Friday, September 20, 2019
Are you feeling like Vonnegut after the debacle'd news of the last few months?
Here's a poem by me to chew on:
The Road to Elsewhere
The highway to ‘hail,
Hail Afghans all here,’
(“Give me your ears…”)
Is paved with good intentions and ‘IUO’s.’
On that yellow ‘book’ road, quran
Men of lairs acclaim allah’s offense…
Come out of your pious lores, you liars.
But over here, we’re First,
We’re all so right, “god’s man”
Of the west wind
Our shocked awe amazes
18 years of twistered god-centered war
“only a little more…”
every precedence tells,
(“You, too …’brutal’?”)
We’re not in Kansas
No more, morals, nor never were. Was?
A last ‘stand’ stammering
In that season—us dogs of Mars and a sheep’s head,
Let’s make pieces with the Muslims,
More mothers slump to that deserted bleeding ground.*
Balmed for All...
Can't we humans get a heart?
Work for peace,
First pub. Fish Food magazine
Thursday, September 19, 2019
TEETER-TOTTER with supposed enemies of the U.S. Use the WALL of DIVISION as a way of sharing and fun!
Governments seek to divide, to separate, to propagandize, to lie, to harm...so tragic. EVERY SINGLE KID, EVERY SINGLE HUMAN IS EQUAL AND OF INHERENT WORTH!
Look at this creative overcoming of that disheartening wall of dividing. TEETER-TOTTERING
"Regardless of which president is in power, San Fratello said that the pop-up "Teeter Totter Wall," was created to "expose the ridiculous-ness" of separating people.
"The artful play structure, which was set up temporarily for 30 minutes on Sunday at the border of Colonia Anapra, a community on the western side of Ciudad Juarez, Mexico and Sunland Park, New Mexico, was supposed to represent whimsy and joy...
"SUNLAND PARK, New Mexico (KTVU) - The unusual sight of children and families laughing and bouncing up and down on neon pink seesaws straddling a steel fence dividing the United States and Mexico appeared to be a direct visual and artistic attack on the Trump Administration's anti-immigration mandates and directives.
"But Virginia San Fratello, an assistant professor of art and design at San Jose State University who lives in Oakland, said the idea for the whimsical teeter-totter was born as a result of the Secure Fence Act of 2006.
"People near Ciudad Juarez, Mexico and Sunland Park, New Mexico bounce on pink seesaws created by Ronald Rael and Viginia San Fratello. June 28, 2019 Photo: Rael San Fratello
People near Ciudad Juarez, Mexico and Sunland Park, New Mexico bounce on pink seesaws created by Ronald Rael and Viginia San Fratello. June 28, 2019 Photo: Rael San Fratello
The act authorized and partially funded nearly 700 miles of fencing along the border. According to government figures, U.S. Customers and Border Protection has spent about $2.4 billion on fencing, gates, roads and infrastructure along the nearly 2,000-mile southwest border from 2007 to 2015.
"This idea came long before Trump," San Frateloo said in a phone interview on Tuesday.
Artists installed seesaws at the border wall so that kids in the U.S. and Mexico could play together. It was designed by architect Ronald Rael.
"Beautiful reminder that we are connected: what happens on one side impacts the other.
🇲🇽 ❤️ 🇺🇸
"Regardless of which president is in power, San Fratello said that the pop-up "Teeter Totter Wall," was created to "expose the ridiculous-ness" of separating people.
"The artful play structure, which was set up temporarily for 30 minutes on Sunday at the border of Colonia Anapra, a community on the western side of Ciudad Juarez, Mexico and Sunland Park, New Mexico, was supposed to represent whimsy and joy, she said.
"But it also represented the ramifications of political yin and yang.
"What happens to someone on one side of the border, affects someone on the other," she said.
"The seesaws, which she co-designed with UC Berkeley architecture professor Ronald Rael -- who is also her husband -- were purposely painted hot pink. That's the color that represents the hundreds of women and girls who have been killed near Ciudad Juarez during a rash of robberies and gang wars since the 1990s.
"Pictures from the scene on Sunday show a girl in pigtails laughing while riding high on the seesaw, a mother smiling and taking selfies with her baby and crowds chatting along the sandy road to watch people from different homelands connect with each other through a fence, fashioned from steel and concrete.
"The teeter-totters were fabricated in Mexico by local craftspeople and installed by a collective called Colectivo Chopeke. On the Mexican side, the gathering of people was mostly spontaneous. A residential neighborhood is located a stone's throw from the fence and families simply walked up to it and started riding.
"Her husband wrote on Instagram: "The wall became a literal fulcrum for U.S. - Mexico relations."
"She and Rael sent up a drone to take video of their efforts, which was tweeted by Mexican actor Mauricio Martinez, bringing international attention to their work. They each posted the video on their Instagram accounts and the story spread far and wide.
READ THE RES
"Martinez tweeted that the seesaws were a "beautiful reminder that we are connected."
In a Ted Talk that he gave, Rael, who teaches a class on "design and activism," described that the architecture as a political statement should be seen as both "satirical" and "serious."
"San Fratello and Rael conceived the idea for the seasaws as far back as 2009, which Rael documented in a book, "Borderwall as Architecture: A Manifesto for the U.S.-Mexico Boundary." But the seesaw was just one of the many ideas they had. The pair pictured building swings on to the fence "so you could literally swing over it," San Fratello said.
"They pictured a library and a burrito shop, with a portion of each building on one side of each country so people could meet halfway inside. They also drew up plans of turning the fence into a massive xylophone, where people on both sides could take turns hitting the metal and making music.
READ the rest at:
Let us think creatively of ways to artistically use the immoral and unjust acts of government to create the opposite--sharing and connecting of ALL HUMANS WHO HAVE EQUAL WORTH AND VALUE.
In the Light,
Saturday, September 7, 2019
I've been on a long philosophical journey for about 68 years, so it could take many pages:-), but I will try and give you the dehydrated, non-fat version:
1. I appear to have been born with a 'why' caught in my throat, unlike my family or anyone else in a Nebraska village; always asking 'why' beginning at about 4, driving my parents tired.
2. Early on beginning about 10, I felt a deep keen moral concern. So I was troubled by the ethical horrors and inconsistencies in our Baptist Christian religion such as when our Sunday school teacher claimed that God had sent bears to maul kids making fun of the prophet Elisha. I countered God would never do such an evil action.
4. As Baptists, we weren't creedal; we strongly opposed Augustine, infant sin, Original Sin, and his other horrific beliefs and dogmas.
BUT then I discovered that most Christian churches did believe those dogmas. As a teen, I read a book from the library on the Creeds and was flabbergasted that anyone would believe such convoluted superstition.
5. As a thinking teen and through my adult years, I never believed Jesus was God, so over the years I've learned that most Christians leaders think I was never a Christian, not even when I was a Baptist youth minister, Bible teacher, later an elder, missions volunteer, etc.
6. At 18-20 I went to the University of Nebraska and Long Beach State, where most of our professors were agnostics, declared atheists or Marxist, almost no Christians. We formally studied philosophy and culture anthropology, philosophy, comparative literature. The ex-moderate fundamentalist encounters the secular world; from no-movies-or-dances religion to hanging out with philosophical beatniks and early hippies. Then I moved to Haight-Ashbury:-)
7. My adult life has been one life long search for what is true.
10 PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWS OF REALITY with my own views at the end:
These are the views of reality that I understand from the views of reality that I've read about from many well-known cosmologists, philosophers, biologists, etc.
Keep in mind that I do think ethics are what define intelligent, self-aware, ethical species. It's my view that all rational, aware, ethical species would oppose dishonesty, rape, slaughter, inequality, etc. and support meticulous honesty, compassion, altruism, bio-concern, etc.
Ethical realities aren't just labels that we place on behavior.
We are living in a universe about 27 billion light-years across, and about 13.7 billion years old. According to cosmologists, the cosmos will last many more billions of years.
What is the inherent or ultimate meaning of this cosmos?
Some human leaders claim it's meaningless, others that they know for sure its exact nature.
#1 All reality came about by cosmic chance. Seemingly the view of the French biologist Jacques Monod in Chance and Necessity, a powerful book I read a few years back, and the view of the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould.
My take on this as an average person: I think this view is possible. I guess given cosmic time even the "laws" of nature, math, reason, life, ethics, consciousness could all blip into existence.
