| Domestic violence is never a joke |
[May. 3rd, 2012|06:00 pm] |
On April 29 a minister in North Carolina named Sean Harris spoke to his congregation at Berean Baptist Church about what to do to prevent their children from becoming gay. Since the tape of his advice was posted online, he has made a statement about his comment being misunderstood, and that he's sorry people were offended when they failed to understand his joke.
After listening to the recording, please count me among those who don't recognize a joke in what he said. I have already sent the below message to him, but doubt he will read it.
When someone can't even make a real apology after a mistake this serious, I think it deserves to be public knowledge. Sean Harris, you are now a superb reason for me to stay as far away from Fayetteville, NC, as I possibly can.
(Immediately after I first posted this, I got an automated response to my e-mail from Sean Harris. It linked to a newer response concerning his sermon, which begins by saying that he mis-spoke when he described beating children. It also has a link to his church's official stance toward corporal punishment [which says that striking the fleshy part of the buttocks, without intent to bruise or punish, but to chide is acceptable]. His message also repeats the theme that being tolerant of homosexuality is bad, and speaks about all the horrid, hateful messages he has received since last Sunday. Sorry, Pastor Harris, I don't see you as a victim here.)
Pastor Harris,
You recently spoke, from the pulpit, about punching children if their behavior seemed questionable. The statement seems pretty hard to misinterpret, and is definitely not a joke.
Do you use the pulpit to tell spouses to beat each other up for real or imagined mistakes? That would be despicable, and to offer such advice for the raising of children is even worse.
To compound the error, at various times in their lives most children will explore aspects of their gender identity. This has nothing to do with whether they will be heterosexual, but if you advocate beating a boy who puts on his mother's skirt at the age of 4, you are endorsing child abuse.
I'm a straight man, married to the same woman for more than twenty years, and I don't feel threatened by the presence of gays in the world. Having someone who is supposed to be a moral leader calling for the beating of children? That bothers me a great deal.
Shame on you, Pastor Harris. I hope you will pray on this matter, and that you will find that the Lamb of God had a different message than the one you have put forth. |
|
|
| Pregnant before sexual activity |
[Apr. 16th, 2012|01:10 pm] |
A week or so back I wrote about a bill that had just gone through the Arizona legislature. It was easy to gloss over it as one more bill intended to restrict abortions by forcing extra steps into the process, requiring tests of dubious or nonexistent medical value, and so forth. The subtle detail hidden in the bill was that pregnancy was defined as beginning on the first day of the period the woman might have had before becoming pregnant.
The easy way to look at that detail is that it would effectively say that no abortions could be performed after 18 weeks instead of the 20 the bill appears to set as a restriction.
A number of people have raised the question of how this bill would effect the legal status of IUDs and birth control pills, but I am afraid that there may be even more to this detail.
In other states there are already efforts being made to make a woman responsible for a miscarriage if she had engaged in any behavior that could harm a developing embryo. I'm not sure whether charges were filed in Georgia(?) recently, but a (Republican) DA was at least considering manslaughter charges against a woman who had miscarried at about 7 weeks, based on a rumor that she could have had an alcoholic drink at some point in those seven weeks.
Based on that approach, it could become illegal to serve alcohol to any woman below the age of menopause because she COULD become pregnant within the next several weeks. Even a purity-pledge virgin would be included because she might change her mind and become promiscuous, or be raped.
The definition of "risky behavior" makes this even more disturbing. The kind of brilliant medically informed mind that crafted this legislation is of the same sort that is still mostly convinced that running, riding, or just about any other activity not connected to being pregnant and in the kitchen could harm either a developing embryo or the girl/woman's "female parts." As a result, any girl over the age of about 10 (who could be ready for her first period) through to women ending menopause could be penalized or "protected" in order to make sure no remotely possible pregnancy should be put at risk.
Is this an extreme and absurd extension of the concept? I'd like to think the answer was YES to both, but recently enacted laws in Virginia and the content of this legislation give me a disturbing sense that I am not being either extreme or absurd as far as those legislators are concerned.
I'm just sorry that Jan Brewer is clearly past menopause. I'd dearly love to see a waiter at a state function tell her she couldn't have a glass of wine because of the possibility that she might be pregnant.
Governor Brewer has now signed that piece of legislation into law, so any woman in Arizona can now be regarded as pregnant or potentially pregnant. |
|
|
| Arizona HB 2036--women defined as breeding stock |
[Apr. 3rd, 2012|05:34 pm] |
If you've been watching the recent flood of "pro-life" legislation, and wondering how far the extremists who are driving the neuvo-Republican Party want to go, the Arizona House has just offered a pretty good idea. As an easy-to-miss element in their latest effort to restrict abortions, they want to define life as beginning when the woman starts her last period BEFORE conception. Think about it. Think about it again. Then read this commentary.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/8277-arizona-legislators-trying-to-declare-pregnancy-two-weeks-prior-to-conception
Is the commentary overstating things? Sadly, I don't think it is. We've already seen the threat of prosecutions of women who had a miscarriage, based on assertions that they had engaged in actions that could be injurious to a fetus.
