Saturday, April 7, 2007
Friday, April 6, 2007
I'm Dreaming of a White Easter
It's snowing (flurries) here. For those who want to use this as evidence of some catastrophic climate change, I'd like to remind them that almost exactly twenty years ago it snowed in April with a significant accumulation (7-10 inches).
Update, 4-7-07:
Update, 4-7-07:
Thursday, April 5, 2007
A Love Child?
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad born 10-28-1956
Donald Rumsfeld born 7-9-1932
Does anyone know if Rumsfeld visited Iran in early 1956? I've always been intrigued by their similar faces and expressions. Both are beady-eyed, and my mom always said that you couldn't trust beady-eyed men.
Change of Pace
I foresee a Fergie reply in the form of another crappy rap. Alanis Morissette sings "My Humps":
via tayster
via tayster
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Stress Tests
New gray hairs added within the last week:
father-in-law died last Tuesday (after three long, difficult weeks in hospital)
youngest son got strep throat last Wednesday
father-in-law's funeral with vultures attending Friday
father-in-law's burial with vultures attending Saturday
online vultures on Monday
youngest son got severe rash, fever, etc. due to mono Today
They say things happen in threes. That's a double dose there. Well, as they say, "What doesn't kill you makes stronger." Or maybe it's, "What doesn't kill you makes you crazy."
father-in-law died last Tuesday (after three long, difficult weeks in hospital)
youngest son got strep throat last Wednesday
father-in-law's funeral with vultures attending Friday
father-in-law's burial with vultures attending Saturday
online vultures on Monday
youngest son got severe rash, fever, etc. due to mono Today
They say things happen in threes. That's a double dose there. Well, as they say, "What doesn't kill you makes stronger." Or maybe it's, "What doesn't kill you makes you crazy."
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Eulogy: A Quiet Hero
Dear Friends,
Thank you so very much for all of your thoughts, prayers, and kind words during this very difficult time for my family. I can't adequately convey the magnitude of our loss, but it has been heartwarming to hear from all the people whose lives were better from knowing my father-in-law. It is humbling yet comforting to see such an outpouring of love and condolence. Ben was one of those rare generous and kind people who truly lived by the Christian code of conduct. He was one of the smartest and wisest people I've ever known. He could discern and evaluate situations and people with a quick precision that was rarely inaccurate.
There really is such a thing as the American Dream. It is not a myth. It is reality. I know because I live it, and that has been possible, in large part, because of the actions of that very special and beloved man. The success of his life is evident in the fact that all five of his children are successful, happy, and well-adjusted people who get along and love each other. There are no big family conflicts which is pretty unusual these days, especially in large families. This is a testament to the kind of man and father and husband he was for his immediate family and to everyone who knew him.
Everyone has said he was the most generous and caring man they ever knew. That through his hard work and outstanding character he was able to rise from poverty to a level of comfort and security is first-hand evidence that the American Dream is real and available for those who work for it and deserve it. At the end of his life he knew he had come a long way and humbly marveled that his life was as Blessed as it was. His way of summing it up was "it's been a good run." It should be everyone's goal to be able to meet death with that kind of gratitude.
But he was a humble man who never tooted his own horn or called attention to his good works. He just did them because that was the way he believed he was supposed to live. He was one of those quiet heroes, not the kind who expected or even wanted special recognition, because he believed he was just living in the way that benefited others.
I've been a part of this family for 18 years, nearly half of my life, and I feel as if I've lost my own parent because he loved me and accepted me as if I were his own child. This was just the kind of man he was. He was this way with all of his daughters-and-sons-in-law. We all are so very sad to have lost our 'father'. In fact, this loss has severely injured my nerves and the healing will take a good, long time.
This brings me to a point that I wish I didn't have to address. Despite the outpouring of support and kindness, death in our human world has not yet escaped the aggregation of vultures, hyenas, and other opportunistic scavengers. I learned ten years ago when my own mother died that the world largely doesn't care how hurt you are that you've lost a parent. The world just keeps on keeping on, and that's the way it is supposed to be, actually.
But there are those few individuals who lack any kind of human kindness, consideration, empathy or compassion and will take advantage of a grieving person's weakened condition. It is probably an injustice to vultures to compare these foul and unwelcome people to them because vultures are only animals without human emotions and feelings. It's truly a shame that the grieving process must include having to deal with such painful distractions. And unfortunately, when these kinds of cruel and unfeeling people persist in their thoughtless and selfish pursuit of causing us pain the only truly effective way of managing is to avoid them as much as possible.