#2 All reality came about by cosmic determinism of meaningless matter and energy which is eternal. Everything is lock step. There are no choices, not for what I supposedly ruminate on having for lunch or whether or not to commit murder or what to choose for my career. Or even whether to read about various views and to post this.
Based on our studying this at university, and for many years since, and many times trying to imagine my "I" as an illusion who is only 'done to' by the cosmos, I think this is one of the least likely views of reality. But the view is very popular these days--sort of an atheistic version of Calvinism/Augustinianism.
#3 All reality came about somehow by a temporary, finite, imperfect, even distorted, expression of the perfect eternal Ideal Forms of Platonism.
I find it intriguing that a minority of thinkers who identify as atheists do think that the Good exists! They are also moral realists.
#4 All reality came about by emergent possibilities in a quantum singularity vacuum or some unknown ultimate reality.
But where did the quantum singularity vacuum come from? Here goes "turtles all the way down."
This view seems to posit an eternal physical reality with no "super" reality 'transcending' it.
Like in #1 humankind is a "fluke," an "accident," a "lucky" break.
#5 All reality came about by an impersonal ultimate reality of cosmic beauty. Scientists such as Albert Einstein stated this was his view, that he thought the impersonal god of Spinoza was true. But this seems similar to a combination of #3 and #4.
However, unlike #2 and #4, the emergent-possibility cosmos isn't meaningless and purposeless, but is filled with meaning.
Interesting, but I doubt it.
#6 All reality is coming about by the everlasting but limited cosmic reality that is becoming. Essential reality is Process influencing matter and energy. This is the view of thinkers such as philosopher and mathematician Alfred Lord Whitehead, philosopher Charles Hartshorne, etc.
This cosmic but limited ultimate reality--God--who is far beyond human understanding works toward changing matter and energy and conscious life such as homo sapiens into increasing patterns and forms of beauty, meaning, and purpose. This is also the view of some Reform Jews.
But where is the evidence for this?
Process thinkers explain that consciousness, reason, ethics, mathematics, natural law, creativity, aesthetics, life itself, etc. are the evidence.
This view is appealing, but most of the technical philosophical explanations are BEYOND me. I'm a relatively average literature teacher (who got born with a "why" in his throat;-)
#7 All reality came about as just one of an infinite number of universes of an infinite multi-verse, the view of some modern cosmologists. What is the ultimate of the multi-verse is unknown or maybe the multiverse itself is ultimate.
Intriguing, but seems too speculative for me. However, I'm not as skeptical as Martin Gardner, one of the co-founders of the modern skeptical movement who wrote a scathing dismissal of this view.
#8 All reality came about by the impersonal Brahma God of Hinduism and some modern New Age leaders such as Ken Wilber with his Integral Theory, and Deepak Chopra, etc. .
The impersonal God Brahma is conducting a cosmic dance in which it forgets its self and dreams into billions of separated forms including in one minor edge of the universes, thinking humans.
But all is illusion. And all events both good and evil are produced by Brahman. That is why Ken Wilber and other such leaders claim that Brahman caused 9//11, causes all murders, all rapes, etc.
Given that I am a human rights worker from way back, for about 55 years, obviously this isn't my cup of philosophical coffee. Also, I still vividly remember as a Gandhi devotee being shocked when a Hindu priest in L.A. tried to persuade me to go to Vietnam to kill (when I was drafted), saying insects are killed all the time in reality.:-(
#9 All reality came about by unknowable factors. Everything beyond and before the Big Bang is such a complete unfathomable mystery that it will probably not ever be solved by finite humans at least not for a very long time.
Allegedly the view of the Mysterians such as Gardner, Penrose, etc.
#10 All reality continually comes about by infinite impersonal reality which never had a beginning. No creator god exists. Some forms of Buddhism (though other forms are theistic).
At this point in my life, I lean toward some view of #3 and #6, though I am open to #1 as a real possibility.
However, maybe, as some famous scientists have emphasized, we finite human primates don't have enough knowledge to even decide this question.
I certainly don't know even how to do calculations to send a rocket into space, let alone know the nature of reality in its astrophysical/cosmological ultimate sense.
However, each moment I exist, I am face with learning, making choices, etc, so by the very nature of being a human primate, I have to live out of one life stance. Even though I have no conclusive "proof," as I've said, ethical truths are a good start.
In the Light,
Thursday, August 15, 2019
From Amnesty International:
"Gökhan Türkmen and Mustafa Yılmaz have been missing since...February 2019...suspected to have been abducted and forcibly disappeared. The authorities have so far been denying that they are being held in official custody."
And "On 29 July four men who had been missing since around the same time resurfaced in detention at the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Ankara Police Headquarters."
"The authorities must promptly investigate to determine the whereabouts of Gökhan Türkmen and Mustafa Yılmaz and urgently inform their families."
Turkey "is bound by the prohibition of committing enforced disappearance under customary international law and other human rights treaties of which it is party, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights."
"Write a letter...email, fax, call or Tweet them.
Mr Abdülhamit Gül
Minister of Justice
06659 Ankara, Turkey
Fax: +90 312 417 71 13
Ambassador Serdar Kiliç
Embassy of the Republic of Turkey
2525 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington DC 20008
Phone: 202 612 6700 | 6701
Fax: 202 612 6744
Contact Form: https://bit.ly/2HZCUZu
Twitter: @SerdarKilic9 @TurkishEmbassy
Salutation: Dear Ambassador,
In the Light of Human Rights, Justice, and Equality,
Thursday, August 1, 2019
This powerful history details a little known part of the Civil War--how Native Americans in Indian Territory responded to the Civil War.
The Cherokee Nation in the Civil War by Clarissa W. Confer is a very tragic narrative beginning with how some Cherokee leaders had adopted a few of the worst social behaviors of European Americans in the early 1900's including enslavement of others, owning at least 4,000 Negro slaves. (Of course, even a few Negroes also owned Negro slaves in the Carolinas and Florida so this wasn't unique to a minority such as the Cherokee.)
A few of the Cherokee became rich despite racism and opposition by White Americans, but then the Cherokee were jettisoned from their lands and homes (along with other 'Civilized Tribes') by President Andrew Jackson and other American leaders.
The national mistreatment officially began with the passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which banished a number of tribes to Indian Territory so Whites could steal their lands, houses, and other things (including gold in Georgia), and forced the tribes onto the Trail of Tears.
The future state of Oklahoma became a dumping ground for unwanted peoples by the Americans, the state name even comes from a Choctaw leader who coined it, meaning “Red People”! Some of the Native Americans, after resisting for a while, eventually tried to appease the American government, thinking that was their only choice, and moved to Indian Territory soon.
But some of the Cherokee continued to resist. Even the resisters were forced out in 1838. Many Cherokee suffered disease, starvation and other horrors on their forced removal, about 3,000 dying on the way. The mostly Scottish John Ross (1/8th Cherokee, 7/8th's White), was one of the Cherokee Nation leaders who severely criticized the Cherokees who had quit resisting the U.S. Law. His 2nd wife was a Delaware Quaker lady, Mary Brian Stapler.
The compromising Cherokee voluntarily moved to Indian Territory earlier. Eventually, some pro-Ross forces murdered 3 of these Cherokee leaders; and Ross supporters justified the murders as following Cherokee Law, that of executing 'traitors.' No one was ever arrested for the murders.
Both pro-treaty and anti-treaty Cherokee owned slaves. John Ross continued to own slaves until one year before his death in 1866. One question is why did Ross continue to own slaves after he married a Delaware Quaker. Was Mary Brian Stapler only culturally a Friend, or wouldn't Ross listen to her abolitionist views?
In the midst of these controversies within the Cherokee Nation, the Civil War started. The Cherokee, including John Ross supported the Confederacy because of the many cases of abusive treatment by the U.S. Furthermore, the Confederate Government made big promises including representation in the Confederate Government!
However, the Confederate leaders failed to follow through on most of their promises. So then some Cherokee for various reasons decided to switch and support the Union. This led to civil war within the Cherokee Nation itself. Native American groups attacked other Native Americans, stole, destroyed property, and slaughtered each other. Pro-Union Cherokee civilians were attacked as they fled north by pro-Confederacy Cherokee.
Union and pro-Confederates burned homes in the Cherokee capital, etc. At least one Union army attacked and killed Native Americans after being told, basically, to kill them all, not take prisoners.
