Dark Magnet

Rules vs Evolution

2012-01-29T09:28:00.001-08:00

This article is simply perfect. Sparky's next step can be painful, and it's a step I've been caught in, stuck like a plastic bag snagged on barbed wire, for over ten years now: evolution - evolution of the spirit/soul/whichever term you like - is usually a very lonely affair. The pack is slow to grow (as much as I am a socialist, I am also an anarchist, for the sake of the individual); when you convoy, you feel safe. When you go it alone, you don't have the companionship, but you also don't have anyone telling you to pull over at every McDonald's. I take Sparky's column as a wake-up call. For me, it's a re-awakening, because this is a lesson I've been taught many times, and I can even teach it to the best of my ability, but I really haven't mastered it. Barely begun the process really.

"There Shouldn't be Rules to Being GLBT" by Sparky

http://www.womanist-musings.com/2012/01/there-shouldnt-be-rules-to-being-glbt.html

Something's missing

2012-01-04T21:21:00.000-08:00

I'm having trouble letting go.

2012 is my year for letting go. 2011 was me, shellshocked from an accumulation of years of dreams gone sour, efforts achieving naught, and I was set to simply make my life about finding a job I could retire from, build a life with my boyfriend, retire, and eventually die.

I've always believed in some hidden purpose behind my life. I believed I would achieve something great, something lasting.

But I've achieved the stature of Ozymandias, only the monuments I've built were never built. They fell apart before they could be finished.

And I realize this sounds self-pitying. Overly Western maybe. People all over the world are lucky to have drinkable water, and here I am bemoaning the fact that I'm not successfully providing concrete evidence - exhibitions - of my supposed genius.

It may be pathetic that I'm even writing this, but it's true. It's how I feel. And I'm angry and sad because I don't feel the power inside me to let go of it. I've heard it a million times: 99% is a bitch, 100% is a breeze. Just let go and float into the unknown.

I do try to do that, but it seems more of an escape. I visualize myself floating in space, past the giant spheres of the universe, or exploring the wonders of the ocean. A being forgotten, unneeded, totally free, just being, just experiencing.

Unfortunately, translating that meditative bliss to some kind of belief system hasn't worked out.

Two ways of looking at it are clear. I could look at this as simply part of the path towards freedom, disengaging from my self-expectations. The other possibility is that by giving up my dreams, I have denied a major, important part of my soul.

Little personal facts

2011-12-31T07:56:00.000-08:00

1. Certain sounds repulse me. The pouring of liquid. Eating and drinking sounds. Clinking silverware on plates. Sandpaper/wiping dirt off of rocks/that sort of thing, especially if I imagine what that feels like.

2. The moon is possibly my most important spiritual symbol.

3. I love mosque (masjid) photos, even though I’m not a practicing Muslim and I’ve never been to one.

4. 2011 sucked bigtime for me, but ended very nicely. I landed a part-time dishwasher job and an interview for a full-time better-paying office job. I could go from basically unemployed to working 60-hour weeks very soon.

5. I’m still grieving my choice to leave behind my academic dreams after more than 20 years of holding onto those dreams. At 41, I’m ready to just take a job and retire from it someday. Letting go of ambition has been a crushing experience. I’m hoping to go through the grief and come out at the other end in a sort of personal resurrection.

6. My boyfriend is 20 years younger than me. We have been officially together for over a year, we have very little in common, but we are making it work.

7. I will probably always love “boy bands.” I think it’s because they bring back childhood/teen closet memories. They touch something of my past that still hurts a bit in my heart. And their music, however corny, brings me healing.

8. The only kind of spiritual process that brings me faith is in-the-moment experiential spiritual activity, like meditation, ritual, music, dancing, being surrounded by religious art, etc. I have (as of yet) failed to maintain faith just by thinking about it, reasoning things out, or any other strictly mental exercise. If I relied purely on intellect, I would be a strict agnostic. But I’m not. I feel strongly there is something beyond this life, an afterlife, other beings, maybe even a singular God, and my spiritual quest is to experience more about that, not necessarily to declare faith or argue about it. No human’s declarations are convincing to me, and certainly no religion’s moralism or dictates. As a postcard I have says, “Faith is a journey, not a guilt trip.”

9. If you have read this far, I think you’re one of the coolest people ever. Thank you.

A note I wrote to a soldier who said Bradley Manning is a traitor for putting soldiers in "harm's way"

2011-12-29T06:47:00.000-08:00

If Manning did a noble thing, he did it from a position that very few people have access to. Kicking him out is keeping vital information from the public. The military was committing crimes of a very grievous nature, a military funded from the taxes all of us pay. Going to war puts soldiers in danger already. I don’t see that your point is greater than getting the truth about actual war crimes and atrocities out into the public eye.

In other words, you asked to be in battle. Civilians did not.

Sorry if I sound blunt, but I’m not sure why we should be concerned about putting soldiers in harm’s way in a war. That’s what you’re there for. Personally, I think all the wars should be cancelled and you all should come home. It’s time for humanity to assume its natural evolution into a nonviolent species. ”Traitor” is an outdated term, just like “patriotism” and “country.”

Finally, the actions of those who committed the atrocities are the ones who made life more dangerous for soldiers, not those who blew the whistle. This is, in very literal terms, punishing the messenger. The traitors are the ones who ordered AND carried out such acts, not the one who revealed them.