Any woman who aspires to anything beyond being a broodmare between the ages of first menses and end of menopause needs to know about this, and they need to act. As a start, all of the so-called Republicans who have voted for and voiced support for "personhood" and the various other friendly sounding terms beloved of the anti-women wing of that party have to be voted out of office, or recalled, now. Those who are running for office and supporting these positions (yes, this includes all the GOP presidential candidates) must not get our votes.
I can not imagine what form of brain-washing, self-loathing, and self-deception is involved for any woman who supports this lunacy. I can only hope that we will act rationally before we look back to The Handmaid's Tale as a utopian fantasy. |
|
|
| Rico is gone |
[Feb. 21st, 2012|02:06 pm] |
The vet left a couple of minutes ago, carrying the tiny bundle that is all the physical remains of Rico. Being the cat he was, he was stubbornly continuing to go to the sink for water, and he still used the box to the end. He got to sit in a pool of sun this morning, but he wasn't interested in looking out the window, something he usually loved to do. His movements betrayed increasing pain, and even when he was resting there were signs he was often uncomfortable.
Despite all this, he still tried to give us love. Josh kept him company up to the end.
We're fighting the urge to think that we were premature. I am trying not to fear that we waited too long. At least we know he isn't in pain, and he won't suffer the indignity of not being able to reach the sink, or the box. This morning our senior cat, Dawn, seemed unable to recognize him, which scared and confused Rico. Maybe this was another signal that the time had come.
It's over now. We just need to get used to living with a Rico-sized hole in our hearts. |
|
|
| Ave et vale, Rico |
[Feb. 20th, 2012|08:23 pm] |
Six years and fifty weeks ago, tomorrow, I went to the South Shore in Massachusetts to meet a cat who had been saved from his second period in a shelter, one which would have killed him if no one would take him. The woman who adopted him from the first shelter, not a cat person, had turned him back saying he was a "vicious cat."
The shelter records indicate that she made this assertion because she had been cooking chicken (a food he is extraordinarily fond of) and he had been monitoring her every movement from just behind her. She stepped back unexpectedly and landed on him. He got out from under her foot, and reminded her that he was there as many cats will do, by pressing his mouth against her ankle. He didn't break skin or cause any pain, but now he had that "vicious" label.
As a result, he spent six months in a cage, and for that time no one was allowed to even touch him. By the time National Abyssinian Rescue found out about him and got him released to a temporary home, they were concerned as to how well the cat would handle being with people again. Because of the special care we'd given to our first Aby, they asked if we'd at least take a look at this little boy, and decide whether we thought we could help him.
So it was that I arrived at a stranger's home, not sure what to expect. Once inside I saw a cat in the next room, and sat down on the floor. Rico raced over to stand on my lap and touch noses with me. Every bit of body language I knew how to read from him said "Hi! I really LIKE you!"
I spoke with the woman who was fostering him, and called home to describe my perceptions with Editrx. A little later, I returned to New Hampshire with an eager little cat in a carrier on the passenger seat. At our house he had room to run as he never had before, and as construction was finished on the expansion of the house it was Rico who invented the game of jumping from the loft into the kitchen/living room space below it.
He has explored all the sunny windows, enjoyed all the warm spots during cold weather, and been the greeting cat for the house, an often difficult post to maintain given how many of our cats have outgoing, human-oriented personalities. I don't think any visitor to the house has ever failed to remember him. From break of day to late at night, Rico would come by to see what you were doing, and to say "Hi!" again.
After almost seven years of "Hello!" he doesn't want, or know how, to say good-bye.
Tomorrow, with the sun high in the sky, we will say "good-bye" to him, and for him, because it is the last loving thing we can do for him.
Hi, Rico. I love you, too. |
|
|
| The hardest phone call |
[Feb. 20th, 2012|01:02 pm] |
This morning I phoned the vet's office. Based on the vet's schedule, he will come here between noon and one tomorrow to give Rico the only help that is still available.
Rico has been up and down through the weekend. He cheered up after several feedings of chicken, which he adores more than anything (except, of course, more chicken). He has always preferred to drink moving water from the sink than any water that has been in a bowl, and as recently as nine this morning he is still managing to do that. It is increasingly difficult to tempt him to eat more than a bite of anything we've offered in the last day. He's been doing a good job of using the box to pass all the water he's drinking, but that's all that's gone through in a number of days.