The whole book shows so vividly how evil war is, no matter what its justifications. Again throughout the U.S. and including Indian Territory, both sides violated most moral truths, all of the commandments of 10 Words of the Old Testament, especially slaughter and stealing.
The Cherokee Nation never recovered to its previous achievements, but at least slavery was banned after the end of the war.
Stand Watie (De-ga-ta-ga), the only Cherokee (3/4's Cherokee, 1/4 White), to become a general in the Civil War, continued to fight against the Union, even after Robert E. Lee surrendered in April 9, 1865. Brigadier General Watie kept fighting until June 23, 1865! He was also the only one of the 4 accommodating Cherokee leaders who escaped assassination by the pro-Ross faction of the Cherokee.
Watie served as Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation from 1862 until 1866. (An intriguing historical footnote is that the U.S. Postal Service printed a stamp honoring Watie on June 29th, 1995, 130 years later.)
The compassionate views of Watie's wife, Sarah Caroline (Bell) show that despite the fog and horrors of the war that at least some recognized that war is contrary to compassion and spirituality. She wrote her husband "to be a good man as always" and to maintain a clear conscience before God and others. She was "particularly worried about the effect of wartime conduct on the young men in the armies."
When she heard that her son, Saladin and a nephew had killed a prisoner, she became very upset. "It almost runs me crazy to hear such things....tell my boys to always show mercy as they expect to find God merciful to them." "She worried that because of this early exposure to condoned killing, Saladin would never value human life as should."
page 131, The Cherokee Nation in the Civil War
Book Evaluation: B
For insights into how Quakers eventually became involved with Native Americans in the 19th century read "Quaker Indian Boarding Schools--Facing Our History and Ourselves" by Paula Palmer, October 2016 in the Friends Journal:
In the Light,
Thursday, July 25, 2019
Here's another one of those social-political surveys. I, again, come down as a Left-leaning Libertarian. After answering questions as varied as free market (which I am for; I am against protectionism and against tariffs and against nationalism)
and abortion-on-demand (am against; sometimes conception has tragic elements; then the decision ought to be between the mother and her doctor; politicians of the left and right ought to stay out of the heart-rending decision).
Take the test:
In the Light,
Sunday, July 21, 2019
When I was growing up,
many devout American Christians emphasized
BUT now they EMPHASIZE U.S. FIRST
Others, including refugees,
American Christians' arrogant attitude, lack of concern for the impoverished and persecuted
A large percentage of Americans' actions are now self-centered, group-egotistical, demeaning, harsh, name-calling, lying, uncaring, ungenerous, unkind, etc.
American government leaders, are AGAIN, rejecting the moral truths of great human leaders of the past such as Jesus and,
instead, pursuing very selfish, arrogant realpolitik policies.
Please, every day, stand up and speak truth to Americans.
In the Light,
Wednesday, July 17, 2019
Bulky Pompei’s Pillar
Towers over Yellowstone's River
That rugged brown bluff rears,
Engraved with historic graffiti
With Clark’s signatured
Declaration still writ large
Over 210 years later
Behind Plexiglas for us to gawk,
But Lewis ended it all;
Allegedly he balked;
Still the icy water courses on
Toward the Big Muddy
For all of us,
Finally down to the Gulf,
Each of us a brief tag
Muddled flow of history,
Sparks of consciousness,
Then ashed and gone--
then Dark Energy
Probably many people will find my article objecting to the removal of signatures and images (after 1906) at El Morro Rock National Monument a rather picky criticism over a minor change by the U.S. Government.
(Notice in the following photo where squares of rock have been smoothed, post-1906 signatures or images removed.)
And, besides, don't nearly all of us object to the defacing of homes and businesses by gang graffiti?!
Is there any difference between (possible examples) some young cowboy's branding image in 1911 or the signature by a Great War soldier in 1918 or the scrawled name by a young teen when his folks stopped here on their southwestern vacation in 1921
the signatures of a famous Spanish conquistador such as Don Juan de Ornate in 1605, or Western Explorers, or U.S. soldiers including a future Confederate leader, Breckenridge, or by Sarah Fox, a Wagon Train 12-year-old girl in 1858?
Well, yes and no.
I suppose given the nature of human beings, our sense of ethics, order, art and history and public knowledge that governments often need to make somewhat arbitrary judgments when it comes to its public places.
There are reasons given, some of them valid, some invalid, some inconsequential. For instance, consider the legality and illegality on a different topic. In the 1970's, the U.S. Government suddenly instituted the 55 mile an hour speed limit on the nation's highways. This occurred and remained in effect for over 20 years. Various reasons were given for the ruling including as a way of dealing with the 70's oil price hikes of Middle Eastern Nations and as a way to reduce auto accidents, in other words a way of safety.
Yet the federal law was repealed by Congress in 1995. Now on my recent trips, I regularly not only encountered speed allowances of 75 on major Interstates, there were also ones of even 80 miles per hour in Nevada and Utah, and 75 on narrow county roads in Texas! Etc.
Indeed, the nuances and bases of legality versus illegality vary from time to time depending on which facts are valued the most. And the rules of governments don't necessarily reflect moral truth or even good sense.
But one objection to graffiti is that it is crass, intrusive, and defacing.
graffiti: "usually unauthorized writing or drawing on a public surface"
etymology: "1851, "ancient wall inscriptions found in the ruins of Pompeii," from Italian graffiti, plural of graffito "a scribbling," a diminutive formation from graffio "a scratch or scribble," from graffiare "to scribble," ultimately from Greek graphein "to scratch, draw, write" (see -graphy). They are found in many ancient places, but the habit was especially popular among the Romans. Sense extended 1877 to recently made crude drawings and scribbling in public places."
However, as the etymology of the very word states, this sort of human activity has been going on for thousands of years. Indeed, archaeologists have discovered Roman soldiers' graffiti in Jerusalem from the time of Jesus and saved it, protected as worthy for public history!
And, it's not like that Onate's markings, those of the a Spanish conquistador and Governor of New Mexico, were significantly different than those of ancient Roman soldiers or even of modern at-risk youths carving their names or images or group identities into public places.
Notice in his signature that Onate carved right over an ancient Native American petrogyph!
Yet he could have signed his name anywhere on thousands of acres of blank massive rock.
Why did he deface the historical Native American's image?
Most likely because he didn't think that Native American images were important. As a Spanish leader he would have thought that Native Americans themselves were insignificant. He might have even done it intentionally to establish his territorial claim, like a male cat leaving his mark.
After all, Onate was an invader. And he brought a thousand Mexicans to settle this confiscated land that actually belonged to the Pueblo Native Americans and had for centuries before he and other Spaniards had conquered it.
Stacia Spragg, Associated Presss
What of some of the other actual signatures, unlike Onate's that didn't ride herd over ancient art?
Are they in their own way worthy to be considered art, more than mere doodling?
Yes, some of the inscriptions at El Morro Rock are very elegant and beautiful such as E. Pen Long's, true works of art.
But other old markings at El Morro are unclear, even some may have been idle scratches or hastily marked territory claims no different than disdained modern graffiti.
I still remember one day after a day of teaching students, discovering WP carved into one of my classroom's wood book cases in Santa Maria, California. I was not a happy educator at the time, though even then, I realized the seeming innate need of human beings to leave their mark.
Here is a nuanced view of a professor of anthropology:
Should the National Parks repeal its prohibition of new inscriptions?
"Doing so might revive a more vibrant, living kind of history at the monument, a history in which we participate as active agents, an open-ended history that is not yet finished or determined. Visitors might even glean a more authentic understanding of the experiences of those who passed by this very same place long ago.(28)
"And who is to say that the name of someone who died 300 years ago is more important than my name, or my child's?
"Allowing new inscriptions would certainly result in the loss of older ones (the monument receives 35,000 visitors a year), but such loss happened in the past, is inevitable in the future, and could be mitigated through documentation.
"So what policies and practices would I recommend instead? First of all, I am not suggesting that the park service repeal its prohibition of new inscriptions.
"Still, the prohibition makes sense to me, and I am glad that we can still see all those engravings from the past. Not only are the inscriptions interesting, they can teach us something about people who came before us and the history of the Southwest.
"Happily, the park service has provided two boulders outside of the visitor center and a sign that reads, "Carve your initials on this typical piece of local sandstone, if you must—but please remember: it is against the law to carve anything on Inscription Rock itself!"(29) Visitors can also "inscribe" their names in the monument's registry.”
from History, Preservation, and Power at El Morro National Monument: Toward a Self-Reflexive Interpretive Practice
by Thomas H. Guthrie, Assistant Professor of Anthropology at Guilford College in Greensboro, North Carolina.
