I recently started working as a playground monitor at my children's school. I basically patrol the playground for an hour at lunchtime to make sure the kids are being safe and aren't killing each other. At least that's my take on the job. Three other women also work this shift with me, and some of them have very different ideas than me about how to deal with kids. (One of the women told me that the best way to make sure that the kids behave is to become their friend and then they will want to be good because they will love you so much. Yeah, right.) For example, frequently one of the children will come up to me complaining about another child being mean or misbehaving: calling them a name, not playing with them, saying bad words, etc. Some of the other playground monitors deal with these types of issues by stepping in and acting as an intermediary between the two kids to help them work it out. They bring the two kids together, let them both tell their side of what happened, make them apologize and shake hands, etc.
I have a real problem with this approach, and here's why. First of all, what are the chances that either side of the story is either accurate or objective? Do you really think that a kid is going to say, "Why yes, I lost my temper and called him a poo-poo head because I felt that he wasn't playing fairly. I was wrong to do that and I apologize." I don't think so. Most adults aren't even that mature. The two kids are just going to point fingers at each other and swear to their own innocence. Kind of like our politicians. So letting them both tell what happened is a waste of time and energy and chances are you aren't getting any more facts than you started with.
Second, even if you know that some kid called another kid a name or stuck out his tongue at him, who cares? Do we really want to create children that are so helpless and fragile that they can't just shrug their shoulders and walk away from an insult? When they are adults, what are they going to do when they run up against obnoxious, rude and inconsiderate people and there is no one around to make those people be nice and apologize? Well, if you ever watch Judge Judy, you know the answer to that question. They will take them to court in the hopes that someone will make those people "be nice". Or if they are a little more mentally unstable, they will bring a shotgun to work and vent their frustration by shooting their rude coworkers and mean boss, because no one else was doing anything about it.
The best thing we can do for these kids is to teach them that you can't make people be nice, but you can pick and choose who you will associate with. If someone is mean or rude, don't play with them. If someone is leaving you out or won't play with you, find other friends who will. Give kids some power in those situations. Let them know that they have control over their own actions, and therefore over their lives. And at the same time, you will teach them that if they are rude and unkind, others won't want to be around them, either. Kids aren't stupid, and they aren't helpless when it comes to controlling their own behavior. But if we treat them as if they are, they will believe it.
I had one little boy come up to me several times during recess complaining that he didn't have any friends and that no one would play with him. I wasn't exactly sure what he wanted me to do about it, but I suspect that he was hoping that, as the adult in charge, I would corral a group of kids together and make them play with him. Instead, I suggested that he seek out another boy and ask him to play with him, or that he find a group of kids that were doing something that looked fun and join in. He was reluctant and probably a little nervous, but after a few more times of him coming back to me and me repeating the same suggestion, he found a group of kids and joined in their soccer game. All he needed to do was keep at it, and he was successful.
This is a very individualist perspective that isn't encouraged anymore in the public schools. There is a very strong undercurrent of "group-think" that teaches students to rely on others to solve their problems. This worries me. A lot. I see teachers who are trained to constantly mediate and facilitate rather than just teach the subject matter at hand. I see curriculum that pushes the idea that if everyone can't succeed, then no one should. I see children who are good readers put into a lower level reading class so that they can help the students who are having trouble. This is all done under the auspices of teaching our children to be compassionate and caring toward others so that we can create a better society for all. But that isn't what it is really teaching them, and a better society for all isn't the outcome. What it really teaches them is that individual achievement is not only a waste of time, but that it hurts others. It teaches them that they don't have the ability to solve problems and find solutions on their own, but that they need to wait for some authority (like a teacher) to bring everyone together to solve the problem and find a solution. This attitude doesn't just magically disappear as they get older. It carries on into adult life. There was a news story a few years ago about a woman who called 911 because she was at the McDonald's drive-thru window and they were out of a particular item that she ordered. She wanted the police to come down there and make them give it to her. Seriously. We are not talking about basic human or civil rights violations - someone getting beaten or robbed or otherwise victimized. We are talking about a Big Mac! This woman had been taught, somewhere along the line, that if someone isn't doing what she wants, there is some authority out there who should come and make them "play nice".
Another philosophy that worries me is the culture of false self-esteem. That's right. FALSE self-esteem. Is there such a thing? Yes. What I'm referring to is the idea that every achievement is equal. The little-league team that wins the game gets a trophy, but so does the team that loses, because they tried very hard. Everyone gets a trophy, isn't that nice? No. It's horrible. Let me be clear. I think it is vital that we teach our kids that we are all equal as human beings and have equal worth. No one person is worth more than any other person. But what I'm referring to is something completely different. The idea that everything we do is of equal value is not only a patent lie, but it is actually damaging to our children's self-esteem. If you have a kid who works his butt off to get a good grade or do well in a sport or master a musical instrument, and he sees a kid who doesn't put the same time and effort in, and therefore doesn't achieve the same success, but gets rewarded anyway, what does the first kid learn from that? He learns a few things.
First, he learns that all of his hard work was for nothing. If he can get the same reward for doing less or nothing, then what is the point of working hard and getting better? Second, he learns that one thing isn't inherently better than another. That all things are equal, therefore nothing is better than anything else. Values like hard work, goal setting, self-discipline and perseverance don't have any more value than laziness, lack of direction, quitting when things get difficult, etc. Because if they did have more value, they would produce a greater payoff, but clearly, they don't. The third thing that he learns is that nothing really matters more than anything else. How do you make judgements in life about what is important and what isn't if there is no greater value placed on some things than on others? Lastly, they learn to question whether or not they deserve anything. If they are given an award or a trophy or any recognition for anything, is it because they did something to earn it, or is it because some adult doesn't want them to feel bad for being such a loser? And what does this say about the control they have over the outcome of anything in their life? They didn't do anything to get the award, but they got it anyway. There is no cause and effect, therefore there is no way to get certain outcomes with certain actions. Again, kids aren't stupid.
An interesting thing happens when kids reach about 14 years of age. Their brains have developed to a point in which they are capable of the same intellectual levels of thought and reasoning as someone who is 20 or 30 or 40, etc. For all intents and purposes, they have adult brains. And those adult brains start working overtime and questioning everything. Because of their newfound reasoning capabilities, they start recognizing inconsistencies, which leads them to also recognize hypocrisy, particularly in the adults around them. Now, what could be more hypocritical than the adults in your life (parents, teachers, etc.) telling you that it is important to do well in school, stay away from drugs, be responsible, (and whatever other values we want our children to adopt) when their whole life they have been taught, in one way or another, that one thing is just as good as another? That nothing really matters more than anything else, so what's the point? Is it any wonder that we have so many angry teenagers who, despite parents and teachers best efforts, don't seem to care about school, or their future, or anything else that we adults want them to care about? I would be angry and disillusioned too if I felt that nothing that I did mattered in the slightest, that the direction or outcome of my life could not be determined by my own actions and choices. Is that the chaotic and hopeless existence that we want our children to inherit?