My top 14 albums for 2010 featuring women singers!

2010-12-20T11:48:00.000-08:00

1. Janelle Monáe - The ArchAndroid

2. Carolina Chocolate Drops - Genuine Negro Jig

3. Robyn - Body Talk

4. Sade - Soldier of Love

5. Best Coast - Crazy for You

6. St. Lola in the Fields - High Atop the Houses and the Towns

7. Angus & Julia Stone - Down the Way

8. Shakira - Sale El Sol

9. KT Tungstall - Tiger Suit

10. Lady Gaga - The Fame Monster (An EP but still cool)

11. Kylie Minogue - Aphrodite

12. Azure Ray - Drawing Down the Moon

13. Sharon Jones and the Dap Kings - I Learned the Hard Way

14. Ke$ha - Cannibal

Incredible Hulk, Biology, Intelligent Design, and the Total Lie that is Adaptation Via Natural Selection

2010-08-14T07:44:00.000-07:00

This is what I awoke with, cogitating through closed eyes, groggy from some medicine I took last night, a grogginess which will not leave me, and so I share my points as point-by-point. I confess I'm feeling very clever right now, my head-full-of-cotton notwithstanding.

1. Preface: I'm not doing any additional research, so any one of these points could be proven wrong, with a simple reference to the Incredible Hulk's long history, biology, or intelligent design argumentation. I still boldly go, intuitively raining my brilliance upon the Nation of Facebook.

2. Let us proceed, for a bit, to reason from a scientific mindset.

3. When Bruce Banner becomes the Hulk, he gets a lot bigger, stronger, and less intelligent, more simple in choosing the factors upon which he chooses to act. He converts from brilliant scientist to freakish huge green cave-thingie.

4. When this happens, do certain neural pathways gently unplug themselves from each other? As the body grows, do the synapses fail to grow along with the skeleton, the muscles, the skin? I propose something like this must happen. Just as his clothing remains on his body, even though in the comics he sometimes grows ten times his size, this so he doesn't show his big green penis to the millions of ten-year-olds who used to read his comic book, so must his synapses remain undamaged. So it must be a gentle process he undergoes, which allows him to return to the status of Scientific Smart Person at some point with all of his cognitive abilities reinstated as if nothing had happened.

5. Furthermore, "Hulk smash" is not similar to how any two-year-old I've met speaks. Nobody talks like that. So this is not a cognitive reversion to childhood. Maybe it is literary (more on that in a moment) device to show that he is becoming more like a beast than a man, but scientifically speaking, that is not allowed. Hulk's linguistic change is not deterioriation - he loses weird things, like prepositions, and verb tenses, and commas. And when he shrinks back down in size and becomes Banner again, he's able to speak normally again.

6. We should note that, while there appears to be a connection with whatever keeps his close from ripping completely off his body and whatever the heck happens to his neural network, the difference is obvious: he does lose his shirt and the lower-leg portion of his purple pants do end up shredded. The only parallel I can see is that Banner's Hulkifying does damage to his conscience and his social life, so maybe I'm onto something there. That appears, however, to be literary rather than biochemical.

7. (Speaking of literary, and films are considered part of literary study these days, while Banner might feel fortunate that he doesn't always emerge from Hulkdom completely naked, werewolves in movies and TV do not share that luck. Of course, that makes this viewer happy, as there are so many hot actors playing werewolves and it's always nice to see them completely naked. The exception I must note is the second Twilight film - I haven't seen the third, as the second was terrible but I can't help it, I have a Robert Pattinson attraction as big as the Hulk himself - in which the actors are underaged, and the world is paranoid about underaged nudity these days, in spite of the irony of the focus on a gang of muscled teenage boys running around shirtless certainly having some element of sexual intent behind it.)

8. Most of what I've observed, excluding #7, which is True and not False, would certainly not match what scientists have observed thusfar in the natural world. Unless, like with the extra-terrestrial crash-landing at Roswell, they are keeping it a secret from us, scientists have most likely not observed a human turn into a very large creature with strange verbal skills return to his normal state with his former intelligence and verbal acuity regenerated.

9. Either:

10. Bruce Banner has regenerative powers, and the gamma-ray blast gave those to him along with everything else, or

11. God exists as an intelligent designer, and Darwin worshipped Satan.

Note: is the Bruce Banner/Hulk dichotomy the two sides of Jesus, both God and Man? Or something more complicated, like Jesus and Herod?

The smallness of spirituality, sometimes

2010-07-27T16:13:00.000-07:00

I share this because in all the debate that continues about God vs science (as if there needs to be any opposition between the two), all the wondering about our individual problems, concerns about gay marriage, concerns about the U.S. becoming a theocracy, and so much else, is the God in question the God of all the earthlings, all the earth-like-planetlings, or is all of this explained in some bigger way? As I make my own way along the path of life, the spiritual life, whatever phase I feel like I'm in, whatever label I slap on myself to tell people what I believe, is insufficient, or too specific, or too small.

When I see stories like this, my spiritual view just seems to small to hold it all.

----

More than 100 'Earth-like' planets discovered in past few weeks

By Niall Firth
Last updated at 11:43 AM on 23rd July 2010

(Excerpt):
The breakthrough raises the tantalising prospect that we may not be alone in the Universe.

Scientists now believe that there are likely to be around 100 million planets in the Milky Way that harbour exactly the right conditions for life.

