to explain my religious beliefs as succinctly as possible to my friend Adam. I ran it past the ladies of Luna's Wheel for their thoughts, and they were encouraging. So I'm posting it here, mainly just so I can keep track of it because people often ask me, "What's the deal with Wicca?" Well, here it is! (Thanks to Adam and the witches of Luna's Wheel)
Here's the deal with Wicca, according to me (again, this is just my opinion and should not be taken as concrete fact, ESPECIALLY the bits at the end about my own personal beliefs):
My history: My family is Catholic, though my parents are Unitarian now and my sister is some kind of Christian. Anyway, I grew up feeling mostly Catholic. As a freshman in high school, I met a group of kids claiming to be witches and I was intrigued for all of the normal teen-aged reasons. We focused on magic and spellwork, within a Wiccan framework. In college, I was part of a larger group that explored the more philosophical parts of Wicca, rather than the sensational. And the Circle I'm part of now is very much about experiencing Wicca as a religion, both during holidays and on a daily basis.
Paganism: is a REALLY broad term, usually referring to nature-based, often polytheistic, religions, spiritualities and philosophies. Specifically, Neo-Pagan is a term used to describe a number of religions that have gained popularity over the past forty or so years, many of which have their roots in older religions. For example, much of Wicca (particularly the calendar of holidays) derives from ancient Celtic practices. Other Pagan groups have based their new practices on Druidism, Native American spirituality (Shamanism), and even Norse and Greco-Roman mythology. Many Pagans practice a hodge-podge of a bunch of those older practices. A number of people have used this ancient influence as an argument that Wicca itself is an ancient religion, but I don't believe that. The roots of Wicca as we practice it today began in the early 20th century, our terms and tools notwithstanding.
Wicca: is a kind of Neo-Paganism. Since there is no strict dogma, and no holy Book, practices vary widely, but there are common elements:
The Wiccan Rede: the closest thing we have to dogma is only eight words: "An it harm done, do as ye will." I take this to mean harm no one, including yourself. It's kind of a short-hand for all the Commandments, and the Beatitudes to boot. Wiccans often believe in the Three-Fold Law, too, which states that whatever you send into the world (negative or positive) will come back to you three-fold.
Deity: Most Wiccans believe in the Goddess, who may have many names and forms. Many also believe in a similar God, although there is a form of Wicca called Dianic Wicca that is only for women, and they don't acknowledge the God. The God and Goddess are often called by ancient names (Zeus, Thoth, Odin, etc. or Athena, Inanna, Isis, Freya, etc.), depending on which aspect of the deity you need to work with.
The Elements: Most Wiccans revere and work with the Four Elements: Air, Fire, Water and Earth, and many add a fifth: Spirit, which is a kind of combination of the other four. The Elements are often paired with the Directions (East, South, West and North, respectively, with Spirit at Center), and each element/direction combination has a set of characteristics associated with it. For instance, Fire/South is creative, energetic, sensual, passionate, etc. and is associated with the color red. This focus on the elements is part of why Wicca is considered a Nature religion, and why most Wiccans revere nature.
Tools: typical Wiccan tools include: ritual knive (called an athame), staff and/or wand, cauldron, pentacle, chalice, candles, incense, etc.
Wheel of the Year: the year is typically split into eight cross-quarters according to solar movement, with holidays celebrated at each:
Magic: lots of Wiccans believe in magic. (Some spell it "Magick" to differentiate it from storybook, fictional magic, but I find that spelling irritating). I don't think there's a good consensus about what the definition of magic is, though. So I'll give you mine: I believe in divine energy, and I believe that magic is the conscious manipulation of that divine energy for a specific purpose. As opposed to prayer (which we also do), which is asking deity to manipulate the divine energy ON YOUR BEHALF. For me, you can do magic without doing a spell. For instance, I believe that my Circle does magic every time we get together and create a sacred space. Spells, on the other hand, are a way to perform a VERY SPECIFIC magical task using props and/or incantations in a ritualized way. (I, myself, don't do a lot of spellwork these days.)
Ritual: there is a basic outline to many Wiccan rituals:
I think that about covers the basics.