Here's an idea. How about we teach our kids the real meaning of self-esteem instead of this perverted psycho-babble crap that the schools have been feeding them(and us) for the past 30 years. How about we teach our kids that if you work hard and keep trying, you will succeed. If you develop patience and perserverence, you will succeed. If you set goals and keep working at it until you achieve them, you will succeed. If you keep making mistakes and learning from them, you will succeed. We teach this by rewarding them for success, by recognizing them for real achievements. And we go into it with the assumption that every child has the ability to succeed and achieve and improve and we expect them to do it. We don't need to make up fake awards so that kids won't feel bad if they don't win. We just need to teach them how to win and let them decide if they want to or not. I can't say this enough: kids aren't stupid, and they aren't helpless. If they don't succeed the first time, they need to know that they have the power to change it the next time around. And WHEN (not if) they succeed, they will feel so good about what they have done that they will want to keep working and trying and become even better than they were before. And it will become a pattern in their life that will mold them into happy, healthy successful people. And because the success and self-confidence that they achieve will be something that they earned, rather than some lame award they got for doing virutally nothing, they will know that they deserve it. And that my friends, is true self-esteem.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
Race Baiting in Arizona
You know the old saying: "You never get a second chance to make a first impression." How true that is, and how well our current administration knows it.
Why would the Department of Justice, with President Obama's encouragement, sue the state of Arizona for passing a law that almost exactly mirrors the existing federal immigration law? Why would they make allegations of racial profiling when clearly this law has been written in such a way as to avoid it? Why did disapproving comments come out of the mouths of Nancy Pelosi, the Attorney General, President Obama, and others, admittedly before they had even read the (only 16 page) bill? And why were Americans subjected to the ridiculous and unbelievable hypocrisy of the President of Mexico regarding Arizona's law?
Because it doesn't matter, that's why. It doesn't matter whether this bill is actually racist (it's not). It doesn't matter if it actually violates civil liberties(it doesn't). The truth is not what matters here. What matters is that the charge of RACISM, no matter how false, is out there now, and it has gained the momentum that it was intended to gain. It has created a furor of demonstrations and protests among Americans who don't understand that they are being used as pawns in an age-old political game. It is ironic(and a little sad) that there were protests held recently in Washington D.C. against the Arizona law - but not the existing Federal law that is essentially the same. It was all very silly, and I suspect if those protestors knew any better, they would be mightily embarrassed. Unfortunately, those leading the charge do know better. Misinformation and an uneducated public are powerful political tools. (You can read the Federal law here, and the Arizona law here.)
So what is the true agenda? Well, President Obama has made it clear that his comprehensive immigration reform would include amnesty for those who are currently here illegally. And anyone who disagrees with this policy? Well, that's when those cries of racism come in quite handy, and the stage is already set.
Politics aside, what about compassion for the people living in the midst of such terrible conditions, particularly in Mexico? As bad as it is in Mexico, there are places around the world that are much, much worse. But for the people who live in those countries, coming to America is only possible through legal channels. Why? Because they don't have an unprotected stretch of desert that they can cross under the cover of darkness to get in. For example, how is it fair to people like my friends from the Phillipines, for whom it took twenty years and untold sacrifice to come to the United States (legally), that others can break the law and be given automatic legal status for doing so? Based on what? Geography? Race?
And speaking of the law, it is a dangerous thing to excuse one segment of the population from following the laws of our country. By not enforcing our immigration laws, that is exactly what we are doing.
We would all be up in arms if certain segments of the population were immune from the laws regarding breaking and entering or burglary. What if a particular neighbor was allowed to break into your house over and over again and steal your things, and the police refused to do anything about it? Would you take it upon yourself to put better locks on your doors and guard your property more carefully? Would you stand on your front porch and try to stop anyone who tried to break in? And what if you were called a racist for doing so?
What would that be like? If you're not sure, just ask Arizona. They might have a pretty good idea.
Why would the Department of Justice, with President Obama's encouragement, sue the state of Arizona for passing a law that almost exactly mirrors the existing federal immigration law? Why would they make allegations of racial profiling when clearly this law has been written in such a way as to avoid it? Why did disapproving comments come out of the mouths of Nancy Pelosi, the Attorney General, President Obama, and others, admittedly before they had even read the (only 16 page) bill? And why were Americans subjected to the ridiculous and unbelievable hypocrisy of the President of Mexico regarding Arizona's law?
Because it doesn't matter, that's why. It doesn't matter whether this bill is actually racist (it's not). It doesn't matter if it actually violates civil liberties(it doesn't). The truth is not what matters here. What matters is that the charge of RACISM, no matter how false, is out there now, and it has gained the momentum that it was intended to gain. It has created a furor of demonstrations and protests among Americans who don't understand that they are being used as pawns in an age-old political game. It is ironic(and a little sad) that there were protests held recently in Washington D.C. against the Arizona law - but not the existing Federal law that is essentially the same. It was all very silly, and I suspect if those protestors knew any better, they would be mightily embarrassed. Unfortunately, those leading the charge do know better. Misinformation and an uneducated public are powerful political tools. (You can read the Federal law here, and the Arizona law here.)
So what is the true agenda? Well, President Obama has made it clear that his comprehensive immigration reform would include amnesty for those who are currently here illegally. And anyone who disagrees with this policy? Well, that's when those cries of racism come in quite handy, and the stage is already set.
Politics aside, what about compassion for the people living in the midst of such terrible conditions, particularly in Mexico? As bad as it is in Mexico, there are places around the world that are much, much worse. But for the people who live in those countries, coming to America is only possible through legal channels. Why? Because they don't have an unprotected stretch of desert that they can cross under the cover of darkness to get in. For example, how is it fair to people like my friends from the Phillipines, for whom it took twenty years and untold sacrifice to come to the United States (legally), that others can break the law and be given automatic legal status for doing so? Based on what? Geography? Race?
And speaking of the law, it is a dangerous thing to excuse one segment of the population from following the laws of our country. By not enforcing our immigration laws, that is exactly what we are doing.
We would all be up in arms if certain segments of the population were immune from the laws regarding breaking and entering or burglary. What if a particular neighbor was allowed to break into your house over and over again and steal your things, and the police refused to do anything about it? Would you take it upon yourself to put better locks on your doors and guard your property more carefully? Would you stand on your front porch and try to stop anyone who tried to break in? And what if you were called a racist for doing so?
What would that be like? If you're not sure, just ask Arizona. They might have a pretty good idea.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Adam Shepard and Scratch Beginnings
Adam Shepard debunks the myth of the death of the middle class. With only $25 in is pocket and the clothes on his back, he set out in a random American city to see if in one year he could acquire a car, a furnished apartment and $2,500 in savings. His book is next on my reading list!
Free Clinics and Jack Boots: A Delightful Romp Through the Abortion Debate
This is a response I gave to a post on a blog called A Liberal Mormon. The topic was abortion; you can read the original post here and my response as follows:
Wow. I mean, WOW. I find this offensive on so many levels. Let me just explain them one by one:
First, regarding this statement:
"While the nominally pro-life side may zealously defend the sanctity of life at one stage(the pre-natal stage), they often seem strangely indifferent to life once that life has left the womb."
I am the mother of four healthy, happy children and I can tell you that I am in no way indifferent to life once that life has left the womb. In fact, I have given up just about everything to see to it that my children are well cared for: career, money, financial security, professional respect, autonomy, freedom, health, etc. How can you make such a disgusting generalization?