And they expect to be able to identify around 60 of these habitable Earth-like planets within the next two years.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1296841/More-100-Earth-like-planets-just-past-weeks.html#ixzz0uvYCCHw5

Best birthday card ever? Maybe.

2010-07-16T21:32:00.000-07:00

from

http://shop.moderntoss.com/cards

So now we just wait

2010-07-16T17:06:00.000-07:00

Just don't read this one if you fear getting depressed. Or worried.

I saw this article over at the excellent blog Alterdestiny (http://alterdestiny.blogspot.com/) and just noticed that they took the post down. Not sure why.

But according to some scientists we have about six months to find out if we are on the brink of the next mass extinction. Warning to you all, the information in this article is not pretty.

I don't have any background in the field of geology and even less in mass extinction research, so all I can do is share this frightening link and ask, so what, do we sit and wait?

http://www.helium.com/items/1882339-doomsday-how-bp-gulf-disaster-may-have-triggered-a-world-killing-event

"Doomsday: How BP Gulf disaster may have triggered a 'world-killing' event"

Theism and atheism: I can't see beyond the river, so maybe it doesn't matter right now

2010-06-08T11:56:00.000-07:00

As someone who has struggled along the spiritual path most of my life...wait, got distracted by a hottie standing next to me...anyway, as such a person, I find myself not only dipping my toe in spiritual waters, but converting only to be disillusioned. Pretty much every time. I think this is because so many Western religions strive to define *too much*...or at least my own habit of scrupulosity "goes there" into the "too much" world of theology and practice and...dang, the hot guy just left...and morality, and find it difficult to be just as I am within a context of practice which I know would be very good for me.

My point is that theologically I will probably always be mostly agnostic, in terms of the full identity of deity or beyond-deity is concerned. Philosophically - and this is much more complex than it seems, and possibly more vague at the same time - I'm Muslim and Taoist. At that level, I don't see much difference. I run into trouble when I get into that which was generated by culture rather than wisdom. And recognizing wisdom is such an individual, subjective thing. There is oneness, and life is a river. There is not much else I can be certain of. Even the oneness betrays me, or perhaps I betray it, very often. So life is a river. Worthy of (and for centuries already the subject of) much thought and writing.

Theist vs. atheist, well, I never got much into that, because with life being a river, and that being all I know, or believe, or something, God and Spirit and whatever else we want to call it is either necessarily real or not (or something else!).

Okay, enough of my Andrewocity for now. I seek serenity, and thus go to a lecture on the pre-Socratics. I wonder if that will bring serenity or dischord. I'll let y'all know.

Memorial Day, DADT, And Why I'm Not Pro-Military

2010-05-29T18:10:00.000-07:00

"Don't ask, don't tell" is in the U.S. spotlight lately.

Personally, I don't know why any queer person would want to fight for a country wherein they are still second-class citizens. Ironically, I remember filling out that stupid selective service form when I turned 18 only because I have a penis.

I wonder what selective service means for trans people.

Forbid me from the military, doesn't really matter to me, because we haven't fought a worthwhile war since WWII, and then those guys came back and beat their kids. At least that's one of those generalizations I've heard.

Sorry, I'm very cynical on the whole war/military thing, especially on Memorial Day weekend when everyone is telling me to "thank a vet" and such. Instead, I feel bad for the vets. And the civilians. And the animals who suffer in warfare. And the environmental devastation. And the works of art destroyed by bombs.

Nope, this is not an issue I personally have much stake in. When I was younger, I was "outraged" about DADT or whatever. Today, I don't care. I'm not pro-military. It sucks our money. It increases our debt. It hurts our planet. It hurts people.

And I have no reason to feel that this country is better than any other country. The only reason I would fight is if my family or friends or neighbors were in danger.

As for those who might say, "love it or leave it," and "they died for your freedom," those are meaningless statements my friends. They died because they were pawns in games played by those who don't fight, those with political clout and LOTS of money. It's a tragedy any time war results in death and suffering. So this Memorial Day, I remember this suffering, this tragedy, this abomination of human absurdity, and hang my head in shame for my species.

Peace and sadness,
Andrew

Trying on love in an age of suspicion

2010-04-30T19:18:00.001-07:00

It's an age of suspicion, of lies, of danger.

People are outright lying about the president's actions, for one thing. No, he didn't cancel the National Day of Prayer.

He actually proclaimed it, and then decided to pray in private.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/prayerday.asp

See, not everyone prays the same way.

I became a Muslim. I'm learning to pray five times a day. I pray for the whole world, for friends and family who are sick and recovering, for the leaders, for many things. I don't need one day dedicated to it when I'm doing it five times a day.

When I announced I was a Muslim, some were congratulatory, some wished well, and many said nothing. Some issued little challenge after little challenge. I don't know if anyone dropped me from their friends list after I made that announcement.

I have little doubt that some quietly judged my decision.

I know from what I've seen that, just like people either outright lie or choose to blindly accept whatever they hear about the president, whose religion is nobody's business by the way, they blindly accept whatever they hear about Islam.

I'm not trying to equate myself with the president. I am just saying I feel the distrust out there. The suspicions. And it's getting kind of dangerous out there, it seems.

I learned from my dream last night that part of me wants to be a protector. Maybe that's an archetype. Maybe it's part of my personality that wants to come out.