I didn't see the 2 boulders at the visitor center where anyone can inscribe their names.
But if that is still true, it is an excellent example of what the Park Service ought to do, ought to keep doing.
Providing an alternative for present day inscribing, as the professor Guthrie emphasizes, is not only a positive alternative to the negative of prohibition of Federal law, it creates new history for future visitors.
Consider how, especially, teens might not be enthralled most history, by some long-ago Spanish conquistador called Onate, but they might find identity with a teen from their own city who had carved his or her name 50 years before in 2019!
We live briefly in this stream of conscious history, then we die. Hopefully, we can leave behind memorable actions and creations.
But how important are even mere scratchings of the least important human being.
In the Light,
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
Part 2: El Morro Rock: ERASING HISTORY-- About the Take-Downs of Some Monuments and Sites, Wrong! And Alternatives
When are the remains of history valid?
When is it ever correct to take down the memorials, monuments, statues, markings, etc. of past humans?
WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES?
This article is about the intriguing action of the U.S. Government at El Morro Rock.
Here on this imposing monolith in Northern New Mexico, thousands of humans for a few hundred years have inscribed images and/or their names.
(It is one of the most fascinating of National Monuments to visit, as I did a week ago.)
There are engraved names and images from Native Americans, Spanish explorers, U.S. Military troops, Wagon Train emigrants, railroad workers, and so forth.
An early marking was done by Provincial Governor Don Juan de Ornate, "Pasa por aqui..." (Passed by here the Governor Don Juan de Orante, from the discovery of the Sea of the South on the 16th of April, 1605). He had visited the site earlier in 1598 when he and 1,000 Mexican settlers came to the area. Ornate named the site Agua de la Pena (Water of the Rock).
Unfortunately, his 'graffiti' partially covers one prehistoric Native American petroglyph!
A pool of water is what first drew Native Americans here hundreds of years before Ornate. They founded a village atop El Morro Rock in about 1275 C.E. until droughts came in sometime in the 1300's.
The water comes from rain and snow melt, and when the pond is full can have as much as 200,000 gallons of water! However, this isn't a spring so can easily become shallow and polluted.
But it is the only water source for 30 miles.
A preteen, Sarah Fox, a member of a westward wagon train, scratched her name here in 1858.
Look carefully because her name is difficult to read. Her name is right above the CA in the lower left of the photo. Later at the Colorado River, their wagon train was attacked by Mohave Native Americans, and she was shot with an arrow, but she survived.
But if teens (or adults) after 1906 carve their names or images, they are guilty of a violation of U.S. Law.
The sign states: "It is unlawful to mark...El Morro Rock."
A U.S. Army leader, P. Gimer Breckinridge came here twice. The first time was with Army camels; the 2nd time he signed on El Morro. Later he would become a leader in the Confederate Army during the Civil War.
Will the U.S. Government or some local government eliminate his signature from the historic rock because he resigned from the U.S. Army (like thousands of other U.S. soldiers and Navy sailors and many West Point graduates) and enlisted in the Confederacy?
WILL BRECKINRIDGE BE ELIMINATED LIKE ROBERT E. LEE, STONEWALL JACKSON, AND OTHERS?
What concerns me in this article is the judgment by the U.S. Government to adopt 1906 as the defining date for judging names and other markings as either valued historical creations TO BE SAVED
or vandalism that was then
TO BE ELIMINATED.
IN THE EARLY 1920'S, EVON Z. VOGT, A RAMAH RANCHER AND AMATEUR HISTORIAN BECAME THE FIRST CUSTODIAN OF EL MORRO ROCK IN 1916. HE DECIDED IN THE 1920'S TO ERASE ALL MARKINGS ON EL MORRO ROCK AFTER 1906 AS INVALID.
PROBABLY, VOGT MEANT WELL, WAS ATTEMPTING TO PRESERVE THE PAST OF HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO FROM THE MORE RECENT PAST.
HOWEVER WHY WAS PRETEEN SALLY FOX'S SIGNATURE VALID BUT A TEEN'S FROM 1907 OR LATER NOT VALID OR WORTHY?
WHY ARE ANY LATER ADDITIONS VIOLATIONS OF U.S. LAW, BAD ILLEGAL ACTIONS?
Let's deal with a few background philosophical assumptions related to the issue of when if ever public displays of the historical past ought to be eliminated.
Don't the removers (the governments, the defacers, vandals, politically-correct, and so forth) realize that when they do the take-downs, they erase public history (for millions the only history they know, since only a small minority of humans are avid book readers of history)!?
Well, of course, for those, the erasers, that almost always is exactly the point.
They want to revise history, to present to all humans their own distorted version of human history, eliminate the humans of the past with whom they disagree and strongly oppose.
In this blog, I've already explained in past posts why I think it is very wrong that the U.S. Government, and local governments such as Dallas and Baltimore and Virginia have been taking down statues of Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, memorials for soldiers, etc.
I oppose the take-downs because I was an American literature-history teacher for many years.
The reason I oppose their removal isn't because I agree with Lee, or Jackson, etc. because I don't. They were both fatalists, both supported slavery, both participated in the slaughter of at least 700,000 humans, the wounding and suffering of millions, the theft and destruction of billions of dollars of land, housing, and personal possessions.
HOWEVER, if the government thinks that their statues and memorials and street names should no longer exist, then to be consistent and fair, they ought to also take down the statues, memorials, street names, etc. to Abraham Lincoln,
to George Washington,
eliminate the State Flag of California--The Bear Flag, and so forth.
For the vast majority of Americans were as guilty, often more guilty, of racism, enslavement, slaughter than Lee or Jackson. HECK, 12 PRESIDENTS OF THE U.S. OWNED SLAVES IN THEIR LIFETIMES, 8 WHILE SERVING AS PRESIDENT.
George Washington owned slaves all of his life, didn't free them until his death.
THOMAS JEFFERSON, THOUGH PHILOSOPHICALLY OPPOSED TO SLAVERY AS WRONG, NEVER FREED HIS SLAVES.
THOUGH ABRAHAM LINCOLN PERSONALLY OPPOSED SLAVERY, AS PRESIDENT HE SUPPORTED THE ENSLAVEMENT OF NEGROES IN THE UNION UNTIL NEAR THE END OF THE CIVIL WAR!
LINCOLN EVEN DEFENDED A SLAVE OWNER IN COURT EARLIER IN HIS CAREER. AND HIS EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION APPLIED ONLY TO SLAVES IN THE CONFEDERACY.
"...Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a military measure, it didn’t apply to border slave states like Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, all of which were loyal to the Union. Lincoln also exempted selected areas of the Confederacy that had already come under Union control in hopes of gaining the loyalty of whites in those states. In practice, then, the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t immediately free a single slave, as the only places it applied were places where the federal government had no control—the Southern states currently fighting against the Union."
LINCOLN STATED NEGROES WERE INFERIOR TO WHITES, NOT THEIR EQUALS: September 18, 1858, "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men."
I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. [Continued laughter and applause.]"
Lincoln. also, wanted all Negroes to go back to Africa or some other country! Even as late as 1863, the Lincoln Administration tried to get ex-slaves to move to British Honduras!
SO OUGHT WASHINGTON'S, JEFFERSON'S, LINCOLN'S MONUMENTS BE TAKEN DOWN?
STATUES, MARKINGS, STREET NAMES, ETC. OF PAST HUMANS--BOTH THE GOOD AND THE BAD, AND THE IN BETWEEN (PARTIALLY GOOD, PARTIALLY BAD)--OUGHT TO BE PRESERVED!
What ought we do about the memorials of previous leaders who held immoral and unjust views and who committed evil actions?
How ought worthy historical markings be separated from the markings of vandals?
To Be Continued--
In the Light,
Friday, June 28, 2019
Enjoying the summer weather of down-to-earth-30’s&40’s, hail, snow, heavy rains, etc. Here’s a photo of us on a warmer day:-)
I call our 5-week personal discovery of the Great Lakes, the American Lower Middle Heartland, etc.
the Stormy Exploration.
We loved our long vacation of exploring lighthouses, historic sites, and quilting stores, but sunny it was NOT.
Never before have we not seen the sun for weeks in our travels.
Heck, we've gone to Northwest (Portland, Seattle, Idaho for the Total Eclipse) several times in the last few years and, surprisingly, always encountered warm cloudless days!
