Scattered thoughts for today…

My mind is always on several different things. I thought I’d ramble on about a few of those things here…
To begin, I must discuss yet another annoying church sign. Now, you know I have Asperger’s, and my world tends to be simplified and literal. So it was with dismay that I read the following: “My neighbor is anyone who needs me”. Hum—that really leaves out quite a few folks. Those who don’t think or know they need [your] help, for starters. And what about the people in need that you don’t know about? If you don’t know they are in need, are they still in need? Okay, clearly I’m making a pun in relation to the old question about the tree falling in the forest. But seriously, that sign is so simplified. As I understand it, Jesus told us that anyone and everyone is our neighbor—regardless of that person’s circumstances (or ‘needs’).

And continuing with the religious theme, I must ask, why is Obama so mad? He all but severed ties with his old friend Jeremiah Wright (the same friend he told the world last month that he could not disown) because of Wright’s speech given to the National Press Club. Okay, so Wright is a bit weird. He is a bit too self-confident, and could use a healthy dose of humble pie. But, really, aside from his conspiracy-theory ideas about AIDS (which aren’t even his ideas), what did he say that wasn’t true? Oh, maybe that is the problem—that what said was true. Despite what Obama wants to imply, we are not a society that has moved beyond race and gender issues. Not so, you say? Well, just recall what out-of-touch John McCain said recently: women don’t make more money because they lack the education credentials of men. Oh really? But, back to Obama. Is he upset that Wright pointed to the so-called golden rule? He simply said that America couldn’t act like a terrorist and expect to be free of terrorist attacks upon her. Is he wrong? I don’t think so—our nation doesn’t always act in a responsible, peace making way when dealing with other nations. We bully, attempt to change the political make-up of countries, support embargos, and drop bombs without any concern over whether or not our intelligence is accurate. Wright is correct—we cannot operate in this way and expect to be free from violence in our own cities. And while Wright dispenses his words with a smile that suggests you are the fool (not him), he really hasn’t said anything that I haven’t heard to be true of the black experience in America. Throughout his speech, he reminded us of the legacy of slavery (an issue which I think too many Americans are guilty of not knowing or caring about), the virtues of being different (God obviously likes different things—look at all the flowers and birds, etc.), and the need for reconciliation in our country.
So Obama, quit whining! Spend your time trying to unite the American people and get yourself elected!

A question of equality…

I have a concern about equality. It pertains to the use of the titles ‘Mrs.’ and ‘Mr.’ It came up when I read a passage in a book about proper social etiquette (written by none other than Miss Manners…)—a woman had written a letter stating that she was appalled that younger women were addressing her mother by her first name. One example she gave involved nurses at her mother’s assisted living center—they were calling her mother by her first name, even though they were 50 or 60 years her junior. Miss Manners found the casual first-name use appalling as well, and downright disrespectful. In her view, first names were to be reserved for intimates only. This social protocol presents a quandary for Quakers. We have a history of leaving out titles when speaking to others, as titles differentiate people, making the relationship inherently unequal. You would never address a Quaker professor as “Dr.”, or even “Mr.”. You’d simply say “Joe” or “Jane”, as the case may be. This goes for all titles and positions. Coming from that perspective, how then am I to address others “properly”? Do I reserve my perceived casualness for other Quakers, and defer to standard rules of etiquette when in the real world?
One may argue that the usage of the prefix ’Mr.’ and such doesn’t really imply unequal status between the individuals, but merely shows respect. However, respect based upon age alone is does not render the relationship equal, and moreover, one can respect another without being less than them. Here’s an example, which involves class status:
I was watching yet another obnoxious show, and this episode featured several wealthy women gathered for a dinner party in of the women’s homes. The ‘lady of the house’ introduced her maid (a demeaning title, I would argue) to her guests as say, “Maria”. Of course, the maid was a minority woman, much older than her young, white boss. Any way, the host then introduced her guests to Maria by addressing them formally: “Maria, this is Mrs. Jones, Miss Simpson, …”. You get the idea. So, I would argue that using titles of any kind always implies inequality—whether in social status, age, profession, or gender. It really doesn’t matter what the reason for the title is. Unfortunately, my desire to be inclusive is seen as rude and disrespectful…

Please know your faith…

Sigh. It seems that there is no end to the ridiculous things people will say regarding their spiritual beliefs. Once again, I must refer to an episode of Trading Spouses to comment on something that I suspect is widespread: ignorance of the history of one’s faith.
Yesterday’s repeat featured the spousal swapping between an orthodox Jewish family and a rural evangelical Christian family. Here are some of the stupid comments uttered by the evangelical family:
“I don’t get this Jewish thing” (mom)
“I like Christianity; that’s what I believe in” (son)
“So, do you believe that Jesus is Lord, and that he died for your sins?” (evangelical mom to orthodox family members)
“You don’t hunt?” (son’s response to Jewish mom’s proclamation that Jews have rules for the way an animal can be killed)
“I don’t understand this kosher food. If I were making breakfast at home, I’d make bacon, eggs, etc.” (Mom complaining about cooking in a Kosher kitchen)

Do you believe Jesus is your Lord? Was this woman for real? I mean, the whole premise of Jesus and his saving grace for the Gentiles is based upon the Jewish people rejecting Christ as the Messiah. Come on—did this woman ever even crack open the Bible, or is she just spouting the “Good News” she hears from the pulpit every week?
And she doesn’t get “this kosher food”? Well, again, if she simply referred to her Bible, she’d find all the details in Leviticus (chapter 11 is really helpful!).
My point is, know your history. Jews and Christians have an intricate, inseparable history, and I suspect, an intertwined future. It would also help if Christians treated Jews with love and respect, and take an interest in their culture. After all, Jesus was a Jew.