As for me, I basically believe in a Divine energy. I can feel it all around me all the time, if I concentrate. I have witnessed its power. I can't really describe it, although I don't really believe that it is as sentient and meddlesome as some Christians seem to think. I don't think human beings are very good at understanding, describing or interacting with that Divine energy. I think that ALL religion is our pitiful, human attempt to try to wrap our tiny brains around what this energy is, how to get a handle on it and how to incorporate it into our lives. So when Christians talk about God or Muslims talk about Allah, I believe they are talking about and trying to describe the SAME Divinity that I call Kuan Yin, or Green Man, or simply Mother, depending on my mood. When they pray, I think they are tapping into the same energy that I am when I pray or do magic. (This is all just my opinion; there are witches in my Circle who don't believe this.) I believe that any religion is a set of man-made tools to help us get in touch with the Divine. Wicca is the best tool set I have found for me. I understand the Elements, I like the diversity of Deity that I have to choose from, and the Wheel of the Year makes sense to me. Wicca has helped me find my strengths and recognize my weaknesses, and I have found solace, beauty and understanding there. The only other religion I know much about (Christianity) does not work as well for me for many reasons. But I have the utmost respect for those who have found other religions (or even other areas of humanity, like science or academics) to be a better fit for them. At the end of the day, I think whatever works to help you be a better person is the "right" religion.
Here's the deal with Wicca, according to me (again, this is just my opinion and should not be taken as concrete fact, ESPECIALLY the bits at the end about my own personal beliefs):
My history: My family is Catholic, though my parents are Unitarian now and my sister is some kind of Christian. Anyway, I grew up feeling mostly Catholic. As a freshman in high school, I met a group of kids claiming to be witches and I was intrigued for all of the normal teen-aged reasons. We focused on magic and spellwork, within a Wiccan framework. In college, I was part of a larger group that explored the more philosophical parts of Wicca, rather than the sensational. And the Circle I'm part of now is very much about experiencing Wicca as a religion, both during holidays and on a daily basis.
Paganism: is a REALLY broad term, usually referring to nature-based, often polytheistic, religions, spiritualities and philosophies. Specifically, Neo-Pagan is a term used to describe a number of religions that have gained popularity over the past forty or so years, many of which have their roots in older religions. For example, much of Wicca (particularly the calendar of holidays) derives from ancient Celtic practices. Other Pagan groups have based their new practices on Druidism, Native American spirituality (Shamanism), and even Norse and Greco-Roman mythology. Many Pagans practice a hodge-podge of a bunch of those older practices. A number of people have used this ancient influence as an argument that Wicca itself is an ancient religion, but I don't believe that. The roots of Wicca as we practice it today began in the early 20th century, our terms and tools notwithstanding.
Wicca: is a kind of Neo-Paganism. Since there is no strict dogma, and no holy Book, practices vary widely, but there are common elements:
The Wiccan Rede: the closest thing we have to dogma is only eight words: "An it harm done, do as ye will." I take this to mean harm no one, including yourself. It's kind of a short-hand for all the Commandments, and the Beatitudes to boot. Wiccans often believe in the Three-Fold Law, too, which states that whatever you send into the world (negative or positive) will come back to you three-fold.
Deity: Most Wiccans believe in the Goddess, who may have many names and forms. Many also believe in a similar God, although there is a form of Wicca called Dianic Wicca that is only for women, and they don't acknowledge the God. The God and Goddess are often called by ancient names (Zeus, Thoth, Odin, etc. or Athena, Inanna, Isis, Freya, etc.), depending on which aspect of the deity you need to work with.
The Elements: Most Wiccans revere and work with the Four Elements: Air, Fire, Water and Earth, and many add a fifth: Spirit, which is a kind of combination of the other four. The Elements are often paired with the Directions (East, South, West and North, respectively, with Spirit at Center), and each element/direction combination has a set of characteristics associated with it. For instance, Fire/South is creative, energetic, sensual, passionate, etc. and is associated with the color red. This focus on the elements is part of why Wicca is considered a Nature religion, and why most Wiccans revere nature.
Tools: typical Wiccan tools include: ritual knive (called an athame), staff and/or wand, cauldron, pentacle, chalice, candles, incense, etc.
Wheel of the Year: the year is typically split into eight cross-quarters according to solar movement, with holidays celebrated at each:
- Samhain (10/31)
- Yule/Winter Solstice (12/21-ish)
- Imbolc (2/1)
- Ostara/Vernal Equinox (3/21-ish)
- Beltaine (5/1)
- Midsummer/Summer Solstice (6/21-ish)
- Lughnasa (8/1)
- Mabon/Autumnal Equinox (9/21-ish).