And as for indifference on a wider scale, lest you forget, we do have laws regarding the neglect and abuse of children. We have laws that punish parents who don't properly care for their children. We have laws that punish those who hurt children. We even have laws that punish those who kill children. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that most people who are pro-life support and agree with these laws.
What we don't have is a law that punishes those who kill their own children in the womb; a stage of life that you clearly define as legitimate. I find it ludicrous that one young woman can have an abortion and face no legal consequences, while another young woman who throws her baby in the dumpster right after giving birth is arrested. Tell me, what exactly is the legal difference between those two scenarios, other than time and place?
I also find the following offensive:
"Pro-life shouldn't simply be about forcing expectant mothers to carry their babies to term, but rather about ensuring they have the medical, financial, and emotional support which will help reduce the feelings of desperation and isolation which lead many women to seek abortions."
First of all, your wording reveals a tactic that I am going to call you out on right now:
Based on that first sentence alone, one might imagine a helpless young maiden being marched by jack-booted officers to a skeezy free clinic in which the nurses cackle gleefully as the poor girl screams in agony during childbirth because the disapproving, moralistic medical staff refuses to give her anesthesia of any kind. Give me a break. What is this, a Lifetime movie of the week? Don't manipulate your readers with emotion-based, pseudo-logic. Even though it is effective (because good people are moved by compassion for others, as they should be), it's intellectually unethical, and you know it.
Second, this issue is not about social reforms needed to improve the condition of the poor and the underprivileged. This issue is about one thing, and one thing only. Should we or should we not, as a society, allow a mother (and her doctor) to end the life of her child? All of those other ramblings about lack of medical, financial and emotional support are just distractions to avoid answering the question.
Third, let me just educate you a little bit about feelings of desperation and isolation. Any woman who has spent eight hours (or more) a day at home taking care of small children could write a doctoral dissertation on the subject of desperation and isolation. How much compassion would you have for that same mother if she decided to end the lives of her children because she was poor, depressed and lonely? How much compassion did any of us have for the woman who drowned five of her children in the bathtub several years ago because she was dealing with those very issues? Certainly not enough to pat her on the back, tell her how brave she was, and send her on her way.
Desperation, loneliness, despair; these are characteristic of the human condition and do not justify the practice of human sacrifice. Because that is exactly what we are talking about here. Sacrificing the lives of millions of human beings so that their mothers won't have to struggle. Really? There's no other alternative?
And the most horrifying of all:
"I'd be more inclined to support the efforts of self-described pro-life advocates if they seemed more genuinely interested in “the sanctity of life,” and less interested in punishing those who have sinned."
So, for you, it's not that you think the pro-lifers are wrong, it's just that they're so damned annoying. In reality, if they weren't all such a bunch of crazy religious zealots (again with the broad, inaccurate generalizations) and were more supportive of the social programs that you proscribe, you would gladly stand up and shout out against legalized abortion. But because they aren't, you will make your point by sitting quietly by and allowing, even supporting, an action that is akin to the Holocaust. Horrible.
In the end, the most destructive thing about this post is not the self-serving arguments or the ridiculous stereotyping, but rather the blatant and overreaching assumption about the correlation between a pro-life stance and stances on other completely irrelevant social issues. For such an enlightened, thoughtful blogger, you are very quick to place everyone who is “pro-life” into identical schools of thought regarding such diverse topics as housing, health care, education, the death penalty, and even war. It is for this reason that people on opposite sides of political and social issues rarely make any progress. They are too busy lumping each other into categories that make it easier to justify their own flawed positions.
Wow. I mean, WOW. I find this offensive on so many levels. Let me just explain them one by one:
First, regarding this statement:
"While the nominally pro-life side may zealously defend the sanctity of life at one stage(the pre-natal stage), they often seem strangely indifferent to life once that life has left the womb."
I am the mother of four healthy, happy children and I can tell you that I am in no way indifferent to life once that life has left the womb. In fact, I have given up just about everything to see to it that my children are well cared for: career, money, financial security, professional respect, autonomy, freedom, health, etc. How can you make such a disgusting generalization?
And as for indifference on a wider scale, lest you forget, we do have laws regarding the neglect and abuse of children. We have laws that punish parents who don't properly care for their children. We have laws that punish those who hurt children. We even have laws that punish those who kill children. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that most people who are pro-life support and agree with these laws.
What we don't have is a law that punishes those who kill their own children in the womb; a stage of life that you clearly define as legitimate. I find it ludicrous that one young woman can have an abortion and face no legal consequences, while another young woman who throws her baby in the dumpster right after giving birth is arrested. Tell me, what exactly is the legal difference between those two scenarios, other than time and place?
I also find the following offensive:
"Pro-life shouldn't simply be about forcing expectant mothers to carry their babies to term, but rather about ensuring they have the medical, financial, and emotional support which will help reduce the feelings of desperation and isolation which lead many women to seek abortions."
First of all, your wording reveals a tactic that I am going to call you out on right now:
Based on that first sentence alone, one might imagine a helpless young maiden being marched by jack-booted officers to a skeezy free clinic in which the nurses cackle gleefully as the poor girl screams in agony during childbirth because the disapproving, moralistic medical staff refuses to give her anesthesia of any kind. Give me a break. What is this, a Lifetime movie of the week? Don't manipulate your readers with emotion-based, pseudo-logic. Even though it is effective (because good people are moved by compassion for others, as they should be), it's intellectually unethical, and you know it.
Second, this issue is not about social reforms needed to improve the condition of the poor and the underprivileged. This issue is about one thing, and one thing only. Should we or should we not, as a society, allow a mother (and her doctor) to end the life of her child? All of those other ramblings about lack of medical, financial and emotional support are just distractions to avoid answering the question.
Third, let me just educate you a little bit about feelings of desperation and isolation. Any woman who has spent eight hours (or more) a day at home taking care of small children could write a doctoral dissertation on the subject of desperation and isolation. How much compassion would you have for that same mother if she decided to end the lives of her children because she was poor, depressed and lonely? How much compassion did any of us have for the woman who drowned five of her children in the bathtub several years ago because she was dealing with those very issues? Certainly not enough to pat her on the back, tell her how brave she was, and send her on her way.
Desperation, loneliness, despair; these are characteristic of the human condition and do not justify the practice of human sacrifice. Because that is exactly what we are talking about here. Sacrificing the lives of millions of human beings so that their mothers won't have to struggle. Really? There's no other alternative?
And the most horrifying of all:
"I'd be more inclined to support the efforts of self-described pro-life advocates if they seemed more genuinely interested in “the sanctity of life,” and less interested in punishing those who have sinned."
So, for you, it's not that you think the pro-lifers are wrong, it's just that they're so damned annoying. In reality, if they weren't all such a bunch of crazy religious zealots (again with the broad, inaccurate generalizations) and were more supportive of the social programs that you proscribe, you would gladly stand up and shout out against legalized abortion. But because they aren't, you will make your point by sitting quietly by and allowing, even supporting, an action that is akin to the Holocaust. Horrible.