So, that being said, while it only adds to my pain and injured nerves, I must adjust my habits and activities in whatever ways will ease the situation. These hurtful and aggressive hyenas have infested even the online places where I've enjoyed comraderie and friendship in the past. And in the absence of any kind of advocate I just don't have the strength at this time to endure any extra antagonism. I will have to do what my father-in-law would have done in such a situation: make a graceful exit and hope that eventually when left to their own devices the emotional terrorists will self-destruct or otherwise be revealed for their true selves. I'm sorry that it has come to this, but unless I'm shown another way it's the only one I know.
I will be here, on my own ground, occasionally, but I'm sorry I won't be making many rounds for a while. You know where to find me if it matters.
Thanks again to those who have been kind, generous, and supportive. May we meet again at some more pleasant point.
Sincerely,
Rae Ann
Thank you so very much for all of your thoughts, prayers, and kind words during this very difficult time for my family. I can't adequately convey the magnitude of our loss, but it has been heartwarming to hear from all the people whose lives were better from knowing my father-in-law. It is humbling yet comforting to see such an outpouring of love and condolence. Ben was one of those rare generous and kind people who truly lived by the Christian code of conduct. He was one of the smartest and wisest people I've ever known. He could discern and evaluate situations and people with a quick precision that was rarely inaccurate.
There really is such a thing as the American Dream. It is not a myth. It is reality. I know because I live it, and that has been possible, in large part, because of the actions of that very special and beloved man. The success of his life is evident in the fact that all five of his children are successful, happy, and well-adjusted people who get along and love each other. There are no big family conflicts which is pretty unusual these days, especially in large families. This is a testament to the kind of man and father and husband he was for his immediate family and to everyone who knew him.
Everyone has said he was the most generous and caring man they ever knew. That through his hard work and outstanding character he was able to rise from poverty to a level of comfort and security is first-hand evidence that the American Dream is real and available for those who work for it and deserve it. At the end of his life he knew he had come a long way and humbly marveled that his life was as Blessed as it was. His way of summing it up was "it's been a good run." It should be everyone's goal to be able to meet death with that kind of gratitude.
But he was a humble man who never tooted his own horn or called attention to his good works. He just did them because that was the way he believed he was supposed to live. He was one of those quiet heroes, not the kind who expected or even wanted special recognition, because he believed he was just living in the way that benefited others.
I've been a part of this family for 18 years, nearly half of my life, and I feel as if I've lost my own parent because he loved me and accepted me as if I were his own child. This was just the kind of man he was. He was this way with all of his daughters-and-sons-in-law. We all are so very sad to have lost our 'father'. In fact, this loss has severely injured my nerves and the healing will take a good, long time.
This brings me to a point that I wish I didn't have to address. Despite the outpouring of support and kindness, death in our human world has not yet escaped the aggregation of vultures, hyenas, and other opportunistic scavengers. I learned ten years ago when my own mother died that the world largely doesn't care how hurt you are that you've lost a parent. The world just keeps on keeping on, and that's the way it is supposed to be, actually.
But there are those few individuals who lack any kind of human kindness, consideration, empathy or compassion and will take advantage of a grieving person's weakened condition. It is probably an injustice to vultures to compare these foul and unwelcome people to them because vultures are only animals without human emotions and feelings. It's truly a shame that the grieving process must include having to deal with such painful distractions. And unfortunately, when these kinds of cruel and unfeeling people persist in their thoughtless and selfish pursuit of causing us pain the only truly effective way of managing is to avoid them as much as possible.
So, that being said, while it only adds to my pain and injured nerves, I must adjust my habits and activities in whatever ways will ease the situation. These hurtful and aggressive hyenas have infested even the online places where I've enjoyed comraderie and friendship in the past. And in the absence of any kind of advocate I just don't have the strength at this time to endure any extra antagonism. I will have to do what my father-in-law would have done in such a situation: make a graceful exit and hope that eventually when left to their own devices the emotional terrorists will self-destruct or otherwise be revealed for their true selves. I'm sorry that it has come to this, but unless I'm shown another way it's the only one I know.
I will be here, on my own ground, occasionally, but I'm sorry I won't be making many rounds for a while. You know where to find me if it matters.
Thanks again to those who have been kind, generous, and supportive. May we meet again at some more pleasant point.
Sincerely,
Rae Ann
Sunday, April 1, 2007
God Is Not Dead Yet
Update: this was originally published on 10-8-2006, but I have added some new relevant thoughts.
Lubos has some links to some very interesting video discussions of science and religion. These ideas are probably the two that are closest to my heart and mind, and I've spent a disproportionately large amount of my time thinking about them. I wish I could say that the results of all that thinking are commensurate with the effort put into it. ;-) I'm still processing the content of those videos, but I'd like to jot down some initial thoughts.