Magic: lots of Wiccans believe in magic. (Some spell it "Magick" to differentiate it from storybook, fictional magic, but I find that spelling irritating). I don't think there's a good consensus about what the definition of magic is, though. So I'll give you mine: I believe in divine energy, and I believe that magic is the conscious manipulation of that divine energy for a specific purpose. As opposed to prayer (which we also do), which is asking deity to manipulate the divine energy ON YOUR BEHALF. For me, you can do magic without doing a spell. For instance, I believe that my Circle does magic every time we get together and create a sacred space. Spells, on the other hand, are a way to perform a VERY SPECIFIC magical task using props and/or incantations in a ritualized way. (I, myself, don't do a lot of spellwork these days.)
Ritual: there is a basic outline to many Wiccan rituals:
- grounding and centering (preparing oneself energetically for the ritual)
- casting a circle by calling in each of the directions and/or the God/dess (this creates a sacred space in which to work)
- doing whatever work the ritual is meant to accomplish (magic, prayer, worship or some combination)
- simple feast (kind of like Communion, except we all give each other food and drink), and
- releasing the circle
I think that about covers the basics.
As for me, I basically believe in a Divine energy. I can feel it all around me all the time, if I concentrate. I have witnessed its power. I can't really describe it, although I don't really believe that it is as sentient and meddlesome as some Christians seem to think. I don't think human beings are very good at understanding, describing or interacting with that Divine energy. I think that ALL religion is our pitiful, human attempt to try to wrap our tiny brains around what this energy is, how to get a handle on it and how to incorporate it into our lives. So when Christians talk about God or Muslims talk about Allah, I believe they are talking about and trying to describe the SAME Divinity that I call Kuan Yin, or Green Man, or simply Mother, depending on my mood. When they pray, I think they are tapping into the same energy that I am when I pray or do magic. (This is all just my opinion; there are witches in my Circle who don't believe this.) I believe that any religion is a set of man-made tools to help us get in touch with the Divine. Wicca is the best tool set I have found for me. I understand the Elements, I like the diversity of Deity that I have to choose from, and the Wheel of the Year makes sense to me. Wicca has helped me find my strengths and recognize my weaknesses, and I have found solace, beauty and understanding there. The only other religion I know much about (Christianity) does not work as well for me for many reasons. But I have the utmost respect for those who have found other religions (or even other areas of humanity, like science or academics) to be a better fit for them. At the end of the day, I think whatever works to help you be a better person is the "right" religion.
Apologies to Jesus
Sorry. I realized that that last thought in the last post was kind of snarky. I certainly don't think Jesus IS a dick. I was just surprised in the Book of Matthew about some of the things He says and does. He gets pissed off at a fig tree just because He's hungry and it doesn't have any figs, for goodness' sake! But He has this reputation for being all smiles and sunshine and groups of multi-ethnic children singing Kumbaya. In fact, one of the reasons I'm reading the New Testament is because at St. Mary's the Easter sermon was on how Jesus was all about "hey, all of this Mosaic law is unnecessary because there should be NO BARRIERS between you and God!" That message really resonated because that is exactly what we're trying to do in Luna's Wheel, a point that hit home for me even harder because of recent events in Dani's life.
So I decided to read the New Testament, and specifically the four Gospels, because I wanted to hear exactly what Jesus has to say on this subject. So far, I'm disappointed. He doesn't seem to so much sweep away Mosaic law as extend it. He says, "you all know that adultry is wrong, but I'm telling you that just thinking lustful thoughts about someone is just as bad and you mght as well gouge your eye out!" I'm sorry, Jesus, but that's just not helpful. He also talks about leaving your family and job and friends and trusting in the Lord to provide for you, lilies of the field style. But that seems really irresponsible to me. And He says you should obey the Commandments and honor thy father and mother, but then He denies His own family when they say they need Him, saying that His disciples are His new family. Then there's His total lack of patience with the disciples, who are the most useless bunch of losers, I know, but you'd think He could be a little nicer to them. He is Jesus, after all. Anyway, it's just weird, and muddy and confusing and unhelpful and not at all the Jesus I thought I knew. If any Christians can clarify this for me, that'd be cool. Or maybe we get to see the softer side of Him in other Books, I dunno. Anyway, I'll keep reading in the hopes that I'll get some answers. Also, sorry about what said in the last post, Jesus.
Coming up: some things I DO believe!