Who do I protect when everyone's fighting each other? I'm not going into self-defense mode. I've always known there is a mama bear in there, even though friends of mine have been prone to thinking of it as a mama teddy bear, more like a giant Snuggles than some pissed-off Grizzly.

Well, maybe there's a peaceful kind of protection too.

I don't know.

But I am hating this division. I'm hating this blame game. I'm hating the against-ness.

Love is possible. I beg you all to try it on. It comes in all sizes.

Peace,
Andrew

The South Park controversy

2010-04-23T08:11:00.000-07:00

Context in which I heard about it:

Last night, light rain falling.

Waiting in drive through for my order. Very cute guy at the drive through by the way, warned me that if I got green chile on my vegetarian burrito I should choose chopped green chile because the sauce had chicken broth in it. I was waiting for my food, thinking about the drive-through attendant, doing my usual fantasizing about asking him on a date when he handed me my food, and the ineloquent DJs on the radio made a brief comment about how radical Islamists just need a sense of humor.

It really is that simple, though South Park creators and Comedy Central certainly knew this would happen if you put Muhammad in a bear suit. (Didn't see it, don't know the joke behind it, so can't comment on it in that much detail). Maybe ratings were down or something.

Life is more important...the rain falling on the windshield and a friendly attractive guy at a fast-food restaurant. From what I've learned about Islam, the best way to worship Allah is to do something nice for someone else. This guy going out of his way to tell me about the chicken broth ... he may not have been a Muslim but I take his act of kindness as a lesson in how to be a good lover of God by being a good lover of fellow humans.

This is getting me a bit choked up. This incident not only is an impediment on free speech, it will only add fuel to the anti-Muslim fire. These radicals make Muhammad into an idol and in my opinion in the process dishonor him. This incident illuminates that.

Look at me, a Muslim for only a couple weeks now and I'm already pretending to know stuff.

Peace,
Andrew

Converting NOT to perfection

2010-04-20T19:37:00.000-07:00

And that's the way it's gonna be, cuz that's the only way it's gonna work.

I love doing the five daily prayers. But if I'm expected to adhere to a rigid time schedule, it's not happening. I'll struggle to do it, I'll freak out, I'll resent it, and then I'll leave.

I don't really want that to happen, so I'm just going to be with Allah. Pray to Allah. Go to the Sufi dhikr. Learn the prayer and dance and chant and singing methods there. Because they bring me closer to God and they bring me peace.

I broke down in workshop tonight. Totally lost it. All this transition releasing itself. Control release. I always try to control everything, try to be perfect, and I'm darn harsh with myself when I fail.

Not anymore. If I can cry in front of my classmates I can trust Allah with anything. There is nothing to fear.

And by the way, cleric whoever you are, promiscuity doesn't cause earthquakes. Earthquakes cause earthquakes. I'll be taking an elementary earth science course this summer and I bet I can tell you all about it.

But ye who think your morality is bigger than Allah's, which seems to be peace and goodness and healing and love and joy and forgiveness and mercy and light, forget it. God created all of this. The earth quakes. We just have to adjust.

Peace, love, goodness.

From me to you.

Andrew

Islam: Week One

2010-04-17T08:25:00.000-07:00

My first week anyway. Actually, I reverted last Sunday night, so this is a bit early.

Most of my actions this week, regarding learning how to be a Muslim, has been the five daily prayers. Actually, I averaged four, but I'm getting better, as yesterday I managed all five. Getting up before dawn for the first prayer, I think I only managed that once or maybe twice. I just need to work on falling asleep earlier so I can more easily awaken earlier. There are health issues to consider, but I also want to be able to do this.

I didn't make it to mosque on Friday, which is kind of a big deal in Muslim practice. I don't know what my block is...I mean, I have "reasons"...a gay person in the midst of gender segregation is actually a complicated thing...but there is a deeper emotional something that is making it a very anxiety-producing thing.

But overall I made the right decision. I keep getting advice to take it easy on myself (though almost everyone said I should just go to mosque and experience it...maybe next week).

What I have learned: transition to new religious practices is not as easy as I thought. I also learned that social anxiety for me extends beyond just gay groups. I've also learned that I'm very, very weird.

This week's goals: get up to five prayers a day at least three times, with the intention of doing it every day. Stop talking about myself so much (though I'll continue blogging and asking questions). Stop focusing on anxiety and remember something that worked for me one day: sitting silently, closing my eyes, taking deep breaths. Saying "Allah" in my mind like a chant. This helped me the same way saying the Jesus Prayer did in Orthodoxy.

On a totally different note, a friend turned me on to this great band, Drink Up Buttercup:

Accepting Islam

2010-04-13T07:57:00.001-07:00

Some call it reversion, rather than conversion. Such a complicated word, considering what that means to us LGBT people who have encountered in any way the notion of "reversion therapy" aimed at us in one way or another.

But this is a nicer way of thinking about "reversion." It is said among some Muslims that all babies are born Muslim. It's a simple faith, in my view, in that it's not complex theologically. One God, one big huge creation, and messengers (prophets). A God of love and peace and joy.

So when one converts to Islam, they are really reverting. Going back to their natural state.

I don't share this in order to try to convince anybody of anything. I just find it pleasant and comforting.