In the end, the most destructive thing about this post is not the self-serving arguments or the ridiculous stereotyping, but rather the blatant and overreaching assumption about the correlation between a pro-life stance and stances on other completely irrelevant social issues. For such an enlightened, thoughtful blogger, you are very quick to place everyone who is “pro-life” into identical schools of thought regarding such diverse topics as housing, health care, education, the death penalty, and even war. It is for this reason that people on opposite sides of political and social issues rarely make any progress. They are too busy lumping each other into categories that make it easier to justify their own flawed positions.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
The Entitlement Generation
According to Salon.com, there is a new trend burgeoning in the wake of massive unemployment and layoffs in America. Among young, hip, unemployed professional types, the use of SNAP(formerly food stamps) to sustain their very chic, urban “foodie” lifestyles has become an acceptable way of life. The argument goes that buying organic, fresh produce and free range meat is much healthier and therefore less costly in the long run than the processed government subsidized garbage you find on most grocery store shelves. Eating this way is a great way to reduce overall health care costs. It's true. In fact, I think that anyone using the SNAP program should be required to buy fresh, organic food whenever it's available and cook from scratch.
What I have a problem with is that a lot of these “foodies” aren't just buying healthy. They are buying chic, trendy, expensive food. That's right, I said trendy food. It's a whole new style statement. Instead of just shopping in the organic section of the local supermarket, they continue to frequent specialty shops that sell things like artisan breads and gourmet cheeses. I love those stores as well. I think they are wonderful places to shop and they always smell great. But I would never ask other people who are struggling themselves to give me money for groceries and then spend it at places like that, when I could get perfectly good, healthy food for less somewhere else.
Truly, the comments I have read on blogs regarding this topic are astounding. Many people, like me, are incensed at the selfish attitudes of people abusing this program. But others justify it in various ways. Generally the comments ended up falling into the sniveling category of “Don't you judge me!” which is just another way of saying, “yeah, I know I shouldn't be doing it, but I waaant to, and the alternative is too haaard, so I'm going to make you look like a big fat meanie to divert attention from my selfish behavior.”
Obviously, sometimes there is no alternative and people need assistance. Unemployment is incredibly high right now and these government aid programs we have are designed to get people through those rough spots. But they are to be used as a safety net when all other alternatives have been exhausted. And when these programs are used, they are to be used sparingly and with careful consideration so as not to place more of a burden than necessary upon the people who are assisting you. One of the problems that I see is that many of the participants in these programs do not equate the assistance they are receiving with those who are giving it. In their minds, it just comes from a big government entity that has no face or name. In reality, every dime that goes toward the SNAP program and others like it is a dime that comes out of the pockets of hardworking people with families of their own to feed.
Last year was the first time in 15 years of marriage that my husband and I did not qualify for government assistance programs. We finally made enough money for the government to consider us able to care for ourselves with out any help. Whew! We were so relieved! Out of those 15 years (and let me tell you, there were some lean years), do you know how many times we utilized those programs? Zero. Zilch. Nada. And let me tell you why. When we were newlyweds and contemplating our future, we made some decisions about what we wanted to do with our lives and how we wanted to live them. Those choices included graduate school, a large family, and me being a stay-at-home mom. One of the consequences of those choices was (at least for a while) poverty. There were many times when we struggled just to put food on the table and keep our kids in shoes. We lived in crummy little rentals and drove beat-up old cars and grew a garden. Our family vacations consisted of driving seven hours to visit relatives (this was when gas was very cheap), staying gratefully in their home for the duration of the visit, and then driving seven hours home. My kids almost always wore hand-me-downs and I can count on one hand the number of times I have bought clothing for myself at an actual retail clothing store and not at a second-hand store like Goodwill or The Salvation Army(and let me tell you, that was a challenge because I love beautiful, good quality clothes). The thought of getting my nails done, having lunch with friends, or getting an expensive, high quality haircut was just ridiculous. Any books or movies we wanted, we checked out of the public library.
For a long time we lived on my husband's tiny graduate stipend. When we realized that it wasn't going to pay the bills, we didn't get government assistance, but took out student loans which we knew we would have to pay off later. Then there were times when the combination of the stipend and the student loans still wasn't cutting it, so instead of increasing our loans or getting government assistance, my husband took a job over the summer installing air conditioning systems. This was nasty, hot, dirty work involving insulation and backbreaking labor. It was hard, but he did it. There were times when our parents helped us pay for health or car insurance, or when they loaned us money when our beat up old car finally died for good and we needed to buy another beat-up old car to get us around. We used whatever help they gave us gratefully and sparingly and paid back every loan as soon as we could.
Here's the point of this story: At ANY TIME during this long stretch of hardship, had it been too much for us, we could have changed course. In fact, we considered it many times. My husband could have dropped out of Grad school and taken a full time job. I could have gone back to work. We could have limited our procreative choices to one or even two children(we have four). But NEVER would we have expected others, complete strangers no less, to financially support us when we weren't willing to do EVERYTHING in our power to take care of ourselves. This attitude shouldn't be the exception, it should be the rule. This was the attitude of my parents, my grandparents, and my great-parents during the Great Depression. People during that time were actually starving to death, not just being forced to give up brand name clothing and organic roast rabbit with chutney and cranberry sauce.
And lest you think I am blowing this concept of entitlement way out of proportion to prove my point, let me just share a few personal, true-life stories based on real people I have known. A few years ago, when my husband was finally out of school and teaching at a university, we knew several young couples in grad school with small children. One couple was receiving government benefits in the form of WIC, food stamps and reduced housing. They did this so that they wouldn't have to take out student loans and be in debt when they got out of school. Apparently, the taxes being taken out of my husband's already meager paycheck were just the thing to keep them out of debt. Another couple was receiving WIC, food stamps and Medicare. This couple was having as many babies as they could, as fast as they could, because when they were done with school (he was in law school at the time) they would be making far too much money for them to qualify for Medicare and the babies would no longer be “free”. I contemplated this as I gave birth to my fourth child and then payed the doctor for her services. Again, good thing everyone else was paying taxes, or they would have had to wait and pay for their own babies. Both of these couples were friends of ours, and we loved them dearly. But it infuriated me that with our still very limited financial means, we, along with many other hardworking families, were financing these two couples' educations after struggling for so long to be responsible for our own choices.
More recently I was talking with a friend who told me that even though on Medicare, she was having trouble paying for some of her children's health care needs that Medicare doesn't cover. Furthermore, she was complaining about it. She felt that Medicare should be more comprehensive in its coverage. This friend lives in a beautiful new home, drives a very nice SUV, wears clothing that I can't afford, and is currently planning a family vacation that will cost (on the low end) at least $1,500. Also, they are in the process of finishing the basement of their home – not a cheap remodeling project.
My husband and I are also planning to remodel our basement. However, we will have to wait until we have the funds to pay for it. Currently, most of our money is going toward groceries, doctor visits, dental care and other expenses – all paid by us, coincidentally.
These are just people I know personally. But here are some other opinions from various people who feel that living high on government assistance is nothing short of noble and shouldn't be criticized by those of us who are paying for it.