And gone on trips including the Outer Banks, Georgia, Florida, etc. in September but only encountered a short tropical storm in the Outer Banks. The rest was warm sun all the way.
BUT the Great Lakes excursion was something else! STORMY TRIP NUMERO UNO
Driving across Colorado, I ran into a snow storm in the 3rd week of May before I even got to the high Rockies. Ironically, when I reached Loveland Pass, the sun actually peaked out of the clouds for an hour or so, the only sun I would see in for weeks.
In eastern Colorado and western Kansas, I had to knuckle down on my Ram's steering wheel battling against 30-40 knot cross winds. On the scary side, but I rolled on figuring I would stay on the highway as long as the semi's did. (However, later, when cross winds got worse, semi's kept being pushed out of their lanes. One semi in front of me was pushed out of its lane onto the shoulder by the harsh winds 4 times in a block and a half. Much of the time I, therefore avoided, passing the huge trucks, realizing to a scary degree the danger.
Then in central Kansas, I encountered a huge lightning storm--glaring lightning above me, and to both sides. And rain, of course.
In a humorous mood, I texted my sweetheart (who was going to fly into K.C. to be picked up) that it was just me and Toto crossing Kansas. BUT THEN I got a critical text on my phone from the U.S. Weather Service warning us to seek shelter because of severe weather including that 2 tornadoes had touched down in our area!
The Severe Weather Warning said the worst area was between road posts 195 and 204. You can believe your eyes that I quickly started reading the posts in the rain as I passed.
When I saw that the next post was 205, I breathed a sigh of relief.
Tragically, however, while I was having an adventure, many others weren't. That week houses were wrecked, a few people died, rivers overflowed including the Missouri along the South Dakota-Iowa-Nebraska borders, flooding homes and farm fields.
By the time I got to K.C., and then Missouri it was raining cats and hippos.
And when it wasn't it was overcast and grim. By the time, I picked my wife up and we drove into Illinois, it finally stopped raining for a couple of days, but the heavy overcast remained with sweltering humidity that melted us like the wicked witch of the east in The Wizard of Oz.
Then when we got to the Great Lakes and the temperatures dropped into the 30's and 40's, mainly caused by a very icy wind blowing out of the great North.
And it rained off and on. When we reached the border between Upper Michigan/Wisconsin and Minnesota, it hailed and rained cats and hippos again!
When we got back to Iowa, the Interstate 29 was closed down the Iowa-Nebraska border for at least 70 miles because of the Missouri flooding. So, like many places all across the center of the U.S., there were road closures and detours.
Everywhere creeks were flooding, fields drenched in shallow ponds covering large parts of them.
Finally, after 4 weeks of climate change, when we got back to K.C., visited the Zoo, the weather turned hot and sunny.
And I encountered plenty of sunny weather when I got to Oklahoma...
To be continued (all about the history sites I visited)
Tuesday, May 14, 2019
“Am I committed to any ‘truth’ so deeply that I am willing to die for it, and willing to live moment-by-moment,
hour-by-hour, year-by-year for that truth, until my death?
How does one find what is the Good, the True, the Just, the Beautiful?
How does any individual discover whether a philosophical, moral, or political claim is genuine, is true,
is an accurate reality
mass delusion, or
At 72 years of age, now, I look back…
hour-by-hour, year-by-year for that truth, until my death?
How does one find what is the Good, the True, the Just, the Beautiful?
How does any individual discover whether a philosophical, moral, or political claim is genuine, is true,
is an accurate reality
mass delusion, or
At 72 years of age, now, I look back…
Friday, May 10, 2019
At this contentious time of physical and verbal harm,
this reflection is surely needed:
3 Ought Not Fight
Disking the rock strewn
Objected earth near Jerusalem,
Underneath the Middle Eastern sky
Rows of mean earth riven by the blades,
We cut away our anger, hate, and pride,
Stopping to drink, not from the liquor
Of fanatic corruption but from
The precious water welling up,
Our oasis of Jacob'd sharing,
In this Ramadan season
Months before Christ's birth
We three sons of Abraham,
Muslim, Jew, and Christian,
Ought to fight the true battle
Not each other,
Not with weapons of harm
To be found worthy
First pub. in
Saturday, May 4, 2019
“The sense of spiritual relief which comes from rejecting the idea of God as a
superhuman being is enormous.”
Julian Huxley, Religion Without Revelation
THAT'S one story.
HERE'S several others: The human species is "chemical scum;"
all humans are "biochemical puppets;"
all humans are "in essence, evil,"
all humans' sense of themselves is an illusion, etc.
And contrary ones such as: The human species is amazing in its abilities, achievements, and wonder--
that this one form of primate has become rationally, scientifically,
morally, and transcendentally aware,
is capable of creative choice and
has decoded the human genome, sent probes to the edge of our solar system,
has become aware or human rights, justice, and altruism
and creates aesthetics and music, and so many other positive, emotionally
and rationally new creations!
Astrophysicist Joel R. Primack and Nancy Ellen Abrams wrote in their humanistic astrophysics and meaning book, The View from the Center of the Universe that human thinkers need to come up with a new meta-story for the human species that is neither superstitious (old religious myth) nor nihilistic (some philosophers' and scientists' claims--see examples above).
WHAT IS THE TRUE NATURE OF REALITY?
Andrew Greeley, an American sociologist, writer, and liberal Roman Catholic wrote:
Anthropologist Clifford Geertz "...thinks of religion as a set of symbols which provide man a “meaning system” that can answer his fundamental problems about the interpretability of the universe. The “templates” which guide the behavior of animals are for the most part provided by innate instincts, but man has rather few instincts
and is capable of surviving in the world not because he is endowed with an elaborate system of instincts but because he is able to evolve culture; that is to say, a series of meaning systems with which he can interpret and organize his life."
"Man’s religion is the most fundamental of his meaning systems because it is one which provides answer to the most puzzling and basic questions about the meaning of existence itself...
Most of us need, at least implicitly, some sort of rough and ready answers to questions of whether
life has meaning,
of whether good triumphs over evil; or evil, good;
of how the good man lives;
of whether the really real is malign or gracious;
and of whether man is capable of establishing relationships with the real.
Our religious symbols contain, frequently in highly poetic form, the ultimate meaning system or interpretive scheme
which we use to cope with these questions."
And in another book by science and meaning, writer Nancy Ellen Abrams explains:
"The clear goal of my book, stated from the start, is to present a scientifically impeccable yet personally empowering way to think about God in the modern age.
"An emergent phenomenon is not the sum-total of a collective – it’s something radically and unpredictably new that arises from the collective by the laws of nature. Each of us, for example, is made of trillions of cells, but we are not just the sum-total of those cells, or we would be a large and slobbering mass of unconsciousness."
Yes, we exist only because of our cells, but what has over the course of evolution emerged from the complexity of those cells’ interactions is a human being – a complicated, self-conscious, feeling, acting, intellectually curious, potentially spiritual being that far outlasts all its individual cells and is in no sense in the image of a cell."
[Negative secular thinkers] "are out there giving popular talks where they cynically condemn our universe as “the worst of all possible universes” simply because of something that may (or may not) happen in billions of years; or they describe the heavy atoms cooked up in stars, which we and Earth are made of, as the “waste products of supernovae” when they could just as accurately and certainly more inspirationally call those atoms “stardust.”
So true. Abrams shows that the facts of the existence are the same, but how one understands the facts makes a huge difference. Some human thinkers view them very negatively from an anti-humanistic life stance, while others do the opposite.
Contrast the positive life outlook of science writer Carl Sagan when he wrote that humans are made of "star dust," to those naysayers, nihilistic thinkers who claim that all humans are "chemical scum,"
"waste products," "biochemical puppets," etc.
Abrams gives an example:
"There is nothing uncomfortable about dark energy but thinking makes it so. Once we accept that dark matter and dark energy account for 95% of our one-and-only universe, our spiritual challenge is to discover the comfort in them – and there’s plenty, because we owe them everything.
Without dark matter and dark energy we would never have existed. For billions of years dark matter has been pulling atoms together while dark energy flings space apart. Their interaction with each other has spun the galaxies into being, thus creating the only possible homes for the evolution of planets and life."
"The way our species as a whole is behaving today is unsustainable and even self-destructive in the long term. Bronze Age ideas about God are a big part of the problem, not only for believers but for atheists...who still see their job as opposing those old ideas rather than transcending them."