On Sunday night, I sat with an older, experienced man who came from a Muslim country, and did my shahada. This is the declaration of faith you make to become a Muslim. Accepting Islam. There is none worthy of worship but God (Allah), and Muhammad is his messenger. Except you say it in Arabic.

So Sunday night, around nine p.m., I became a Muslim myself.

I've done religious conversions before. I've spent most of my religious life in Christianity (especially Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and a year or so as an active Episcopalian) and Wicca. In all cases, while I sometimes felt connected to God, I had trouble accepting certain key beliefs even though I wanted to. I have spent quite a bit of time reading about Islam, discussing with other Muslims, and contemplating this decision. I was led to a Sufi group which has a chapter here in town. While this particular Sufi lineage does not require conversion to Islam, the praying and chanting and singing there has been very powerful.

In one of my conversations online, someone told me that from what I had said, I was probably already Muslim in my heart. I just hadn't made the declaration yet.

So I have done so. From a positive place. Because while there are cultural aspects I am not accustomed to, and while I do not know Arabic, and while I have mostly stayed in contact with the more progressively identified Muslims, I really was already Muslim, and have been for a long time. I had to learn more about Muhammad to be comfortable with the decision, but that wasn't very difficult, it turned out.

I'm still me, not changing much. That's why I am attracted to the progressive side of things. I'm still gay. I still want a boyfriend, Muslim or not. The prohibitions on pork and non-halal meat and alcohol are not a problem, as I've been trying to be a vegetarian for years (mostly successfully), and haven't had a drink in over a month for health reasons. What has changed is that I have finally found a home, a home with God, and that struggle which has consumed me for so many years I can finally call complete.

What has changed is the inner peace bit. The focus on the positive. I'm finding it easier, so far, to stay level with myself, to recognize the negative emotions and get back into my heart.

I don't write this for kudos or expressions of any kind. I just wanted to share with everyone this huge next step. I'm in big transitions in so many ways. As the pieces of the puzzle, the joints of the body, start to click together for a more cohesive Andrew, this is the one that finally brings some order, some reason for me to move forward, an impetus to be a better person.

Peace,
Andrew

Currently reading: Blue-Eyed Devil: A Road Odyssey Through Islamic America, by Michael Muhammad Knight, a road-trip book. Interesting, readable, quirky.

Looking at the future on approaching 40

2010-03-09T14:03:00.000-08:00

As I approach the age of 40, it seems that in spite my intentions, I have made this an important birthday. Life events, including a lay-off and the death of my dog who had been my primary anchor during the toughest years of my life, have played a part. I have finally fully accepted that the fragments that seem to be forced upon us in the academy are illusory. The idea, for example, that a scholar must write boring prose, is no longer something I accept. One of the reasons I took this creative nonfiction course was so I could experiment with ways I could incorporate a more engaging writing style with my scholarly essays. Unexpectedly, I found myself writing on more personal topics, such as my own social, spiritual, and general life struggles. Perhaps that is what I need to be doing right now to push past this final obstruction that I’ll forever call the wretched thirties. Maybe not. Maybe perspective will soften that judgment. I’m certainly open to that.

Now, I am planning on full-time study of spirituality and religion. My engagement with the writing world is not going to disappear as this progresses. In fact, the primary way I plan to use this training and study is for writing. I envision myself writing essays about religion, finding the nooks and dark corners and quirky sidebars of spirituality that show how different we are as people expressing, probably, the same universal desire. I realize not everyone is as serious about this topic as I am, but it seems everyone I have met has reckoned with the big questions at some level, even if it is to take a peek, or be forced to go to some religious service, and conclude that they will just find out when they die.

With each new professor in the very near future, I will inquire about his or her receptiveness to my writing papers for their courses in a creative-nonfiction manner. Speaking from a craft-oriented perspective, I think the more essays of a similar nature that I read, the more skilled I will be, and the stronger my instincts will become. I foresee the challenge of writing at a scholarly level but with the idea of “making the topic interesting” for a reader who would not be in such a college course. While this is still a foggy idea for me, I feel it is part of my own calling as a writer. I have been told that, based on blog entries I have written on various topics, that I should be striving towards publication, and that has become appealing to me. Fiction writing, which is what I’ve primarily studied for most of my adult life (a pursuit which included not only an M.A. in the topic, but also additional workshops later in life), has become increasingly frustating, while nonfiction has offered much gratification. I have enjoyed what I have done so far in this class and elsewhere, and can see taking it more seriously than I once did. While I am unsure how much memoir-type writing I really want to do, I am very attracted to weaving in some personal memoir along with more philosophical religious ideas.

I’ve heard that some writers have the goal of having published enough books to fill a bookshelf by the time they pass away. I hold no such goals, but I do want to actively publish, in both the scholarly journals and in the more popular press. While book publishing is certainly a desire, my more immediate interest is in articles and essays, and I doubt I will limit myself to my academic pursuits, topically speaking. I do have some memoir pieces already begun, of course, and I am not abandoning those. The spiritual autobiography is a draw for me, though I am seeing this being more “doable” if I pursue it first as a series of articles that I can later compile together for a book, with some transitioning and editing to make it into an effective larger work. Small slices of life are important to me too, so I will continue to write about those. My role in the writerly world, as I see it now, is to move away from my previous desire of writing solely for an audience of other writers. I want to be part of the world’s thinking community, and I want to share my thoughts and research with the readers of such publications as Harper’s and the New Yorker and The Atlantic, even if those specific magazines aren’t my ultimate destination. I’d like to contribute to the world of thinking, and I want to do it wearing the hat of the distinguished and talented writer. I plan to keep working on my skills, on my studies outside of those oriented on craft, combine the two, and share the fruits of my effort. This is my new dream. Better stated, this is to where I have come and how my self-image has evolved. It presents me with a feasible future and a satisfying career orientation. I’m not choosing a job; I’m integrating my strengths into a complete way of life, God willing.