From the Salon.com article titled “Hipsters on Food Stamps”:
"Faced with lingering unemployment, 20- and 30- somethings with college degrees and foodie standards are shaking off the old taboos about who should get government assistance and discovering that government benefits can indeed be used for just about anything edible, including wild-caught fish, organic asparagus and triple-crème cheese."
Well, isn't it great that these young, up and coming, educated professionals are shaking off the old, worn-out taboos surrounding laziness, selfishness, and living off other people's hard work. Good for them!
And here is a comment by a woman who's blog brags about her ability to throw dinner parties (complete with expensive wine), employ a part-time nanny, and buy an Armani jacket on Ebay – at a reduced price, of course – all while using food stamps and WIC. She defends herself against a torrent of criticism by saying the following:
"going on the 'dole' is not a choice. If I had it my way, I would still be making $75K and my husband $150K. But we don't. We make $405 a week for a family of 5. we don't like to eat crap and we happen to like cafe bustelo ($2.99) over folgers ($2.49). we buy blueberries for our kids and freeze them for their pancakes and desserts. We buy quality products because we think long term. We don't milk the system, we thank the system. If you have not been laid off yet, you would not understand."
Again, no problems with the blueberries for the kiddies, but if you are so broke that other people have to support you, don't you think you need to let the nanny go and forgo clothing purchases for a while?
Somehow, our culture has gone from one of hard work, sacrifice, and responsibility to one of handouts, bailouts and entitlement. And it seems to have happened in only a few generations. I would love to hear what my now deceased grandmother (a woman who raised 8 kids on a tiny military salary in an 800 square foot home) would say about people using food stamps to buy Perrier and artisan breads. Most likely it would contain some pretty foul language.
What I have a problem with is that a lot of these “foodies” aren't just buying healthy. They are buying chic, trendy, expensive food. That's right, I said trendy food. It's a whole new style statement. Instead of just shopping in the organic section of the local supermarket, they continue to frequent specialty shops that sell things like artisan breads and gourmet cheeses. I love those stores as well. I think they are wonderful places to shop and they always smell great. But I would never ask other people who are struggling themselves to give me money for groceries and then spend it at places like that, when I could get perfectly good, healthy food for less somewhere else.
Truly, the comments I have read on blogs regarding this topic are astounding. Many people, like me, are incensed at the selfish attitudes of people abusing this program. But others justify it in various ways. Generally the comments ended up falling into the sniveling category of “Don't you judge me!” which is just another way of saying, “yeah, I know I shouldn't be doing it, but I waaant to, and the alternative is too haaard, so I'm going to make you look like a big fat meanie to divert attention from my selfish behavior.”
Obviously, sometimes there is no alternative and people need assistance. Unemployment is incredibly high right now and these government aid programs we have are designed to get people through those rough spots. But they are to be used as a safety net when all other alternatives have been exhausted. And when these programs are used, they are to be used sparingly and with careful consideration so as not to place more of a burden than necessary upon the people who are assisting you. One of the problems that I see is that many of the participants in these programs do not equate the assistance they are receiving with those who are giving it. In their minds, it just comes from a big government entity that has no face or name. In reality, every dime that goes toward the SNAP program and others like it is a dime that comes out of the pockets of hardworking people with families of their own to feed.
Last year was the first time in 15 years of marriage that my husband and I did not qualify for government assistance programs. We finally made enough money for the government to consider us able to care for ourselves with out any help. Whew! We were so relieved! Out of those 15 years (and let me tell you, there were some lean years), do you know how many times we utilized those programs? Zero. Zilch. Nada. And let me tell you why. When we were newlyweds and contemplating our future, we made some decisions about what we wanted to do with our lives and how we wanted to live them. Those choices included graduate school, a large family, and me being a stay-at-home mom. One of the consequences of those choices was (at least for a while) poverty. There were many times when we struggled just to put food on the table and keep our kids in shoes. We lived in crummy little rentals and drove beat-up old cars and grew a garden. Our family vacations consisted of driving seven hours to visit relatives (this was when gas was very cheap), staying gratefully in their home for the duration of the visit, and then driving seven hours home. My kids almost always wore hand-me-downs and I can count on one hand the number of times I have bought clothing for myself at an actual retail clothing store and not at a second-hand store like Goodwill or The Salvation Army(and let me tell you, that was a challenge because I love beautiful, good quality clothes). The thought of getting my nails done, having lunch with friends, or getting an expensive, high quality haircut was just ridiculous. Any books or movies we wanted, we checked out of the public library.
For a long time we lived on my husband's tiny graduate stipend. When we realized that it wasn't going to pay the bills, we didn't get government assistance, but took out student loans which we knew we would have to pay off later. Then there were times when the combination of the stipend and the student loans still wasn't cutting it, so instead of increasing our loans or getting government assistance, my husband took a job over the summer installing air conditioning systems. This was nasty, hot, dirty work involving insulation and backbreaking labor. It was hard, but he did it. There were times when our parents helped us pay for health or car insurance, or when they loaned us money when our beat up old car finally died for good and we needed to buy another beat-up old car to get us around. We used whatever help they gave us gratefully and sparingly and paid back every loan as soon as we could.
Here's the point of this story: At ANY TIME during this long stretch of hardship, had it been too much for us, we could have changed course. In fact, we considered it many times. My husband could have dropped out of Grad school and taken a full time job. I could have gone back to work. We could have limited our procreative choices to one or even two children(we have four). But NEVER would we have expected others, complete strangers no less, to financially support us when we weren't willing to do EVERYTHING in our power to take care of ourselves. This attitude shouldn't be the exception, it should be the rule. This was the attitude of my parents, my grandparents, and my great-parents during the Great Depression. People during that time were actually starving to death, not just being forced to give up brand name clothing and organic roast rabbit with chutney and cranberry sauce.
And lest you think I am blowing this concept of entitlement way out of proportion to prove my point, let me just share a few personal, true-life stories based on real people I have known. A few years ago, when my husband was finally out of school and teaching at a university, we knew several young couples in grad school with small children. One couple was receiving government benefits in the form of WIC, food stamps and reduced housing. They did this so that they wouldn't have to take out student loans and be in debt when they got out of school. Apparently, the taxes being taken out of my husband's already meager paycheck were just the thing to keep them out of debt. Another couple was receiving WIC, food stamps and Medicare. This couple was having as many babies as they could, as fast as they could, because when they were done with school (he was in law school at the time) they would be making far too much money for them to qualify for Medicare and the babies would no longer be “free”. I contemplated this as I gave birth to my fourth child and then payed the doctor for her services. Again, good thing everyone else was paying taxes, or they would have had to wait and pay for their own babies. Both of these couples were friends of ours, and we loved them dearly. But it infuriated me that with our still very limited financial means, we, along with many other hardworking families, were financing these two couples' educations after struggling for so long to be responsible for our own choices.
More recently I was talking with a friend who told me that even though on Medicare, she was having trouble paying for some of her children's health care needs that Medicare doesn't cover. Furthermore, she was complaining about it. She felt that Medicare should be more comprehensive in its coverage. This friend lives in a beautiful new home, drives a very nice SUV, wears clothing that I can't afford, and is currently planning a family vacation that will cost (on the low end) at least $1,500. Also, they are in the process of finishing the basement of their home – not a cheap remodeling project.