In addition, his eyes have been weeping and rheumy, and he seems to have trouble seeing from one. It's hard to see their beautiful green color now, because the pupils are so wide. He's begun acting as though he doesn't feel well, and doesn't want to be touched. Yesterday he was taking pleasure from neck scritches, and Editrx provided those in abundance. We also got minimal, gentle nose touches and head butts, and we treasured them.
Josh, the junior Abyssinian, keeps checking on Rico. While Editrx was napping with Rico yesterday Josh joined in quietly, and I found the two boys curled up being paisley cats, touching each other, behind Editrx's knees. Josh is almost five, and has never been an only Aby. We hope he won't take it out on the other cats.
Please, wish us all well as we try to help him. |
|
|
| Sad cat news |
[Feb. 18th, 2012|10:51 am] |
| [ | Tags | | | cats | ] |
| [ | mood |
| |  sad | ] |
Those of you who know us are aware that we're owned by cats. Our count has been five for the last couple of years. The senior male is a rescue named Rico, an Abyssinian who came to us just a few days short of seven years ago. At that time the minimal records on him placed his age at about three years, but I've always harbored a sense that he was older than that.
He'd had some bad times before he came to us, including six months in quarantine with no one allowed even to touch him. Anyone who has met him knows that he is a terrifically loving cat, who adores contact with people, and who thrives on running, climbing, and pursuit of sunny windows. Despite his diminutive size he has the heart of a lion (as well as beautiful leaf green eyes).
Last year he began to lose weight, and we began giving him extra, private feedings. For some months those helped stabilize things, but then he began to drop weight again. This time, a vet found a lump in his belly, and some testing confirmed an intestinal lymphoma that was reducing his ability to absorb nutrition from what he ate. This is not a form of cancer that is a good candidate for surgical response, and while chemo could extent his life by a few weeks, it would make him feel like a sick cat for the whole time. We've been giving him steroids to reduce inflammation and improve his ability to use the food he eats.
For three months he gave signs of feeling better, and briefly re-gained some weight. Three days ago his borrowed time ran out.
Rico's still with us. As it did two days ago, chicken perked him up amazingly last night, but he can't eat very much. He's less able to move around, but when I sat up this morning he came over to touch noses with me. Josh came and slept with us last night, and I'm glad they spent that time. Josh won't have an easy time as an only Aby.
We can't tell if Rico's in pain, or just weak and fading. The vet has hours till something like 1 this afternoon, when we could leave a message asking him to come over here. So far I think that Rico will be better off if he can quietly slip away, but if he shows signs that he's really hurting, we'll try to help him in the only way we can.
We love him, and we will feel his loss deeply. We're glad we could give him a real home, with all the human love he wanted, and with the space to run and jump to his heart's content.
If you knew him, please take a moment for a kind thought to help him on his way. |
|
|
| What is the true threat to this great nation? |
[Jan. 31st, 2012|09:47 pm] |
For those who read my last posting, concerning legislation before the New Hampshire House, I would like to post a new reply from the same legislator. I am not even going to try to reply to her at this time.
I had no idea that the real problem was that innocent people were being FORCED to realize that there are families that do not have two rich white people two people of different genders at the core. The psychic trauma must be terrible! Imagine if these tender spirits had to also confront the idea that some families have (dare I say it?) just one parent! Nope, far better to have them sit in the back of the bus, using a different name, so they can be ignored more easily.
I despair for the great dream that the founding fathers had, and for the ways in which it is being interpreted.
Unrelated, but today I saw what may be my favorite political bumper sticker of the last year:
Jesus didn't ride an elephant.
-----------------------
[My first name, spelled correctly this time]: The change in law will not affect couples that live together and love each other. The problem is that the issue does not end there. Those who do not agree with gay marriage are losing THIER RIGHTS and being forced to accept a concept that they do not agree with. Churches that refuse to perform same-sex ceremonies are losing their non-profit status, businesses that choose not to do business with gay couples (photographers, inns, etc.) are being sued. Gay Marriage is being taught to KINDERGARTENERS! If you have read "AFTER THE BALL" with Mardston and Kirk, you will realize that America is being manipulated psychologically to accept same sex sexuality. PLEASE! live your life as you want...DO NOT FORCE YOUR CHOICES on those who are Morally opposed to Gay Marriage. We have many gay members in our families...they are accepted and loved. That does not mean that I will promote their sexual choices to vulnerable yound adults and children. I will agree to disagree.
I also recommend "The Marketing of Evil" in America. |
|
|
| Attacks on marriage? |
[Jan. 31st, 2012|12:18 pm] |
I live in New Hampshire, where same-sex marriages were legalized recently. There is now a bill before the state legislature to change this recognition into "civil unions" and I sent a message to a number of my legislators to voice my opposition.
Last night I got two responses from one of these legislators. I'm posting my reply, and below it you can read one of her responses, the slightly more coherent one. I hope the rest of her communications do not read like this one, because this message leads me to doubt her competence to hold office, operate a motor vehicle, or engage in any reasoned discussion.
