Oh, but you wouldn’t think that, would you, if you watched American television? Every time I flip one on, there’s an advertisement pushing some product that is designed just for me. It always recalls a line from Seinfeld: George asks, rather sarcastically, if it’s so wrong, so selfish to just want some things for yourself. Jerry responds with, “I think that’s the definition of selfishness”.
Our country is obsessed with personalized products—phone plans specifically for your needs, customized homes, “get what you want, when you want it” stuff. We are, if we believe what corporate America suggests, the neediest, whiniest, most impatient bunch of brats on the planet. I’m so tired of being told that I’m incapable of delaying my impulses—or waiting for a download, for that matter. I’m tired of hearing that I should be willing to pay extra just to be “different”. Wanna be different? Stop buying all that mass-produced stuff you don’t need. Dress in a way that you really to, and you won’t feel like you must have a customized-dyed handbag to stand out. Live your life in a way that serves others, instead of you and your interests, and feel a satisfaction far deeper than any “lightning fast” internet speed can offer. And please know something else—whenever you get that great, “meaningful” individualized-yet-mass-produced item at a “deal”, it comes at a steep price for someone else. Those cheap products are only cheap to you; the people who make and/or sell them must give up a living wage many times, or forgo benefits such as healthcare and paid sick time. Living in a way that maximizes your needs at an unbelievably low price is, as Jerry would say, “…the definition of selfishness”.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
God doesn’t want a woman to lead America (he’s fine with women leading other countries, though—they aren’t as important as ours)…
If you’re expecting to read an explanation about why I believe the above, you’ve come to the wrong place. I’m about to launch into a tirade about why this title is so ridiculous…
So I guess I’ve suspected it for a long time—well, at least since Hillary Clinton began her campaign. But it’s one thing to suspect something, and quite another to hear that suspicion confirmed on NPR’s Morning Edition. A story was being aired about the upcoming Texas primary; people were asked whom they were voting for and why. And wouldn’t you know that some evangelical Christians would be a part of those being questioned! One woman said that although she was impressed with Hillary Clinton and how far she had come, she could not vote for a woman to be president. She gave her Christian beliefs as the reason for this decision, and pointed out that the Bible instructs women to submit to men. Her pastor echoed this sentiment, and then explained why he’d be casting his vote for Huckabee. Apparently God has no opinion on people of color, as Obama did not seem to be a contender to them at all.
Well, this is America, and I’m fine with people believing what they want. I’m fine with them setting up their family structure in a way that suits their beliefs. But something seems wrong when people are willing to subject others to their belief systems when they know that not all subscribe to that system. It seems fundamentally un-American—asking those to give up the freedom to live up to their potential simply because some don’t find that freedom to be consistent with their particular interpretation of Scripture. Interestingly, I never got the idea that God demanded submission to men in any context other than family and religious life—private realms that should really be apart from the greater public life. Of course, I don’t think God demanded submission at all—I think submission as we see it is largely misunderstood, abused, and most of all, culturally-bound. For those fans of Paul out there, the Bible even says something about equality in the church as a whole—Paul wrote that “in Christ, there is no difference between Jew and Greek, slave and free person, male and female…” (Galatians 3:28). If anything, Paul’s letter calls for a radical equality far superior to that of the world’s version of equality—hardly a call to submission and the forgoing of opportunities to live up to one’s potential.
What is really sad to me is that women buy into this idea. But really, how ludicrous is it? Would God really choose for one of his children to be inferior to the other? For one child, as Stacy Eldridge likes to note, to be a “helper”, and the other to be helped, but never with reciprocation? Does the God of equality seem to line up with the sexist God of some people’s Bibles? I didn’t choose to have the “wrong” body parts—why should I sacrifice what my mind and gifts are capable of simply because of that physical difference? It seems so shortsighted, really, to think that God would have genitalia determine who shall do what in non-reproduction terms.