My husband and I are also planning to remodel our basement. However, we will have to wait until we have the funds to pay for it. Currently, most of our money is going toward groceries, doctor visits, dental care and other expenses – all paid by us, coincidentally.
These are just people I know personally. But here are some other opinions from various people who feel that living high on government assistance is nothing short of noble and shouldn't be criticized by those of us who are paying for it.
From the Salon.com article titled “Hipsters on Food Stamps”:
"Faced with lingering unemployment, 20- and 30- somethings with college degrees and foodie standards are shaking off the old taboos about who should get government assistance and discovering that government benefits can indeed be used for just about anything edible, including wild-caught fish, organic asparagus and triple-crème cheese."
Well, isn't it great that these young, up and coming, educated professionals are shaking off the old, worn-out taboos surrounding laziness, selfishness, and living off other people's hard work. Good for them!
And here is a comment by a woman who's blog brags about her ability to throw dinner parties (complete with expensive wine), employ a part-time nanny, and buy an Armani jacket on Ebay – at a reduced price, of course – all while using food stamps and WIC. She defends herself against a torrent of criticism by saying the following:
"going on the 'dole' is not a choice. If I had it my way, I would still be making $75K and my husband $150K. But we don't. We make $405 a week for a family of 5. we don't like to eat crap and we happen to like cafe bustelo ($2.99) over folgers ($2.49). we buy blueberries for our kids and freeze them for their pancakes and desserts. We buy quality products because we think long term. We don't milk the system, we thank the system. If you have not been laid off yet, you would not understand."
Again, no problems with the blueberries for the kiddies, but if you are so broke that other people have to support you, don't you think you need to let the nanny go and forgo clothing purchases for a while?
Somehow, our culture has gone from one of hard work, sacrifice, and responsibility to one of handouts, bailouts and entitlement. And it seems to have happened in only a few generations. I would love to hear what my now deceased grandmother (a woman who raised 8 kids on a tiny military salary in an 800 square foot home) would say about people using food stamps to buy Perrier and artisan breads. Most likely it would contain some pretty foul language.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
On Pedophiles and Wolves
A convicted sex offender has moved into our neighborhood. A pedophile. All of the neighbors have been notified. The Bishopric read a prewritten statement in each Sunday School class at church. On Mother's Day, no less. I guess it wasn't something they wanted to wait on. I'm sure after church that day everyone else went home and found the sex offender registry website and looked him up and read what he did, just like me. It was heinous and violent and he did it to his own little daughter. It was almost twenty years ago. He served his time in prison and now he is out and he lives down the street.
The statement by the Bishopric was straightforward and cautious. We were advised to be very careful and protect our children, but also to have compassion and show an example of Christ-like behavior. It was appropriately even-handed, and the responsible position for religious leaders to take in this situation. I knew it was coming ahead of time, because of my position in the Relief Society, but even so, a deep rage surfaced in me with such force that I couldn't hold back my tears; I began to shake uncontrollably and had to leave the room. I wonder who else felt the same.
I also wonder what will change. Something like this certainly creates a ripple through a neighborhood. I don't envision anyone putting up posters with his face on it, like they did in his last neighborhood in California, or throwing bricks through his window with threatening notes tied to them. People here have not yet reached that saturation point. I don't imagine that anything unsavory will happen to him. And I'm sure that those people in the neighborhood without small children at home will show a degree of friendliness toward him, to provide him with some sense of belonging, and that those of us who do have children at home will shun him completely, as we feel we must.
What I really wonder about, though, is not the interaction between us and him. What interests me is what will happen within the us. What attitudes will show themselves. This is the sort of thing that brings out the best and the worst in people. I wonder if those who have always been kind, compassionate, caring people will, in this case, have no compassion. And if those who seem hard-nosed and intolerant of everyone and everything will end up being the ones who offer a hand of friendship. In all honesty, I myself can only seem to feel rage. The compassion that I should feel for someone trying to redeem themselves simply isn't there. I find myself fantasizing about a situation in which he looks at one of my children and gives me the justification I need to take a baseball bat and beat him bloody and senseless in the middle of the street. It's horrible, I know. But again, I can't help but wonder who else feels the same.
I also wonder about those who have already voiced their firm opinion about forgiveness and second chances. What is it about this group that allows them to overlook such horrors and find that compassion that I so obviously lack? I would like to think that it is naivetee on their part as to the unwavering predatory nature of a pedophile, or the fact that they raised their children in the pre-pedophile-rampant eras of the 60s, 70s and even the 80s. But maybe that's not it. Maybe they understand something that I don't. Or maybe I understand something that they don't. I guess we'll never really know.
And what will the character of our community be in 1 year, or 5 years, or even 10 years that it wouldn't have been had this man not moved in next door? What actions will each of us take that will reveal something about ourselves that otherwise would have never surfaced? And the very act of that revealing - will it change the individual? An attitude of compassion or lack thereof might give life to a part of a person's nature that will take them in a different direction entirely. Or it might expose them in some way that will alter who they are because of how others now see them. Like my little mini-meltdown in church after the "big announcement". How did that revelation of my personal feelings affect the people around me and their perception of me? And how will that change the future of our relationships?
Essentially, it isn't so much about the individual, but about the dynamic of the group. What relationships will solidify based on similar reactions and opinions that wouldn't have otherwise? And what divisions might arise because of the differences?
There is a Native American proverb, in which a grandfather explains to his grandson about the two wolves that live inside of him - one good and one evil - that are always fighting for control. The grandson asks, "how do you know which one will win?" to which the grandfather replies, "the wolf that will win is the one that you feed." In this case, which is the evil wolf and which is the good? What if the result of forgiveness and compassion is that another child is abused? What if the result of righteous anger and indignation is that our children learn to hate and be afraid? Is one worse than the other? Will we ever really know?
The statement by the Bishopric was straightforward and cautious. We were advised to be very careful and protect our children, but also to have compassion and show an example of Christ-like behavior. It was appropriately even-handed, and the responsible position for religious leaders to take in this situation. I knew it was coming ahead of time, because of my position in the Relief Society, but even so, a deep rage surfaced in me with such force that I couldn't hold back my tears; I began to shake uncontrollably and had to leave the room. I wonder who else felt the same.
I also wonder what will change. Something like this certainly creates a ripple through a neighborhood. I don't envision anyone putting up posters with his face on it, like they did in his last neighborhood in California, or throwing bricks through his window with threatening notes tied to them. People here have not yet reached that saturation point. I don't imagine that anything unsavory will happen to him. And I'm sure that those people in the neighborhood without small children at home will show a degree of friendliness toward him, to provide him with some sense of belonging, and that those of us who do have children at home will shun him completely, as we feel we must.
What I really wonder about, though, is not the interaction between us and him. What interests me is what will happen within the us. What attitudes will show themselves. This is the sort of thing that brings out the best and the worst in people. I wonder if those who have always been kind, compassionate, caring people will, in this case, have no compassion. And if those who seem hard-nosed and intolerant of everyone and everything will end up being the ones who offer a hand of friendship. In all honesty, I myself can only seem to feel rage. The compassion that I should feel for someone trying to redeem themselves simply isn't there. I find myself fantasizing about a situation in which he looks at one of my children and gives me the justification I need to take a baseball bat and beat him bloody and senseless in the middle of the street. It's horrible, I know. But again, I can't help but wonder who else feels the same.