I agree with Steven Weinberg's dislike of the characterization of God by the Old Testament religions, and by extension the New Testament- though Jesus's God was a "kinder, gentler" God, it still deeply troubles me that a "Father" would "sacrifice" his Son. But I'll get into that more later.
I'm not interested in an angry, jealous, or otherwise human-like God (and the imagery of a Heavenly "Father" doesn't suffice either). And Weinberg is correct in saying that religions built around that kind of God are harmful. Dawkins speaks a little about the issue of good vs. evil and whether there are some external forces ("spirits") that produce good and evil. I'm of the mind that there is a nature of duality (creation and destruction) to the Universe and that it's kind of a normal progression for people to assign "values" to results of these somewhat 'opposite' (though dependent) forces due to their perspective (like, if something good or bad for them).
Dawkins speaks about the use of language, and I tend to agree with his point that the words we use to define things often limit or misrepresent them. He speaks of individuals having "mystical wonder" and "transcendent, mystical experiences" that can be considered "scientific" as well as "religious". In my own transcendent, mystical experiences I've felt "connected" (as opposed to the idea that we are "detached" from some greater "domain" or God, and that is another issue I have with Christianity - the teaching that we are separated from God by "original sin") to the greater Whole while trying not to make value judgments on myself and everything else in that Whole. These experiences are almost always in response to some observance of Nature and not in the process of some religious ritual. I do want to talk about the meaning and purpose of ritual at some point though.
Is "faith" a bad thing? It seems like faith has gotten a bad reputation among scientists. The dictionary says:
Only a small part of that definition specifies "belief without proof" (which is where religion seems to fit). Most of it implies a loyalty and trust in something other than the self. Certainly, I would hope that most scientists have faith in science and the scientific method. This does not have to imply adherence to the "unproven" but more of a belief that the unknown can become known. And from what bits I've studied of religion in a larger sense, many religions don't necessarily require rigid belief in the face of opposing evidence. That's mostly limited to the angry, jealous God that many of us dislike. ;-)
The issue of American Patriotism and Religion was briefly discussed in the Weinberg interview. It seems fairly obvious that since the European settlement of America was primarily motivated by the desire for religious "freedom", our 'national character' and/or culture would be strongly influenced by religion. It is not a misrepresentation to say that the foundation of America is inextricably linked to religion, religious practices, and disagreement about religion and religious practices. For some of us perhaps this religious feeling has evolved from attachment to God to attachment to Country. Perhaps Weinberg would find that disturbing, but it's important to acknowledge that many people deeply need to attach to something because it gives them the strength to keep going when life gets difficult. (Think of the famous "Footprints" poem.)
Now back to the New Testament God vs. the Old Testament God. I'm no bible scholar, but it seems that the distinction is a major point of contention among religious groups. Jesus's teachings about God were rather revolutionary but he still had to defer to the God of his Jewish upbringing. He spoke of God's love which wasn't as important in the Old Testament.
That is the first Bible verse my grandmother made me memorize and (very painfully for a shy child) recite in front of her church. Even as a small child I wondered why God would give his only son to save everyone else. It didn't make sense. I understand the concept of sacrifice, but I've never understood a parent sacrificing a child. A parent sacrificing him/herself? Yes, and I think that's probably part of the rise the Trinity - meaning that since God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all together then He really just sacrificed Himself, but that argument isn't really any more satisfying.
Maybe the child sacrifice is a relic of that culture's times. Maybe to the people back then the idea that a God would sacrifice his own flesh and blood was very impressive. But in today's world when children are sacrificed every day for many unholy reasons it just smacks of wrongness.
I do think that many of Jesus's teachings and ideas have been distorted. He did emphasize love and forgiveness and those were revolutionary ideas at his time. It's not too hard for me to apply much of what he said to the world I know by observation, though my ideas on that often differ a lot from the 'orthodox' views. And I don't think that my interpretations dilute or "liberalize" Jesus's message, only the messages of other people's interpretations. ;-) But honestly, I don't really worry too much about that. My 'relationship with the Divine' is between me and the Universe and no one else has the right tell me it's wrong. (Just like so many other things in life.) And that is Religious Freedom.
And about that being "separate" from God or The Fall from Paradise because of Original Sin. Well, I think I should probably save that for another time because there is a lot to say, and I'm still formulating how I want to say it.
Anyway, God is not dead yet. And as the wise men in those videos implied, even if we do ever learn all the "how" of the Universe we will probably never learn exactly "why". And by cloaking Himself in that one word God is still alive and kicking.