"But [creedal religious] belief and atheism are no longer the only options.
We are living in an amazing time when the new cosmology is teaching us not only what kind of universe we live in but how to open our minds to the cosmic deep time
from which we emerged and the cosmically long term future our descendants could have."
"Atheism is a reasonable reaction to the many impossible notions of God, but it cannot be the final stage of our understanding if we humans want to rise to our full potential and cooperatively confront the global problems that threaten us all."
A God That Could Be Real by Nancy Ellen Abrams
SEEK WHAT IS TRUE. CREATE HUMAN STORIES THAT ALIGN WITH SCIENCE, ONES WHICH CAN INSPIRE US TO NEW DEPTHS OF PURPOSE.
Tuesday, April 23, 2019
“God and King,” “The Sun Never Sets on the British Empire,” “Gott mi tuns” (on every German soldier' belt buckle-“God with us”)
“Holy Mother Russia,”
“God bless U.S.”
“Make America Great Again,”
“Change We Can Believe In”
"Allahu Akbar!" (“Allah is Greater!”)
“In this Sign, Conquer.”
So many idolatrous mottoes by human nations bent upon imposing their particular society on all others, declaring their particular nation is the only numero uno!
And endless subgroups of religion, politics, and ideology
Republican vs. Democrat
Capitalist vs. Marxist
Christian vs. Muslim
Hindu vs. Buddhist....
Notice, they all tend toward egocentric identities!
Power, Money, War, and In-Groupness.
According to the American theologian and social critic, Reinhold Niebuhr, all of us humans
have the tendency individually to behave less moral than each of us ought to do.
But more importantly, the central key focus and thesis of his book, Moral Man and Immoral Society
that generally every nation-society of humans will act even more immoral than individuals within each nation.
(He later wrote that his book ought to have been, 'immoral men, and even more immoral nations'.)
This tragedy happens because of of all human nations have group-egos.
History does seem to show that any given human society will tend to be more immoral and more unjust than some of its citizens.
The analogy would be like a bit of dye dropped into a glass of water. It quickly stains-discolors the whole glass of water even if only a very tiny bit of dye has been added.
Possibly, a nation could be morally better than its individual citizens, but it’s not likely. And it hasn’t happened in known history.
Here are a few more examples of the tendency toward ethnocentrism in history:
“Nobiscum Deus in Latin, Μεθ᾽ἡμων ὁ Θεός (Meth himon o theos) in Greek, was a battle cry of the late Roman Empire and of the Eastern Roman Empire. It is also a popular hymn of the Eastern Orthodox Church, sung during the service of Great Compline (Μεγα Αποδειπνον). The Church Slavonic translation is Съ Hами Богъ (S Nami Bog).”
“It was used for the first time in Germany by the Teutonic Order. In the 17th century, the phrase Gott mit uns was used as a 'field word', a means of recognition akin to a password, by the army of Gustavus Adolphus at the battles of Breitenfeld (1631), Lützen (1632) and Wittstock (1636) in the Thirty Years' War."
“In 1701, Frederick I of Prussia changed his coat of arms as Prince-Elector of Brandenburg. The electoral scepter had its own shield under the electoral cap. Below, the motto Gott mit uns appeared on the pedestal.”
It is shocking that in the 21st century, many nations are now turning back to autocratic, egocentric forms of governments.
Nationalism like what caused the cataclysm of the Great War at the beginning of the 20th century is back!
Let us work to counter this dire change for the worse.
Saturday, April 20, 2019
The following points appear to be the sort of reasonings for gay marriage that individuals such as Peter and Chasten hold toward marriage versus the contrary views of "the Mike Pences of the world" (Peter's phrase):
#1 While it isn't wise to abandon or jettison one of the central moral codes of the last 4,000 years, when new information,
new insights, new intuitions, new experiences call into question one of the tenets,
it is very important that we listen, think, dialog and if warranted,
CHANGE our minds.
According to statistics, about 5% to 11% of Americans aren't exclusively heterosexual. The numbers vary according to how one deals with the issues. For instance, about 8 million, 3.5% "identify as LGBT." But about 11% "acknowledge at least some same-sexual attraction."
When all of the numbers are crunched, at least 19 million to 25.6 million aren't only opposite sexual in orientation.
Those millions of same sexual human beings are equal to other humans, have the same inherent worth, have the same human rights, are just as precious as those humans who judge them as morally wrong.
WHY SHOULD THEY BE EXCLUDED FROM MARRIAGE because of the dominant ancient moral code?
Of course, Christians, Muslims, and Jews answer that the reason is the same as why robbers, molesters, polygamists, etc. ought to be excluded from various rights: same sexual relations, like the other moral violations, is contrary to what is true and same sexuality is harmful, degenerate, and an abomination similar to other 'gross' actions.
NOW NOTICE HERE: THIS IS WHERE THE CONTROVERSY GETS COMPLICATED!
Most conservative Christian-Jewish-Muslim leaders are equating identity with action.
ERROR? They generally reject the view held by many modern secular thinkers that same sexual individuals are born, (or born-nurtured), gay/transgender, etc.
IN CONTRAST, these religious leaders believe that all alternative sexual identities are CHOSEN. Many think that this is an immoral choice by each individual human and that all of them are actually born heterosexual. They think that the idea of "sexual orientation" is a falsehood like "evolution," "socialism," etc.
Other conservative leaders think that while homosexuality isn't self-chosen by some humans, homosexuality itself is part of the FALL, part of ORIGINAL SIN that infects all humans and must be resisted.
They emphasize that all humans are "totally depraved," that all of us are born "in essence, evil" but that this particular depravity, homosexuality, only shows in some of us humans, while other humans commit incest, molestation, robbery, lying, and so forth.
IN CONTRAST, same sexual leaders such as Peter Buttigieg, emphasize that they didn't choose their nature, nor is their nature bad, but on the contrary, “That’s the thing that I wish the Mike Pences of the world would understand that if you have a problem with who I am, your problem is not with me. Your quarrel, sir, is with my creator.”
The traditional moral rule against same sexuality doesn't apply to him as self-chosen. On the contrary, Peter says that for a long time his identity deeply grieved and troubled him: “It’s hard to face the truth that there were times in my life when, if you had shown me exactly what it was inside me that made me gay, I would have cut it out with a knife.”
"If you had offered me a pill to make me straight, I would’ve swallowed it before you had time to give me a sip of water."
The KEY point of Peter is that sexual orientation is from God, but that how we express our orientation is a question of right and wrong, good and bad that we humans choose.
For instance, in regards to President Trump's immoral actions, Peter said, "“I can’t believe that somebody that was caught writing hush money checks to adult film actresses is somebody they should be lifting up as the kind of person they want to be leading this nation.” (Meet the Press)
AGAIN, REASON #1, ACCORDING TO LEADERS LIKE PETER AND CHASTEN, TONY CAMPOLO, ETC. IS THAT ALL HUMANS NEED TO USE THEIR SEXUAL NATURE AND IDENTITY (WHETHER GAY OR STRAIGHT) IN THE LIFE-ENHANCING, MORAL WAY OF MARRIAGE.
What is wrong isn't sexual orientation, but immoral choices of promiscuity, infidelity, and so forth.
DENYING GAY HUMANS THE RIGHT TO MARRY is WRONG FOR THAT NOT ONLY DENIES THEIR ESSENTIAL WORTH AND VALUE, BUT LEAVES THEM LIVING THEIR SEXUALITY OUTSIDE OF SOCIAL COMMITMENT.
This seems to be a very strong point for the goodness of gay marriage.
How very different might famous Civil Rights leader Bayard Rustin's life have been if he had been able to marry in the 1940's, have that public social commitment help him to overcome his tendency--temptations--to engage in gay promiscuous one-night stands.
His non-married sexual choices then hurt him, his close friends, harmed the image of Civil Rights, and kept Bayar hidden in the background of the Movement because of the immoral violation of engaging in sex in a car in Pasadena with a stranger, caught by California police.
It is tragic that a large number of gay men still make promiscuous choices because they have been taught by Western society and culture that their identity is morally wrong.
Gay marriage--its emphasis that gay humans are equal in worth and rights to heterosexuals--is surely an important reason why gay marriage is true.
Past generations of human leaders (the human authors of the MORAL CODE), didn't know about orientation so they misunderstood thinking that same sexuality in itself was immoral. They confused essence with particular immoral actions.