Finally, I would like to reiterate that I believe in the right of folks to worship and live how they will. And when it comes to voting, I vote in a way that maximizes opportunity and equality for all (regardless of my religious beliefs) and not in a way that is strictly consistent with my faith. But, I do look upon the daughters of those Texas voters quoted above with sadness. They will be taught that their gender—not disabilities, economic disadvantages, or the like—their gender is what limits them in life. How sad for those girls—and ours.
So I guess I’ve suspected it for a long time—well, at least since Hillary Clinton began her campaign. But it’s one thing to suspect something, and quite another to hear that suspicion confirmed on NPR’s Morning Edition. A story was being aired about the upcoming Texas primary; people were asked whom they were voting for and why. And wouldn’t you know that some evangelical Christians would be a part of those being questioned! One woman said that although she was impressed with Hillary Clinton and how far she had come, she could not vote for a woman to be president. She gave her Christian beliefs as the reason for this decision, and pointed out that the Bible instructs women to submit to men. Her pastor echoed this sentiment, and then explained why he’d be casting his vote for Huckabee. Apparently God has no opinion on people of color, as Obama did not seem to be a contender to them at all.
Well, this is America, and I’m fine with people believing what they want. I’m fine with them setting up their family structure in a way that suits their beliefs. But something seems wrong when people are willing to subject others to their belief systems when they know that not all subscribe to that system. It seems fundamentally un-American—asking those to give up the freedom to live up to their potential simply because some don’t find that freedom to be consistent with their particular interpretation of Scripture. Interestingly, I never got the idea that God demanded submission to men in any context other than family and religious life—private realms that should really be apart from the greater public life. Of course, I don’t think God demanded submission at all—I think submission as we see it is largely misunderstood, abused, and most of all, culturally-bound. For those fans of Paul out there, the Bible even says something about equality in the church as a whole—Paul wrote that “in Christ, there is no difference between Jew and Greek, slave and free person, male and female…” (Galatians 3:28). If anything, Paul’s letter calls for a radical equality far superior to that of the world’s version of equality—hardly a call to submission and the forgoing of opportunities to live up to one’s potential.
What is really sad to me is that women buy into this idea. But really, how ludicrous is it? Would God really choose for one of his children to be inferior to the other? For one child, as Stacy Eldridge likes to note, to be a “helper”, and the other to be helped, but never with reciprocation? Does the God of equality seem to line up with the sexist God of some people’s Bibles? I didn’t choose to have the “wrong” body parts—why should I sacrifice what my mind and gifts are capable of simply because of that physical difference? It seems so shortsighted, really, to think that God would have genitalia determine who shall do what in non-reproduction terms.
Finally, I would like to reiterate that I believe in the right of folks to worship and live how they will. And when it comes to voting, I vote in a way that maximizes opportunity and equality for all (regardless of my religious beliefs) and not in a way that is strictly consistent with my faith. But, I do look upon the daughters of those Texas voters quoted above with sadness. They will be taught that their gender—not disabilities, economic disadvantages, or the like—their gender is what limits them in life. How sad for those girls—and ours.
Friday, February 15, 2008
You’re an idiot, Mr. President…
Wow—what an idiot. This morning, Mr. Bush held a press conference regarding the shootings in Illinois. He spent perhaps 60 seconds commenting on the tragedy, as well as asking Americans to bless the families with strength and courage during this time. Then, he moved right on to his dismay about Congress not passing an extension on FISA, or the spy law that allows the government to listen in on ordinary folk who have nothing to do with acts of terrorism. "American citizens must understand, clearly understand that there's still a threat on the homeland. There's still an enemy which would like to do us harm," Bush said. "We've got to give our professionals the tools they need, to be able to figure out what the enemy is up to so we can stop it… By blocking this piece of legislation, our country is more in danger of an attack," the president said.
It’s interesting that Bush thinks reading the emails of private citizens and listening to calls will somehow flesh out the next plan of attack from our so-called enemy. I think it is more accurate to suggest that he is interested in legalizing big brother-style voyeurism.