What I believe

2010-03-02T22:28:00.001-08:00

1. Don't take your beliefs too seriously.
2. Being a "blog administrator" is an illusory power.

Amen?

Slight hurdle created

2010-02-28T21:20:00.000-08:00

Comments are now going to be moderated, due to spam. Don't worry, if it's not spam, I'll more than likely approve it. And I seem to check email like 1300 times a day!

Compassion for animals and ritual slaughter

2010-02-28T16:59:00.000-08:00

Okay, the quick research I just did is on wikipedia, which is ALWAYS suspect, so I wanted to acknowledge that from the beginning. Some of what I share here is just from memory of things I've read. I won't go back and provide sources for now, because I just want to make a quick point. I'm sure there are inaccuracies and other problems with my specifics. That's not the point of this blog, so I've decided to place a HUGE disclaimer here instead. Maybe someday I'll do a better job researching this and writing something much more substantial. For now, you get this sloppy non-academic blog entry!

Warning: I do describe methods of slaughter here, and link to the wiki articles which go into even more written detail.

In Islam and other religions, animal welfare is actually important - treating animals with compassion, not abusing them, that sort of thing. Hence, only "halal" (legal or lawful) meat is allowed (among other restrictions). The halal article on wikipedia is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halal. It is argued by some Muslim scholars that the method called Dabihah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ḏabīḥah) is a humane way to slaughter an animal for meat. Dabihah is "cutting the large arteries in the neck along with the esophagus and trachea with one swipe of an unserrated blade." Supposedly this is relatively painless and the animal is effectively brain-dead as it bleeds to death.

Some disagree, and some studies have been done (see the links).

Kashrut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher) is the Jewish method, which seems similar. There are differences between the two and the details are available online.

Hindus and Sikhs who eat meat sometimes use a method called Jhatka (also, Chatka) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jhatka), which is essentially very quickly chopping off the animal's head. Obviously that's a pretty quick death.

There is a difference, in my opinion, between what is allowed by a religion and the solution to the complications. There is a lot of respect towards the animals intended behind these rules and regulations, and much spirituality as well. I respect this.

At the same time, bleeding an animal versus decapitating it...this is a choice for an animal lover?

When we don't need to eat these animals to begin with, it seems to me the least complicated and most compassionate way to go is to stop eating them altogether.

I say this with no judgment towards meat-eaters whatsoever. What I believe is right and what I practice do not always match up. I do occasionally eat meat at restaurants or when visiting others who are doing the cooking. I've been though very tough times wherein the comfort-food qualities of meat-based dishes won out over my own personal ethical code.

And hence I write this blog entry as a musing on the issue. For many years I have wanted to become a very disciplined vegetarian, and eventually a very disciplined vegan, and have not yet arrived there.

We do our best, and that's what all of this is about.

Very few people act with outright cruelty as their intention.

I've tried to make it clear here that this is complicated, and I am merely presenting my thoughts on the matter. My hope is that my respect for you comes through.

Peace and all good.

Andrew

For Meggy

2010-02-26T08:31:00.001-08:00

For Meggy

As I move to the next square

2010-02-24T04:32:00.000-08:00

...yes, I've been exploring Islam as a possible faith path. As I listen to lectures online for non-Muslims I find them jargonistic and I recognize that self-forced belief thing that's present in every religion.

Sometimes it seems almost OCD that people say "peace be upon him" every single time they mention the name Muhammad. It might not be, but for me, it would become that very quickly.

I'm attracted to Islam because it's a desert religion and its theology is very simple, with lots of room to move.

But no matter what, I know these things.

I won't accept OCD in my spiritual path. That means there are obstacles in Islam for me.

Five prayers a day with very specific rules, not only for the prayers, but for the washing up ahead of time.

An apparent tendency towards putting trust in conservative Muslim scholars.

The use of "fear" in relation to Allah with the immediate caveat that Allah is "merciful."

Hence, my focus has become more on Sufism, which is mystical and focuses on love. Some Sufi teachers are pretty radical.

I'm also inspired by Michael Muhammad Knight's shocked discovery, as detailed in his road-journey book "Blue Eyed Devil," that there are half-assed Muslims just like there are half-assed Catholics.

Knight is one of the 1% of Muslim converts who are white in this country. At least a couple years ago when he wrote that book. I haven't read the book...just the first chapter. It's now on my short list for reading soon.

I've got this awareness of myself, as I turn forty in a couple months, that I need to take seriously: I don't like party-line sermons. I don't like peer pressure. I need the mystical. There is no way I'd become a conservative Sunni. Even if I did become Muslim and accept the five pillars (they seem simple enough), going on the Hajj I will NOT participate in ANY WAY in the traditional animal sacrifice that takes place on that pilgrimage.

I don't think any religious scripture is literal. Even if I were to convert, there is no way I could force myself to take the Qur'an as "not to be interpreted."