What do you think?
#1 One of the most important statements—which has proven tragically to be true-- made by religious people 20 years ago was that recognizing gay marriage wouldn’t create new ideals of moral realism but would become a slippery slope to the demand for more immoral behavior.
At the time, back then, I thought that the Christian spokesmen who were claiming that this would happen were fear-mongering and using scare tactics to hurt sincere humans who were gay.
HOWEVER, strangely, this odd contradiction has begun to happen. Some same sexual leaders instead of continuing to support monogamy, now that gay marriage has become legal in the United States, are, instead, supporting promiscuity,
‘polyamory’ a form of group marriage, where 3 or 4 or more individuals engage in temporary sexual relations.
After reading a bunch of articles and defenses of ‘polyamory,’ it does seem that the religious leaders’ warnings of the past have come true.
Heck, even some fairly orthodox Christian leaders have come out in support of 'polyamory' as good!
But ‘polyamory’ isn’t even the sometimes mild immoral practice of polygamy or concubinage but appears to be a western nation version of acceptable short-term (as short as 3 days or 3 months!) sexual relations like in 12er Shia Islam.
As a former hippie who lived in Haight-Asbury in the spring of 1966 before receiving my draft notice, I remember all of the glowing talk about “Make Love, Not War,”
but generally what this amounted to was lust for a night or a week or a month.
‘Polyamory” seems to just be a regress to those empty-user phrases made by young people who wanted sex without care,
sex without commitment,
sex without intimacy.
When I lived there near Haight street, that was still a somewhat idealistic time. However very soon the Haight lust and 'highs' descended into hate, violence, drug pushing and abuse, and other forms of unethical behavior.
So much for ‘love.’
Let us hope that more same sexual individuals will choose monogamous commitment in marriage like Pete and Chasten.
To be continued--
In the Light of the Good and the True,
Friday, April 19, 2019
Section #2: Peter & Chasten Buttigieg vs. Vice President Mike & Karen Pence, The Question of Gay Marriage
In the first section of this long article I explained why life-long monogamous marriage is the human ideal, what every individual ought to seek.*
The HUGE question of the last 40 years or so is whether or not those human couples who aren’t heterosexual have the right to monogamous marriage.
Of course, legally, this was decided in the U.S. by the Supreme Court on June 26, 2015 in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges.
The question we are dealing with here is whether or not the decision of the Supreme Court was morally true or not.
Leaders such as Vice President Mike Pence and his spouse, Karen Pence have stated that same sexual relations are morally wrong, so they oppose gay marriage as sin.
The new candidate for President in 2020, former South Bend Mayor Peter Buttigieg and his spouse, Chasten Buttigieg, in contrast, think that same sexuality is normal, not wrong, and that every human has a right to marry.
Intriguingly, both couples allege that they are devout Christians. Mike and Karen are Evangelicals; she teaches at a Baptist elementary school that prohibits same sexuality and gay marriage.
Peter and Chasten are Episcopalians.
BUT that isn’t the key difference between Peter and Chasten, because President George H. Bush opposed gay marriage when he was president, and he, too, is Episcopalian. (Intriguingly, though, at the time, Barbara Bush, supported gay individuals, thought that sexuality was a private matter, and that the Republican Party ought to not ban gay marriage.)
Also, while Mike and Karen oppose same sexuality and gay marriage, allegedly because they are “born-again” Evangelicals, there are even a minority of Evangelical Christian leaders who support gay marriage.(Strangely, Mike and Karen couldn't have been good "born-again Evangelicals back in my early youth, late-50's early 60's, because in Evangelical Christianity at the time, dancing was considered immoral. Dancing was an action that no good Christian would ever do. My own father, a Baptist minister and teacher helped lead the effort to ban the prom at Adams High School because no one ought to dance. YET notice Mike and Karen are dancing, and she is wearing an off-the-shoulder gown!)
Keep in mind that being a member of a Christian denomination doesn’t necessarily mean anything when it comes to morals and ethics.
Heck, former Vice President Dick Cheney was a Methodist, but his political views and many of his actions were immoral and unjust, completely contrary to the social ethics of Wesleyan beliefs. And President Richard Nixon belonged to a pacifist denomination! So much for the True Scotsman.
So, we are going to have to go deeper than the terms secular vs sacred,
or non-Christian vs. Christian,
or Episcopal vs. Evangelical, etc.
The Episcopal Church to which Peter and Chasten belong didn't even recognize gay marriage until about 2012! In that year, the Episcopal Diocese of New York began to hold same sex weddings.
However, the General Convention of 1976 did state, "homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church."
Let’s first briefly look at the history of Christianity in regards to same sexuality.
#1 The Bible (viewed as inspired by Jews, Muslims, and Christians)
Leviticus 18, 20
I Corinthians 6:9-11
2 Peter 2:4-10
#2 Traditional Theology and Ethics of Christianity,Judaism, and Islam
In the Quran, same sexual relations are prohibited and are to be punished.
In the Hadith, same sexuality is to be punished with the death penalty.
In Islam, gays are often charged with "debauchery" and are punished with flogging or execution. On the other hand, in the past in some forms of Islam, same sexuality was hinted at positively in poetry and wasn't severely punished; sometimes was ignored.
Besides verses in the Jewish Bible such as Leviticus, traditionally rabbinic leaders expanded the prohibition to include lesbian relations and any same sexual behavior.
Even, today, Orthodox Jewish rabbis condemn same sexual relations and oppose gay marriage.
(Though keep in mind the fact, there may be exceptions such as gay Orthodox Rabbi Steven Greenberg, just like there are exceptions in conservative and Evangelical Christianity including famous leader Tony Campolo.)
From the Church Fathers until recent times, creedal Christianity has opposed same sexuality. Roman Catholic leader John Chrysostom, in the 4th century, claimed that same sexual relations are worse than murder.
Over the centuries, some Christian governments ordered the death penalty for gays, sometimes burning them or using torture, castration, and banishment. Pope Nicholas V in 1451 had the Inquisition arrest same sexual men. They, like in the past, were burned to death.
Martin Luther stated that same sexuality comes from the devil.
The Eastern Orthodox Church condemns same sexual relations as sin and opposes gay marriage.
WHEN DID THE CHANGE TOWARD SAME SEXUALITY HAPPEN FOR SOME CHRISTIAN LEADERS?
According to Encyclopedia Britannica, in 1989 Denmark became the first nation to legally establish a form of non-religious marriage for same sexual couples. However, many leaders of the Lutheran Church of Denmark still opposed gay marriage in 2004.
The earliest acceptance of gay relationships by a few creedal Christian leaders seems to have occurred in the early 1970's.
So the weight of Christian history and tradition appears to be on Mike and Karen Pence's side--that same sexuality is sin, morally wrong.
Arguing from Christian history and tradition is VERY DANGEROUS! For in 16th century Europe, Mike and Karen could have been burned at the stake or tortured and drowned during that time by the Christian leaders including Roman Catholics, Calvinists and others. Beliefs of Evangelical Christians were considered heretical and evil.
Far more 'Evangelical' Christians were executed for being evil than same sexual individuals!
Even one of the heroes of Evangelicals today, Martin Luther, strongly condemned, not only homosexuals but the 'evangelicals' of his time. And Lutheran and Reformed leaders banished them and supported their executions in some cases.
#1 WHAT ARE THE REASONS TO SUPPORT A CHANGE FROM THE CONDEMNATION OF SAME SEXUALITY BY ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY, ISLAM, AND JUDAISM?
In other words, why ought we to agree with Peter and Chasten (and other such leaders) about gay marriage being good?
#2 WHAT ARE THE REASONS TO SUPPORT OPPOSITION TO SAME SEXUALITY AND GAY MARRIAGE, THE VIEW OF CREEDAL CHRISTIANS SUCH AS MIKE AND KAREN PENCE?
To be continued
In the Light of the Good, the True, the Just, the Caring,
Friday, April 12, 2019
This week controversy erupted, again, between Democrats and Republicans on questions of the meaning of sexuality and marriage. Let's short-step back from the political fracas and reflect on sexuality-marriage itself.
The meaning of human sexuality is deep, transcendent, complicated and controversial. Then there is the related question of marriage or not. It appears that no one can get away from the intense subject.
A few quotes to show the inexplicable contrariness and contradictory outlook of various human beings toward this incessantly fascinating topic of sexuality and marriage:
In some early Buddhism, such as the Theradvada writings, it was not possible for a woman to become a bodhisativa; a human is born a woman because of bad karma!