Oh, but I’m rambling. What I really wanted to comment on was that Bush used a personal tragedy—yet another school shooting—to blast the Democrats as well as drum up fear, and thus support, for his agenda. How crummy—he would have been much more honorable, and perhaps even believable, if he had stuck to the original premise of the press release.
It’s interesting that Bush thinks reading the emails of private citizens and listening to calls will somehow flesh out the next plan of attack from our so-called enemy. I think it is more accurate to suggest that he is interested in legalizing big brother-style voyeurism.
Oh, but I’m rambling. What I really wanted to comment on was that Bush used a personal tragedy—yet another school shooting—to blast the Democrats as well as drum up fear, and thus support, for his agenda. How crummy—he would have been much more honorable, and perhaps even believable, if he had stuck to the original premise of the press release.
Monday, February 11, 2008
There are women too, Pat…
Well, Pat Robertson did it again…he’s managed to anger me by simply opening his mouth. Now, before I tell you what he said, I need to re-affirm my commitment to pacifism, which is an important tenet of my Quaker faith. Having said that, I was still infuriated when Pat closed out today’s episode of the 700 Club by thanking our brave men in uniform.
Now, I realize that Pat is older than me, and perhaps he is having a difficult time remembering that women are, in fact, serving in the military these days. But, as he has made this “oversight” more than once, I’m inclined to think that he opposes having the “weaker” sex employed at such tasks. And even though I am against the military in principle (because it involves taking lives), I am still for the rights of women—all women—whether or not they share my faith convictions. I, as all Quakers are taught, try to live my life in a way that removes the occasion for war. But I’m not stupid; I know war is going to happen. And I also know that many people are okay with it, and in fact desire the chance to serve. So, I cannot help but point out that anyone who wants to serve—be it male or female—should have a right to do so. And they do have that right. So, why is it that Pat cannot accept this? If he wants to thank those who serve, he needs to thank everyone involved, not just “the boys”.
Now, I realize that Pat is older than me, and perhaps he is having a difficult time remembering that women are, in fact, serving in the military these days. But, as he has made this “oversight” more than once, I’m inclined to think that he opposes having the “weaker” sex employed at such tasks. And even though I am against the military in principle (because it involves taking lives), I am still for the rights of women—all women—whether or not they share my faith convictions. I, as all Quakers are taught, try to live my life in a way that removes the occasion for war. But I’m not stupid; I know war is going to happen. And I also know that many people are okay with it, and in fact desire the chance to serve. So, I cannot help but point out that anyone who wants to serve—be it male or female—should have a right to do so. And they do have that right. So, why is it that Pat cannot accept this? If he wants to thank those who serve, he needs to thank everyone involved, not just “the boys”.
Monday, February 4, 2008
A query on the equal treatment of all people…
As you know, this is Black History Month. This is one of my favorite times of the year, as African American History is one of my favorite “subjects”. Last night, in lieu of the much-hyped Super Bowl, Alan and I watched the Spike Lee documentary 4 Little Girls. It is about the 1960’s tragic bombing at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham that killed four little girls.
So, in the Quaker tradition, I thought I would pose a query for self-examination during this month. As the economic status of many Americans, but blacks in particular, is of great concern to me, the query is of an economic nature.
Are you concerned that our economic system shall so function as to sustain and enrich the life of all? Do you as workers, employers, producers, consumers, and investors endeavor to cultivate goodwill and mutual understanding in your economic relationships?
So, in the Quaker tradition, I thought I would pose a query for self-examination during this month. As the economic status of many Americans, but blacks in particular, is of great concern to me, the query is of an economic nature.
Are you concerned that our economic system shall so function as to sustain and enrich the life of all? Do you as workers, employers, producers, consumers, and investors endeavor to cultivate goodwill and mutual understanding in your economic relationships?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)