And that's this Sunday's Sermonette. ;-)
Addendum: In the months since this post it has become even more clear that a faithless and atheist, or completely secular, society is dysfunctional and prone to the same kind of descent into chaos as an overly religious society. Intolerance is a virus or cancer that spreads and infects all aspects of life and society. If you allow it to infect one part of society it will inevitably spread to the others, eventually leading to the crippling or death of that society.
If you allow science and scientists to attack and disrespect the need of most people to have faith in something larger than themselves you are basically damaging the foundation of a free society. We are seeing this happen everywhere. Religion and God are ridiculed, criticized, and otherwise intolerated in an alarmingly increasing rate. Look around you and tell me this: Is our society getting better without faith, God, or religion? It sure doesn't look that way to me.
But science isn't the villain here. Science is also infected by intolerance and faithlessness. What so few realize is that their faith in science is pretty much indistinguishable from a faith in God, when you boil it down because both rely on the belief that this 'thing' will provide the answers. But I don't really want to go into that at the moment. You can read all about it on Lubos Motl's blog and how he is trying to fight that intolerance and faithlessness that has infected science.
Allow me to tell you why this lack of faith is damaging the world. Or really, allow me to ask you some questions and you can think for yourself. Extend these questions to their logical ends.
How can we expect most people have faith in each other if they don't have faith in something larger than themselves? (hint: if one can't have faith in a larger, greater thing then he/she is probably not likely to have faith in equal or lesser things)
If there is no faith and trust then how are people supposed to function in cooperative and benevolent ways? (hint: one isn't likely to trust anyone who cannot demonstrate having trust themselves)
Freedom absolutely depends upon tolerance. Even when you know or think you are right and everyone else is wrong you must have tolerance for their needs to hold onto or attach to what makes them happy, whether that is believing in God or pink fairies or aliens from an adjacent universe or unseen eleven dimensional constructs. You can tell them why you think you are right and they are wrong, but you still have to respect that they are allowed not to believe you. At this point in the world NO ONE can say for 100% certainty that God does not exist. And thank God for that because if that day ever comes it will truly mark the end of humanity and love (perhaps the most irrational thing that exists).
And I ain't April foolin'.
Lubos has some links to some very interesting video discussions of science and religion. These ideas are probably the two that are closest to my heart and mind, and I've spent a disproportionately large amount of my time thinking about them. I wish I could say that the results of all that thinking are commensurate with the effort put into it. ;-) I'm still processing the content of those videos, but I'd like to jot down some initial thoughts.
I agree with Steven Weinberg's dislike of the characterization of God by the Old Testament religions, and by extension the New Testament- though Jesus's God was a "kinder, gentler" God, it still deeply troubles me that a "Father" would "sacrifice" his Son. But I'll get into that more later.
I'm not interested in an angry, jealous, or otherwise human-like God (and the imagery of a Heavenly "Father" doesn't suffice either). And Weinberg is correct in saying that religions built around that kind of God are harmful. Dawkins speaks a little about the issue of good vs. evil and whether there are some external forces ("spirits") that produce good and evil. I'm of the mind that there is a nature of duality (creation and destruction) to the Universe and that it's kind of a normal progression for people to assign "values" to results of these somewhat 'opposite' (though dependent) forces due to their perspective (like, if something good or bad for them).
Dawkins speaks about the use of language, and I tend to agree with his point that the words we use to define things often limit or misrepresent them. He speaks of individuals having "mystical wonder" and "transcendent, mystical experiences" that can be considered "scientific" as well as "religious". In my own transcendent, mystical experiences I've felt "connected" (as opposed to the idea that we are "detached" from some greater "domain" or God, and that is another issue I have with Christianity - the teaching that we are separated from God by "original sin") to the greater Whole while trying not to make value judgments on myself and everything else in that Whole. These experiences are almost always in response to some observance of Nature and not in the process of some religious ritual. I do want to talk about the meaning and purpose of ritual at some point though.
Is "faith" a bad thing? It seems like faith has gotten a bad reputation among scientists. The dictionary says:
1 a: allegiance to duty or a person: LOYALTY b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially: a system of religious beliefs
Only a small part of that definition specifies "belief without proof" (which is where religion seems to fit). Most of it implies a loyalty and trust in something other than the self. Certainly, I would hope that most scientists have faith in science and the scientific method. This does not have to imply adherence to the "unproven" but more of a belief that the unknown can become known. And from what bits I've studied of religion in a larger sense, many religions don't necessarily require rigid belief in the face of opposing evidence. That's mostly limited to the angry, jealous God that many of us dislike. ;-)
The issue of American Patriotism and Religion was briefly discussed in the Weinberg interview. It seems fairly obvious that since the European settlement of America was primarily motivated by the desire for religious "freedom", our 'national character' and/or culture would be strongly influenced by religion. It is not a misrepresentation to say that the foundation of America is inextricably linked to religion, religious practices, and disagreement about religion and religious practices. For some of us perhaps this religious feeling has evolved from attachment to God to attachment to Country. Perhaps Weinberg would find that disturbing, but it's important to acknowledge that many people deeply need to attach to something because it gives them the strength to keep going when life gets difficult. (Think of the famous "Footprints" poem.)