-------
Ms. Tremblay,
We agree in some respects. Most importantly in that marriages sanctioned by a church have nothing whatsoever to do with government, and that government should never be able to influence what ceremonies are conducted and recognized by any given church, parish, or congregation.
Marriage, as a "SACRED gift," can be hard to pin down. Which version of that sacred gift is the correct one? In the Old Testament there are not only plural and multiple marriages, but also concubines, and the divine order for a prophet to lie with his wife's servant that she might bear him a son further muddies the waters. Religious limits on marriage have changed over time. Priests were allowed, and even encouraged, to marry until the eleventh century (and continued to be married or engaged in long-term relationships on the side for centuries after that, as long as they were quiet about it). I've run across historical references to weddings being conducted for same-sex couples in Europe in the middle ages---not as a common thing, but also not treated as something so extraordinary as to bring out the pitchfork-waving mobs beloved of some films.
The relationship between any married couple and their community of faith must be mutually agreeable among that group of people. No State can influence that.
Marriage is also a purely secular institution. It has an effect on tax filings, insurance, who a hospital can speak with (especially with the HIPAA laws now in place), school contacts, inheritance, and a wide range of other operations of government and daily life. It's something I'm aware of because my wife kept her maiden name when we were married more than twenty years ago, and we sometimes have to verify our status as a married couple.
Trying to establish two versions of secular marriage confuses everyone, especially since "civil union" is a term that is meaningless in some places, and has different meanings in the locations that have tried to define it.
For this last reason, I'd like to ask you to consider the secular institution only. It should either be called "marriage" for all couples, or it should be called "civil union" for all couples, but the legal status for all couples should be the same, and that status should be instantly recognized anywhere the couple might travel.
I believe in the institution of marriage. I am still married to the only wife I will ever have.
I do not think that the institution of marriage is threatened by the marriage of same-sex couples, especially since I know such couples who have been in long-term, monogamous relationships for many years, and who want nothing more than the same things that my wife and I can have without any questions being raised. If marriage is being threatened, it is more at risk from the likes of Mark Sanford, John Ensign, and Newt Gingrich, who have all demonstrated complete contempt for their wives, and for both the sacred and legal aspects of marriage, at the same time that they were lecturing the rest of us on how important marriage is.
Trying to create two versions of state-sanctioned marriage is the problem that HB 474 represents, and that is the problem I had hoped you could help address in the legislature.
Religious sanction is not the issue. What is important is that a same-sex couple who have spent decades in a stable, committed relationship, with the support of families, friends, employers, and even their churches, should be able to be "married" with exactly the same rights and privileges as a man and woman who meet in Las Vegas and make a trip to the Elvis Chapel three hours later to exchange rings.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this matter.
--[my name]
On Jan 30, 2012, at 9:48 PM, Tremblay, Stella wrote:
Mr [my name, spelled wrong]:
Thank you for taking the time to write. Marriage is a SACRED gift that was instituted before ANY Government was formed. A Government that bends to the will of those that are determined to change the sanctity of the "Family" and change "Marriage" to suite their own purposes INSTEAD of the original purpose for which it was intended; will cause the destruction of the Government and its' people. We will NOT prosper; neither will WE survive as a nation. One needs only to study History to see trends repeated. When Nations reject Natural Laws, and families deteriorate, Society on a whole suffers. We see the decay around us today.
All citizens are entitled to "Rights" according to the Bill of Rights. You are allowed "Free Speech", "Bear Arms", "Pursuit of Happiness (Property originally)", etc. Marriage is NOT a "RIGHT". YOU are able to live where you want, with WHOM you want, and Work in both Government and Private Sector jobs. Where are your "Rights" being violated? HB474 is a bill that is very reasonable. In my opinion, civic unions is a compromise that is difficult for me to swallow; however, it is part of the bill. Recognition of marriages that have already taken place is also in the bill. If YOU believe that you are being discriminated against in this country...you are not facing reality. Arabic Nations do NOT allow YOU the freedoms that you enjoy here. I believe that you should have the choice to live as you like, (which you do) but you do NOT have the RIGHT to FORCE your views on those that understand that "Marriage" was sanctified by God between a man and a woman… from the creation of the earth. The Founding Fathers, who pledged their lives, their sacred honor to bring about a "REPUBLIC" form of Government stated that it would only survive and thrive for a MORAL and RELIGIOUS people. I ran as an elected official on Principle. I would rather FEAR GOD than man! I do not change according to the whims of those few that demand their needs met in contrast to what this country was founded on, and to IMPLY their freedoms have been taken! That is a LIE! Please read HB474 in its entirety. It is a fair bill. |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
| |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
baron_elric's journal
angry
thoughtful