And most Buddhists chose celibacy.
Then there is the infamous verse by Paul in the New Testament:
“It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”
1 Corinthians 7:1
And Orthodox Judaism' men's prayer thanking God for not making them a woman or a slave. And how women are unclean and have to take ritual baths.
On the other hand, some religious texts seem to glory in sexuality:
"Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth! For your love is better than wine:"
-Song of Songs, Chapter 1:2, Jewish Bible
"And God created the human in his image,
in the image of God...male and female...
And God blessed them, and God said to them,
Be fruitful and multiply
...and, look, it was very good."
"The [marriage] vows should be written like a dog's license that has to be renewed every year...I think vows should be changed because they've been in existence for 600 years when people used to live until they were only 35. So they only had to be with each other for 12 years, then they would die anyway. But now it's a big commitment because you're going to be with someone for 50 years. It's impossible...It's such a rarity for people to stay together that 68% of marriages fail. I don't want to urinate on the party, but one must consider that before getting married.
His rock anthem to romantic commitment:
"You're in my heart, you're in my soul
You'll be my breath should I grow old
You are my lover, you're my best friend
You're in my soul
My love for you is immeasurable
My respect for you immense
You're ageless, timeless, lace and fineness
You're beauty and elegance
You're a rhapsody, a comedy
You're a symphony and a play
You're every love song ever written...
You are my lover, you're my best friend
You're in my soul"
--Rock Musician Rod Stewart
“Sex is like pissing. People take it much too seriously."
--Famous Muralist and Painter Diego Rivera
“If I ever loved a woman, the more I loved her, the more I wanted to hurt her. Frida was only the most obvious victim of this disgusting trait.”
“Haven’t you read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?”
Yeshua, Jewish prophet
“Chastity: The most unnatural of the sexual perversions."
"I think I could fall madly in bed with you."
“Vanity, revenge, loneliness, boredom, all apply: lust is one of the least of the reasons for promiscuity."
"How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
I love thee to the depth and breadth and height
My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight
For the ends of being and ideal grace.
I love thee to the level of every day’s
Most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.
I love thee freely, as men strive for right...
I love thee with the passion...I love thee with the breath,
Smiles, tears, of all my life..."
-Elizabeth Barrett Browning
“To me heaven would be...two lovely houses in the town; one where I would have my wife and children and be monogamous and love them truly and well and the other where I would have my nine beautiful mistresses on nine different floors.”
“The sweetest joy, the wildest woe is love.”
-Philip James Bailey
“Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.”
I Corinthians 7:1, New Testament
"Love is the word used to label the sexual excitement of the young, the habituation of the middle-aged, and the mutual dependence of the old."
"My own sexual mores...I do not believe that I should be passionately in love with my partner...and still less, married.
For there is a special and humanizing delight in erotic friendships with no strings attached..."
"My life would be much, much poorer were it not for certain
particular women with whom I have most happily and congenially committed adultery...”
-Philosopher Alan Watts
"I never knew how to worship until I knew how to love."
-Henry Ward Beecher
Roman and Grace are a married Spokane Indian couple. He is standing close to her with his basketball between them, as if the ball represents the expectant infant they will soon create…
“Michael Jordan is coming back again,” he said.
“You can’t fool me,” said Grace. “I heard it. That was just a replay.”
“Yeah, but I wish he was coming back again. He should always come back.”
“Don’t let it give you any crazy ideas.”
Roman pulled the basketball away and leaned even closer to Grace. He loved her, of course, but better than that, he chose her, day after day. Choice: that was the thing. Other people claimed that you can't choose who you love—it just happens!—but Grace and Roman knew that was a bunch of happy horseshit. Of course you chose who you loved...Damn, marriage was hard work, was manual labor, and unpaid manual labor at that. Yet, year after year, Grace and Roman had pressed their shoulders against the stone and rolled it up the hill together.
In their marriage bed, Roman chose Grace once more and brushed his lips against her ear.
Monogamous love and marriage
-From “Saint Junior” by Sherman Alexie
"In all, 10 women spoke to NPR about Alexie, who is a married man...but a clear pattern emerged: The women reported behavior ranging from inappropriate comments...unwanted sexual advances and consensual sexual relations that ended abruptly. The women said Alexie had traded on his literary celebrity to lure them into uncomfortable sexual situations.
WHY DO SO MANY HUMANS, ESPECIALLY LEADERS, (EVEN THOSE WHO AFFIRM MARRIAGE AND "LOVE") LEAD IMMORAL, HARMFUL LIVES?
Since sex only has 3 letters, how did it become a 4-letter word (to "plow" or "care" or "love")?
How does an instinctive procreative act characteristic of all humans
(and most forms of life down to fish and below) come to mean everything
from the degrading and sadistically obscene to the uplifting and creatively intimate?
From the violently aggressive to the joyfully receptive?
From one-sided selfishness to intimate communion of two lives?
Regardless of one’s worldview, most humans think humankind has reached a state in evolution
wherein individuals of our species can creatively use human innate characteristics,
adapting them for many different purposes and in very different ways.
This “plasticity” of human abilities enable billions of individuals to use their physical and brain skills, not only for time-immemorial practical acts such as plowing a field or constructing a building,
for transcendent goals or self-focused wants.
Humans can use their brains' consciousness and muscles to do acts that have no practicality at all such as play suspenseful sports in the Olympics or dance in complex moves across theater stages or construct beautiful poetic songs.
This “plasticity”—for good or ill--is, especially, true for human sexuality as shown by the wide variety of statements about sex by famous individuals as already shared.
Most of us aren’t too surprised by the sludge coming out in the media or by so-called red-necked vulgarity.
The guttural view of sex has probably been around since cavemen first spoke;-), but when brilliant well-educated humans glorify promiscuous sex, it is troubling and tragic.
So often in the news now, human sexuality
is very ambiguous with many strange variations,
and many of them destructive,
and so contrary to the Truth,
and the Beautiful.
We’re all sexual, and in different ways, but, hopefully, we don't major in being unfaithful, disloyal, and promiscuous and, even worse, declare our harmful dysfunctional behavior with pride to the world.
The Vietnamese Buddhist nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize, Thich Nhat Hanh, emphasized that humans seeking to become enlightened live their sexuality in enhancing ethical ways.
Yes, sexuality is a very powerful force/drive within humanity which has been shaped like soft plastic into countlessly different configurations by humans and their worldviews.
The earlier modern quote about the basketball player and his wife catches the true spirit of human sexuality, as God intends sexuality to be—a joyous monogamous life-long daily choice by two equals.
Let's say it again, sexuality is a whole life response by a couple committed to a life-long relationship, neither temporary glandular instinct nor a restricted negative necessity.
Here’s another fine explanation: “...Your understanding of love will change as you get older...I remember my second date...I totally lost my cool and told her I loved her. On our SECOND date!!"
"You know what? I recently told that very same girl how much I love her, and how glad I am that I married her...But what I meant when I really meant it 23 years ago is a lot different from what I mean when I really mean it today!"
"In 23 years, I’ve learned to put aside my selfishness more often, and I’ve learned more ways to love and cherish her...the heart of genuine love [in human sexuality] is an immovable decision to put your lover’s joy and welfare ahead of your own."
"Usually, you don’t fall into that kind of love; you climb into it. It’s not just something you feel [nor an instinctive urge]. It’s a decision you make.”
Duffy in Breakaway
Sexual love is a monogamous life-long commitment, a unique “ultimate” relationship—where two individuals give themselves to each other emotionally, mentally, and physically.
That’s true love.
True love (in the marriage sense) is unlike any other human relationship, except in some sacred writing where God is often spoken of as every individual human’s lover.
Indeed, romantic sexual imagery is often used in literature to describe the ecstasy of “knowing” God intimately. Makes sense doesn’t it?
YET now--in the midst of all of the sexual harassment, "Me, Too" bad news, there is the controversy of moral leader Peter Buttigieg versus moral leader Mile Pence, both even of the same religion, Christianity, who, while agreeing that sexual relations ought to be part of a monogamous, loving commitment for life,
YET they completely disagree about the nature of marriage!
Is marriage to only happen between a man and a woman (as held by traditional Christianity, Islam, and Judaism claims)
is marriage also right for a same sexual couple?
What do you think?
Please share your perspective.
To Be Continued:
In the Light,