Where to now?

God brought the Jews out of Egypt, but on the journey to the Promised Land, he chose the long road less traveled. He must have had his reasons—among them the fear that if the Jews ran into trouble with the Philistine’s, they might turn around and go back to Egypt.
I suppose I feel like those Jewish people, having been led out of my spiritual home, and on the road to the next thing. But unlike the Jews, I have no idea where I’m headed. What’s more, I suspect God has sent me on a long road—one that’s surely out of the way.
I don’t know what I’m supposed to learn, or if I’ll even find a permanent place to worship. If I don’t find a permanent “home”, I’ll be surprised—it will go against everything I taught while at Hillel. I mean, without consistency, how will I be involved with and connected to the Meeting community I find myself in?
And yet, there seems to be no potential permanent spiritual home at this point. Of course, I’ve only visited 2 Meetings, but I’ve virtually visited many more than that. I just don’t see where I’ll belong.
So, I don’t know where I’m headed next. I guess I’ll just have to be patient—not an easy thing for me, though.

Look what I found in the dustbin...

Oh, what a find! I was trying to find out just how many days it's been since Bush made his glorious speech about the war in front of a banner that screamed, "Mission Accomplished". I didn't find the number, but was reminded by one blogger that Keith Olbermann knows (I do so enjoy his show!). But I did stumble upon this nugget, posted in the "historical dustbin" section of the Wonkette:
Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world's goodwill. In short, no other president's faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.

I couldn't have put it better myself. By the way, have you started thinking about Obama yet?

How fortunate, you say?

Whenever Trading Spouses is on, I simply must watch. I just can’t resist.
The premise is okay—not terribly thought provoking, but interesting because they always manage to find the most extreme families to pair up. And today’s rerun on CMT was no different: a farmer’s wife swapped her place with a snooty little thing from Fort Lauderdale who was, if I may be honest, not as pretty as she thought, nor a big user of sunscreen (which she needed to be).
Actually, I liked the family that lived on the farm. They were a little too detached about the death of one of their animals, but perhaps if I lived on a farm, I might need the ability to detach a bit too. I guess it’s something they see a lot. Life in the city can be so sanitized—we never see our food before it arrives in a neat package or is cleanly wrapped by the local butcher. We have no real sense of the world of slaughtering animals. But I digress…
The point is, this family was pretty down to earth and quite likable. But the beach bunny from Florida had ideas. She decided from the beginning that she would breathe life and culture into these poor, small-minded country folk. She gabbed on and on about her wonderful life in Florida, and constantly made demeaning comparisons between life on the farm and life at the beach. She even had the audacity to announce that her room at home was much larger than the one being offered to her by her host family. She lamented that the kids could not go to the beach every day as hers did (I lamented that her kids would probably have skin cancer by the time they reached high school).
But what really set me off was an observation she made about the family. In her video diary, she pointed out that “they are so fortunate to have me here. I can help them better themselves. It’s what I like to do—help people.”
How fortunate? Really? Did they ask for that help, that “betterment”? I looked up the definition of help, and part of the act of helping consists of providing that which is sought. What’s more, she insulted them by reading the farmer’s teenage children foreign language primers, which were designed for children in elementary school. Wow—I never thought of enlightening people in such a manner.
Her actions really bring up a good point, though—what is the real reason we “help” others? Is it to help them—to be of service, which comes from a place of love—or is it simply to help ourselves? There’s a difference, and it’s a fundamentally important one.

He came early!

He's here--our second nephew, named Christopher David. He was born this morning around 2:30. He's early...about 4 weeks, but doing well! When my brother called to tell me, he announced, "you guys are an aunt and uncle times two!" I blurted out, "You had twins?!" He laughed at his verbal mistake. He simply meant that with their previous child, the new baby made two.
It's pretty cool anyway!

Yet another MLK blog posting...

Well, you may be tired of hearing about the anniversary of Martin Luther King's death. But, I know that to let this moment in history pass without at least a blurb about it on my blog would be inconsistent with the issues I routinely address here.
I have nothing truly insightful to offer this historic person--many others have said great things about him, and offered their opinions about where America has gone since that sad day in 1968. But I do have one little suggestion... it's regarding that pesky political contest coming up in November.
If you haven’t considered Barack Obama for president, perhaps you should take a second look. The most obvious is that he offers a real change in perspective, and let's be honest here--appearance, too--from the tired old offerings that Democrats and Republicans have offered up for what seems like eons now. But another reason to consider him may be simpler--a vote for Obama (or Clinton, to be sure) would propel the U.S. into the new century both philosophically and for minorities. Since the election of Washington, our nation has steadfastly refused to see representation in the White House for anyone but white men. Imagine what it's like to never see anyone who looks like you representing our country--from a gender minority perspective, it sucks. It seems that women have come so far, yet we cannot get a promotion to the most important office in our homeland. The same goes for those of other skin colors--opportunity has most certainly come along for many, but the highest office remains just out of reach.
I'm tired of hearing that folks aren't ready for a black or female president. Well guess what? I'm not ready to have another white man in office. I know that sounds shallow--you may argue about qualifications. I'll be honest--I'm a die-hard democrat. However, I will always vote for the person who has the most potential. I will cross party lines if that person happens to be on the other side. In this election, I think all three are very qualified in their own ways, and all have potential. Yes, even McCain, who is criticized for his age. There's a name for that--it's called ageism. His age has nothing to do with his ability to connect across generations--whether or not he makes that connection will depend upon his willingness to do so and a genuine interest in younger Americans.
But back to the point--all three candidates offer a great opportunity for the U.S. But only two have the ability to change the face of representation in this country, and the ability to truly reach across those racial and gender divides with authentic empathy.