I also wonder about those who have already voiced their firm opinion about forgiveness and second chances. What is it about this group that allows them to overlook such horrors and find that compassion that I so obviously lack? I would like to think that it is naivetee on their part as to the unwavering predatory nature of a pedophile, or the fact that they raised their children in the pre-pedophile-rampant eras of the 60s, 70s and even the 80s. But maybe that's not it. Maybe they understand something that I don't. Or maybe I understand something that they don't. I guess we'll never really know.
And what will the character of our community be in 1 year, or 5 years, or even 10 years that it wouldn't have been had this man not moved in next door? What actions will each of us take that will reveal something about ourselves that otherwise would have never surfaced? And the very act of that revealing - will it change the individual? An attitude of compassion or lack thereof might give life to a part of a person's nature that will take them in a different direction entirely. Or it might expose them in some way that will alter who they are because of how others now see them. Like my little mini-meltdown in church after the "big announcement". How did that revelation of my personal feelings affect the people around me and their perception of me? And how will that change the future of our relationships?
Essentially, it isn't so much about the individual, but about the dynamic of the group. What relationships will solidify based on similar reactions and opinions that wouldn't have otherwise? And what divisions might arise because of the differences?
There is a Native American proverb, in which a grandfather explains to his grandson about the two wolves that live inside of him - one good and one evil - that are always fighting for control. The grandson asks, "how do you know which one will win?" to which the grandfather replies, "the wolf that will win is the one that you feed." In this case, which is the evil wolf and which is the good? What if the result of forgiveness and compassion is that another child is abused? What if the result of righteous anger and indignation is that our children learn to hate and be afraid? Is one worse than the other? Will we ever really know?
Friday, May 14, 2010
Infant Mortality Rate: Not So Much...
One of the things that makes our lives so complicated is the enormous amount of information that is now available to us, and the inability to sort through and analyze it all. Because of this information overload, we don't always know if what we are reading or hearing on the news is accurate or within the proper context. Unfortunately, people in various positions of power often use this to manipulate our thinking to suit their own purposes. This deception bothers me. A lot. Lying is something that I find particularly reprehensible. Just ask my kids.
So I wanted to address a "fact" that has been used to support the recent passage of a very expensive health care bill in Congress. Here it is: the United States has the highest Infant Mortality Rate of all first world nations. When I heard that, it didn't make sense. The United States, with the most advanced medical technology in the world, has more babies dying every year than countries like North Korea or Zimbabwe? So I decided to do a little research of my own.
This is what I found:
In fact, the United States does have a higher IMR than many other countries; 32 other countries in fact. But the reasons for this have nothing to do with poor health care.
Reporting Differences. Infant Mortality Rates are calculated based on children born alive who die within the first year. This does not include still births. Live births are defined in different countries by different standards. In the United States, babies born at any gestational age, of any size, showing any signs of life (breathing, heartbeat, voluntary movement or crying) are included in the numbers of live births. Some countries only count babies born after a certain gestational age or over a certain weight or displaying only certain signs of life, like breathing. All others are counted as still births, and are not reported in the Infant Mortality Rate, which drives down their numbers.
Better technology in the United States. Yes, I said better technology. One of the biggest factors in the survival of premature babies is the availability of a NICU (Neonatal Intensive Care Unit). The United states has an average of one NICU for every 2,766 births, whereas the United Kingdom has one NICU for every 89,764 births. Japan is one of the only countries that even comes close to the United States, with one NICU for every 3,633 births.
In the United States, a baby born prematurely has a much better chance of being born alive and surviving, even if only for a short time, than any other country in the world. Therefore, more births in the United States will be included in the Infant Mortality numbers than in other country.
Also, the increase in fertility treatments in the United States in the past few years has increased the rate of multiple births (twins, triplets, etc.), which also increases the number of premature births. This is an additional factor that adds to the IMR in the United States.
So, yes, the Infant Mortality Rate in the United States is higher than many other first world countries, but it isn't because we have terrible health care or that people don't have access to it. Keep that in mind the next time you hear a politician, journalist or radio talk show host throwing out a "fact" to support their particular side. It might not be exactly what it seems.
So I wanted to address a "fact" that has been used to support the recent passage of a very expensive health care bill in Congress. Here it is: the United States has the highest Infant Mortality Rate of all first world nations. When I heard that, it didn't make sense. The United States, with the most advanced medical technology in the world, has more babies dying every year than countries like North Korea or Zimbabwe? So I decided to do a little research of my own.
This is what I found:
In fact, the United States does have a higher IMR than many other countries; 32 other countries in fact. But the reasons for this have nothing to do with poor health care.
Reporting Differences. Infant Mortality Rates are calculated based on children born alive who die within the first year. This does not include still births. Live births are defined in different countries by different standards. In the United States, babies born at any gestational age, of any size, showing any signs of life (breathing, heartbeat, voluntary movement or crying) are included in the numbers of live births. Some countries only count babies born after a certain gestational age or over a certain weight or displaying only certain signs of life, like breathing. All others are counted as still births, and are not reported in the Infant Mortality Rate, which drives down their numbers.
Better technology in the United States. Yes, I said better technology. One of the biggest factors in the survival of premature babies is the availability of a NICU (Neonatal Intensive Care Unit). The United states has an average of one NICU for every 2,766 births, whereas the United Kingdom has one NICU for every 89,764 births. Japan is one of the only countries that even comes close to the United States, with one NICU for every 3,633 births.
In the United States, a baby born prematurely has a much better chance of being born alive and surviving, even if only for a short time, than any other country in the world. Therefore, more births in the United States will be included in the Infant Mortality numbers than in other country.
Also, the increase in fertility treatments in the United States in the past few years has increased the rate of multiple births (twins, triplets, etc.), which also increases the number of premature births. This is an additional factor that adds to the IMR in the United States.
So, yes, the Infant Mortality Rate in the United States is higher than many other first world countries, but it isn't because we have terrible health care or that people don't have access to it. Keep that in mind the next time you hear a politician, journalist or radio talk show host throwing out a "fact" to support their particular side. It might not be exactly what it seems.
California's Proposition 8
This is something I wrote a while ago and posted on my family blog. I moved it to this one because it's more in line with what this blog is about. Besides that, it is pretty controversial and won't win me many friends, so in the spirit of philosophical honesty, I thought it would be a good start.
California's Proposition 8
The protests that have been taking place all around the country regarding the passing of Proposition 8 (limiting the definition of marriage to include only one man and one woman) have caused me quite a bit of concern. Here are some of my thoughts on the matter:
Since so many of my dear friends are very involved in (and very angry about) the recent passage of Prop 8 in California, and since so much of that anger is directed at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints(of which I am a devout member) for supporting it, let me just present another side that you may not have considered...First, contrary to what many would like you to believe, this issue has NOTHING to do with hatred or bigotry, at least not from those who have a real grasp of what this issue is about. Anyone who claims to be a devout Christian cannot at the same time promote hatred towards their fellow man(or woman). It would be in direct conflict with one of the most important doctrines of Christ. And the majority of the people who support this amendment are devoutly religious, mostly Christian. The ONLY logical reason to support this amendment is religious, so those who aren't that devout in a specific faith shouldn't particularly care one way or another how marriage is defined.