So I decided to read the New Testament, and specifically the four Gospels, because I wanted to hear exactly what Jesus has to say on this subject. So far, I'm disappointed. He doesn't seem to so much sweep away Mosaic law as extend it. He says, "you all know that adultry is wrong, but I'm telling you that just thinking lustful thoughts about someone is just as bad and you mght as well gouge your eye out!" I'm sorry, Jesus, but that's just not helpful. He also talks about leaving your family and job and friends and trusting in the Lord to provide for you, lilies of the field style. But that seems really irresponsible to me. And He says you should obey the Commandments and honor thy father and mother, but then He denies His own family when they say they need Him, saying that His disciples are His new family. Then there's His total lack of patience with the disciples, who are the most useless bunch of losers, I know, but you'd think He could be a little nicer to them. He is Jesus, after all. Anyway, it's just weird, and muddy and confusing and unhelpful and not at all the Jesus I thought I knew. If any Christians can clarify this for me, that'd be cool. Or maybe we get to see the softer side of Him in other Books, I dunno. Anyway, I'll keep reading in the hopes that I'll get some answers. Also, sorry about what said in the last post, Jesus.
Coming up: some things I DO believe!
Saturday, April 24, 2010
First post
So I was thinking tonight about how I often become obsessed with a given topic and then for minutes, or hours or days I have a running monologue in my head about said topic. Basically, my opinions and arguments about said topic. It's often political, and poor Erik often has to hear most of it, usually right before bed when all he wants to do is cuddle a bit and then get some sleep. But then I keep him up until all hours of the night, just spewing out my bottled up diatribe all over the place. But then I thought, "Hey! That's what the internet is for!" So here I am, and hopefully Erik's going to start getting more sleep.
Of course, I come home and start this blog and then I'm confronted with a blank page and I totally freeze. I need to remind myself that NO ONE is going to read this, and that it's just a forum for spilling the crazy. (That phrase was coined by either Drea or Ursula, and I am eternally grateful, and either of them can have it back if they decide they want to start a blog.)
Also, when I thought about starting to do this, I was full of hate and I had a whole spiel ready to go all about Gay marriage, I think. But then I saw a couple of movies and ate some ice cream, so now the crazy has pretty much leaked out. Don't worry, I'm sure y'all will get to hear my Gay marriage speech at some point. For now, movie reviews!
Date Night: I liked it. I'm a pretty big Tiny Fey fan and a Steve Carell fan so that's not entirely unexpected. I was a little worried about whether they would have chemistry or if it would just be this awkward Liz-Lemon-is-married-to-Michael-Scott thing, but they are good together. It did seem kind of like three different movies were stitched together like Frankenstein's monster: a romantic comedy, an action flick (seriously, one of the most interesting car chases I've seen in a while) and a raunchy-Apatow-esque comedy. But they were all three GOOD movies, so I'm ok with that.
How to Train Your Dragon: it was awesome. Go see it, preferably in 3D on a ginormous screen.
OK, that's probably enough crazy-spilling for now. I will leave you with one parting thought: I've been reading the Book of Matthew, and honestly Jesus comes off as kind of a dick. I was a little surprised! I'll have to see what the other Gospels hold...
Night!
Of course, I come home and start this blog and then I'm confronted with a blank page and I totally freeze. I need to remind myself that NO ONE is going to read this, and that it's just a forum for spilling the crazy. (That phrase was coined by either Drea or Ursula, and I am eternally grateful, and either of them can have it back if they decide they want to start a blog.)
Also, when I thought about starting to do this, I was full of hate and I had a whole spiel ready to go all about Gay marriage, I think. But then I saw a couple of movies and ate some ice cream, so now the crazy has pretty much leaked out. Don't worry, I'm sure y'all will get to hear my Gay marriage speech at some point. For now, movie reviews!
Date Night: I liked it. I'm a pretty big Tiny Fey fan and a Steve Carell fan so that's not entirely unexpected. I was a little worried about whether they would have chemistry or if it would just be this awkward Liz-Lemon-is-married-to-Michael-Scott thing, but they are good together. It did seem kind of like three different movies were stitched together like Frankenstein's monster: a romantic comedy, an action flick (seriously, one of the most interesting car chases I've seen in a while) and a raunchy-Apatow-esque comedy. But they were all three GOOD movies, so I'm ok with that.
How to Train Your Dragon: it was awesome. Go see it, preferably in 3D on a ginormous screen.
OK, that's probably enough crazy-spilling for now. I will leave you with one parting thought: I've been reading the Book of Matthew, and honestly Jesus comes off as kind of a dick. I was a little surprised! I'll have to see what the other Gospels hold...
Night!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)