Now back to the New Testament God vs. the Old Testament God. I'm no bible scholar, but it seems that the distinction is a major point of contention among religious groups. Jesus's teachings about God were rather revolutionary but he still had to defer to the God of his Jewish upbringing. He spoke of God's love which wasn't as important in the Old Testament.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:16 (King James Version)
That is the first Bible verse my grandmother made me memorize and (very painfully for a shy child) recite in front of her church. Even as a small child I wondered why God would give his only son to save everyone else. It didn't make sense. I understand the concept of sacrifice, but I've never understood a parent sacrificing a child. A parent sacrificing him/herself? Yes, and I think that's probably part of the rise the Trinity - meaning that since God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all together then He really just sacrificed Himself, but that argument isn't really any more satisfying.
Maybe the child sacrifice is a relic of that culture's times. Maybe to the people back then the idea that a God would sacrifice his own flesh and blood was very impressive. But in today's world when children are sacrificed every day for many unholy reasons it just smacks of wrongness.
I do think that many of Jesus's teachings and ideas have been distorted. He did emphasize love and forgiveness and those were revolutionary ideas at his time. It's not too hard for me to apply much of what he said to the world I know by observation, though my ideas on that often differ a lot from the 'orthodox' views. And I don't think that my interpretations dilute or "liberalize" Jesus's message, only the messages of other people's interpretations. ;-) But honestly, I don't really worry too much about that. My 'relationship with the Divine' is between me and the Universe and no one else has the right tell me it's wrong. (Just like so many other things in life.) And that is Religious Freedom.
And about that being "separate" from God or The Fall from Paradise because of Original Sin. Well, I think I should probably save that for another time because there is a lot to say, and I'm still formulating how I want to say it.
Anyway, God is not dead yet. And as the wise men in those videos implied, even if we do ever learn all the "how" of the Universe we will probably never learn exactly "why". And by cloaking Himself in that one word God is still alive and kicking.
And that's this Sunday's Sermonette. ;-)
Addendum: In the months since this post it has become even more clear that a faithless and atheist, or completely secular, society is dysfunctional and prone to the same kind of descent into chaos as an overly religious society. Intolerance is a virus or cancer that spreads and infects all aspects of life and society. If you allow it to infect one part of society it will inevitably spread to the others, eventually leading to the crippling or death of that society.
If you allow science and scientists to attack and disrespect the need of most people to have faith in something larger than themselves you are basically damaging the foundation of a free society. We are seeing this happen everywhere. Religion and God are ridiculed, criticized, and otherwise intolerated in an alarmingly increasing rate. Look around you and tell me this: Is our society getting better without faith, God, or religion? It sure doesn't look that way to me.
But science isn't the villain here. Science is also infected by intolerance and faithlessness. What so few realize is that their faith in science is pretty much indistinguishable from a faith in God, when you boil it down because both rely on the belief that this 'thing' will provide the answers. But I don't really want to go into that at the moment. You can read all about it on Lubos Motl's blog and how he is trying to fight that intolerance and faithlessness that has infected science.
Allow me to tell you why this lack of faith is damaging the world. Or really, allow me to ask you some questions and you can think for yourself. Extend these questions to their logical ends.
How can we expect most people have faith in each other if they don't have faith in something larger than themselves? (hint: if one can't have faith in a larger, greater thing then he/she is probably not likely to have faith in equal or lesser things)
If there is no faith and trust then how are people supposed to function in cooperative and benevolent ways? (hint: one isn't likely to trust anyone who cannot demonstrate having trust themselves)
Freedom absolutely depends upon tolerance. Even when you know or think you are right and everyone else is wrong you must have tolerance for their needs to hold onto or attach to what makes them happy, whether that is believing in God or pink fairies or aliens from an adjacent universe or unseen eleven dimensional constructs. You can tell them why you think you are right and they are wrong, but you still have to respect that they are allowed not to believe you. At this point in the world NO ONE can say for 100% certainty that God does not exist. And thank God for that because if that day ever comes it will truly mark the end of humanity and love (perhaps the most irrational thing that exists).
And I ain't April foolin'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)