The modern "conservative" take on the Sodom and Gommorah story is just as misguided as the Christian take.

I'm still a seeker, still learning, just happen to find a lot which is appealing in Islam at this moment in my life. Two most important things I know:

1. I have to be true to myself.
2. I suspect, if I did it, I would not have the support of some people who do support me now. At least not in that decision.

I have to continue trusting that God (Allah, YHWH, whatever word you want) is in some way part of what moves me. I get so angry at God so often, and that's usually when I connect him to any kind of fundamentalism or anal-retentive religiosity.

So no matter what, I must remain a free-thinker.

Feedback that one religion is "better" or "truer" or more "gay-friendly" than another will be considered irrelevant here, because it's what I DO with the religion, what I TAKE from the religion that matters. I'm a child of God, in some way, and that means I am an equal partner in the relationship. It doesn't work if both partners aren't participating in the dance. And so I trust myself, and God (that's harder than trusting myself), in whatever steps I take next. And now, I haven't quite decided what those are.

A thought about Sodom and Gomorrah

2010-02-09T11:00:00.001-08:00

Just noticed: in my copy of the KJV bible, the Gen. story of the destruction of Sodom/Gomorrah, the commentary refers to "homosexual gang rape." Why even use the word "homosexual"?

Because it would have been gang rape of the daughters of Lot, should they have accepted the offer...they wanted the men instead.

I suppose that's why this commentary includes the word "homosexual."

I do not know Hebrew, though I do have a Torah commentary which I have not yet consulted (another note, later, perhaps), so I'll just put forth this very rough theory:

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by a volcanic eruption. The writers of this part of what became Genesis, in their ancient Jewish method of writing history (as the history of God in his interactions with his people), included their contemporary morality in with the story-telling. Though it is not clear to me in reading this passage that homosexuality was the issue for which they attributed to God in his destruction of the cities, it is clear to me that the aggressive behavior towards Lot and his people was the reason.

It is also clear to me that, to these writers anyway, the offering of the daughters by Lot would have made it "okay" for these aggressive men to have sex with them. Is this what "honor your parents" meant at the time of the writing?

Today, as such passages are used in attempts to prove a moral position against gay people, is it not more honest to look at the passages without leaving anything out? If we are to accept the notion that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexual gang rape, then we must also accept that Lot was not punished for offering his daughters to these unfriendly citizens.

Note 1: Not addressed here are matters of different Bible translations and different interpretations of this passage. I understand that many believe the wickedness of the city to be that of inhospitality. I also understand that the men (the ones they want to rape) in question might be angels, not men. I don't address this because it would make a very long note, and I merely wanted to post my thoughts on this one point of argument.

Note 2: Genesis, Chapter 19, contains the passages in question.

Note 3: I always picture this scene as an isolated incident, and therefore assume that it is but one example of the sins of these cities. I wonder how this modifies the interpretation.

Peace and all good.

(The commentary I refer to is on page 39 of "The New Student Bible, King James Version," published by Zondervan in 1992. "Notes by Philip Yancey and Tim Stafford." There are other contributors to the book as well.)

Gay Marriage - We have the right, just not the acceptance

2010-01-20T09:02:00.000-08:00

It was suggested in the comment section of this blog entry:
http://www.religiondispatches.org/blog/sexandgender/2203/religion_largely_absent_in_proposition_8_trial/?comments=view&cID=6131#c6131
that we might consider accepting the term "civil unions" instead of "marriage" as queer people, as long as we have all of the same rights, in order to mollify the opponents who just can't seem to get over this.

Rachel Maddow has recently pointed out on her show that the idea of gay marriage used to be considered a conservative initiative among gay activists. Heck, I remember even twenty years ago people debating whether assimilation was a good thing. Screw the straight society, we'll do our own thing. Why should we fight to be accepted? Why give them that much power?

I agree with that, to be honest. However, that's me. And at the same time, I'm kind of a mellow person nowadays. I don't have as much fire as I did when I was 21, just out of the closet, and newly angry about all that I was learning about gay history. By fire, I mean, "energy to fight." Yeah, I'm still angry, and obviously I still speak out as much as ever. But I'm also focused on other, more enriching things in my life. Vocation. Spirituality. Personal happiness. Connecting with others. Wouldn't mind a bit of romance either.

Because I've pretty much decided to coexist with the filthy masses, I want the already existent right for us to get married to be recognized legally. Every law which says we cannot get married is as unconstitutional as the Jim Crow laws, the laws against interracial marriage, and those enforcing racial segregation. It's already there. The fight is not to obtain equal rights. We must fight to get the institutions to do what they are supposed to do when we exercise those rights. It's not that we don't have the right to marriage; it's that the courts won't sign off on them. It's not that we don't have the right to sign up to be in the military; it's that they won't let us in the door if we admit who we are.

I know we're "supposed" to be friends, but frankly, we have enemies right now. They've been given power through the institutions of power-granting which exist in our country. At the very least, we can disobey them. Their behaviors are unconstitutional. The sickening irony is that we have to go to the courts, which are part of a society behaving unconstitutionally.

What do I mean by disobedience?

We get married and a queer minister signs off on it. We submit it to the state. No matter what they do or say, we claim spousal status on our tax forms. Whenever we have to declare single or married, we declare "married," on any form whatsoever.