This issue has everything to do with protection of religious freedom. Marriage is not, and has never been, a state institution. it is a religious ceremony that is only truly significant because it was instituted by God. It has been "adopted" by most governments of the world, over time, as the most efficient way to regulate it's citizens for the purposes of taxes, record keeping, etc. Additionally, in the middle ages in Europe, the church and the state virtually became one, causing the religious ceremony of marriage to be completely intertwined with the function of the State.
Until now, that hasn't been a problem for the majority, because most people agreed on the definition of marriage. And because such attitudes have been held in common for so long, there was no need to address this issue in the law. However, over the past 10 plus years, that status quo has begun to change. Obviously, attitudes have changed on the morality of homosexuality. Because of that, there have been cases in which people who hold a religious belief about a particular issue are being forced, by virtue of anti-discrimination law and the courts, to act in ways that are in direct conflict with what they believe.
If marriage can be defined as two men or two women, how do certain religious leaders avoid being sued for discrimination for refusing to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples? How do individuals avoid certain professional situations that violate their religious beliefs about marriage? What about the fertility doctor who doesn't want to assist a gay couple in having a child because she believes that it is wrong? What about a photographer who would be uncomfortable photographing a wedding between two men?
These situations are becoming more common as the moral status quo changes in our country. This amendment is an attempt to address this issue before it gets to be a terrible, hateful conflict. Unfortunately, because of our inability to be collectively reasonable in our dialogue with each other, that is happening anyway. Right now we are without precedent and are feeling our way in the dark as to how to handle these issues. This amendment is designed to protect people who hold strong religious views about marriage from being forced to do things that go against that belief.
Now, I know that some of you are thinking - So what? That belief is wrong. But before you jump on that bandwagon, stop and think. The whole point of freedom of religion is to protect everyone's right to practice what they believe, even if others don't agree with it. Let's not forget the Salem witch trials. Remember, marriage is, first and foremost, a religious ceremony. Until now, it has been allowed to exist as a state institution for the convenience of the government and the populace. But now that the commonly held beliefs on marriage are being challenged, we have to take it out and examine it and see it for what it really is in order to keep from violating freedom of religion.
You may not understand why people like me feel so strongly about marriage, but the fact that it is such a central part of my religion makes it imperative that my rights to practice that belief the way I see fit are protected.
I know that many of you who read this will probably be angry that I hold this view, and I'm sorry for that. It is not my intention to offend anyone, and the thought of creating a rift between myself and friends who I love and care for deeply causes me great heartache. But I have to be true to what I believe, even if that belief isn't very popular. Let me assure you again - this issue is NOT about hatred, bigotry, intolerance, etc., at least not from my end. It pains me that this issue has become about that instead of being an opportunity to have an intelligent, respectful conversation about how to deal with our differences. Here's hoping that someday we will get to that point...
California's Proposition 8
The protests that have been taking place all around the country regarding the passing of Proposition 8 (limiting the definition of marriage to include only one man and one woman) have caused me quite a bit of concern. Here are some of my thoughts on the matter:
Since so many of my dear friends are very involved in (and very angry about) the recent passage of Prop 8 in California, and since so much of that anger is directed at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints(of which I am a devout member) for supporting it, let me just present another side that you may not have considered...First, contrary to what many would like you to believe, this issue has NOTHING to do with hatred or bigotry, at least not from those who have a real grasp of what this issue is about. Anyone who claims to be a devout Christian cannot at the same time promote hatred towards their fellow man(or woman). It would be in direct conflict with one of the most important doctrines of Christ. And the majority of the people who support this amendment are devoutly religious, mostly Christian. The ONLY logical reason to support this amendment is religious, so those who aren't that devout in a specific faith shouldn't particularly care one way or another how marriage is defined.
This issue has everything to do with protection of religious freedom. Marriage is not, and has never been, a state institution. it is a religious ceremony that is only truly significant because it was instituted by God. It has been "adopted" by most governments of the world, over time, as the most efficient way to regulate it's citizens for the purposes of taxes, record keeping, etc. Additionally, in the middle ages in Europe, the church and the state virtually became one, causing the religious ceremony of marriage to be completely intertwined with the function of the State.
Until now, that hasn't been a problem for the majority, because most people agreed on the definition of marriage. And because such attitudes have been held in common for so long, there was no need to address this issue in the law. However, over the past 10 plus years, that status quo has begun to change. Obviously, attitudes have changed on the morality of homosexuality. Because of that, there have been cases in which people who hold a religious belief about a particular issue are being forced, by virtue of anti-discrimination law and the courts, to act in ways that are in direct conflict with what they believe.
If marriage can be defined as two men or two women, how do certain religious leaders avoid being sued for discrimination for refusing to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples? How do individuals avoid certain professional situations that violate their religious beliefs about marriage? What about the fertility doctor who doesn't want to assist a gay couple in having a child because she believes that it is wrong? What about a photographer who would be uncomfortable photographing a wedding between two men?
These situations are becoming more common as the moral status quo changes in our country. This amendment is an attempt to address this issue before it gets to be a terrible, hateful conflict. Unfortunately, because of our inability to be collectively reasonable in our dialogue with each other, that is happening anyway. Right now we are without precedent and are feeling our way in the dark as to how to handle these issues. This amendment is designed to protect people who hold strong religious views about marriage from being forced to do things that go against that belief.
Now, I know that some of you are thinking - So what? That belief is wrong. But before you jump on that bandwagon, stop and think. The whole point of freedom of religion is to protect everyone's right to practice what they believe, even if others don't agree with it. Let's not forget the Salem witch trials. Remember, marriage is, first and foremost, a religious ceremony. Until now, it has been allowed to exist as a state institution for the convenience of the government and the populace. But now that the commonly held beliefs on marriage are being challenged, we have to take it out and examine it and see it for what it really is in order to keep from violating freedom of religion.
You may not understand why people like me feel so strongly about marriage, but the fact that it is such a central part of my religion makes it imperative that my rights to practice that belief the way I see fit are protected.
I know that many of you who read this will probably be angry that I hold this view, and I'm sorry for that. It is not my intention to offend anyone, and the thought of creating a rift between myself and friends who I love and care for deeply causes me great heartache. But I have to be true to what I believe, even if that belief isn't very popular. Let me assure you again - this issue is NOT about hatred, bigotry, intolerance, etc., at least not from my end. It pains me that this issue has become about that instead of being an opportunity to have an intelligent, respectful conversation about how to deal with our differences. Here's hoping that someday we will get to that point...
The Start of Something
I really should be writing it all down. Maybe someday my children and grandchildren will want to read it. Maybe someone else will want to read it. Who knows? I write in snippets and in stops and starts. It isn't very coherent. I read in bursts. It isn't very consistent. I think deeply about things and I want to have more to think about and a place to put it. I want to have the tenacity to always be reading something and thinking about it, not just devouring it like a beggar at feast. This is the place for it, I think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)