Does this have the potential to threaten our livelihoods, to get us jailed and harassed by the law? Yes. They would do this to us unconstitutionally. We bring this to the courts over and over until they buckle or get responsible judges.

Who am I to even advocate such things? I am nobody. I don't even really advocate them. If you did it and were to suffer because of it, and I advocated it, I would feel guilty. That's my personality. So no, I'm not advocating. I wish to preserve my own happiness. It's something I might be willing to do if I met someone and fell in love and he agreed to take such actions with me. If you choose to do it, it's because you choose to do it.

Self-responsibility is the only way to live anyway, right?

I do think the current methods of fighting for gay marriage and other recognitions are fine too. They are safer and will eventually be effective, if what we currently see happening continues.

Anyway, here is the response I posted to the idea that we accept "civil unions" instead of marriage, in order to mollify the masses:

I appreciate your desire to be find a win-win, but I for one cannot get past the "separate but equal" thing. Most of us were raised in a culture - overtly or not - which repeatly emphasized (still does actually) what a huge deal marriage is to the community. When you get married, there are kudos galore; it's akin to getting pregnant, and beyond the public congratulations of something much harder, like graduating. So basically we grow up being taught that marriage is THE thing, that we'll find that "right boy" or "right girl" someday, and we'll get the rings and the fancy outfits and the cake and the dancing and the toasts and gifts and the weeping mothers and proud fathers. Then we figure out we're gay, and we slowly understand that no, we don't get that. We have to settle for civil unions. Goodie.

See, I'm not willing to sacrifice our equality to mollify anyone. I don't necessarily want a big wedding with all the trimmings, unless I find that "right guy" someday who DOES want it. With or without the trimmings, I DO want it to be called a marriage.

Peace.

Sharing vs. Debate on Haiti, Gays in Christianity, and Everything Else

2010-01-18T08:04:00.000-08:00

Candace Chellew-Hodge writes about some Christians' discussion of whether they should the love the sinner but hate the "sin," or if they are really called to just hate both.

That's one of those discussions I've been in before. To be honest, I'm a bit bored with it. Maybe that's because I'm leaning away from being part of the aspects of religion which focus on limitations, rigidity, dogmatism. More on that in a later blog post.

Then there is Pat Robertson's much-decried statements that Haiti's earthquake was the result of an historic pact-with-the-devil which has curse that nation for many many years. Anthea Butler discusses this using points that lead me to believe that Robertson's comments connect to an outdated colonial rich-white-man's superiority delusion, and ultimately a (possibly subconscious) racism.

It's getting exhausting trying to meet people point-for-point when, frankly, the points repeat with every debate. I prefer discussion to debate.

Yes, the distinction is subtle. They may even be synonyms. I use them as different terms for convenience of communication. When I think "debate" I think of two people, each with a thesis. The goal is for each to present the best arguments for their position, to be convincing, to win. I'm not sure what you win, maybe an ego boost or admiration in the eyes of viewers. Unless my debts get paid off from this sort of debate, I just find them frustrating and energy-sucking.

A discussion, in my own use of the term here, is one wherein both parties (or more than two) are engaged in a thoughtful, honest, open mulling-of-the-issues, preferably with open-mindedness thrown in. "I have to admit that it is hard for me to discuss abortion because I have had a traumatic experience with it in the past." That's the kind of honesty that's great to have in a discussion. In a debate the retort would be something like, "then all of your arguments are suspect," or "let's use your traumatic experience to turn it around to prove my point." In a discussion, the response would be empathy, or at least a deepening engagement with the topic at hand and, even better, between the people involved.

I'm not advocating anti-logic. "I don't see how that's logical" is still a proper thing to say when someone says something. For me the defining characteristic of a good discussion is that there is no longer a final goal of "winning."

With someone going on about how different it is to hate the "sin" but not the "sinner," is there really a point in pursuing it, trying to convince him or her that it is difficult to love someone when you truly "hate" something about that person? Maybe, but one must listen first, encourage that person to really get into why they feel that way. But it's exhausting to try when it just boils down to Bible quoting and talking points. If it doesn't get down to the nitty gritty personal aspects of why someone feels the way they do, that energy is expended for little reason but to build one's rhetorical skills.

The example of Pat Robertson and his Haitian devil comment is trickier. This is based on a colonial idea of the "primitive" (in today's terms, "Third World") person, the "savage," who is not enlightened by the "one true religion," and of course proper old-European social class stratification. Vodon ("Voodoo") isn't devil-worship. It's not a religion I know much about, but the idea that it's satanic is coming from the imposition of a certain kind of Christian worldview that is pretty much irrelevant to those who do not share that worldview. It ultimately boils down to who is right and who is wrong, once again. I'm "right" because I'm "white" and my ancestors were European. Goodie. Again, while it's fun and enlightening to have a discussion about the complex issues that Robertson has raised, I don't see much fruit coming from actually debating the guy, or those who agree with him.

Bishop Spong wrote this in October of 2009: "I will no longer debate the issue of homosexuality in the church with anyone.... Those arguments are no longer worthy of my time or energy." (The short manifesto is worth reading in its entirety.) That's where I am now on all religious debate. I'm willing to discuss (by my own definition which I described above), but if I'm asked which religion is best, or most true, or most dangerous, I'm not going to answer definitively. I will share my experience, knowledge, interpretations, even instincts, but I'm not going to try to prove me right or prove you wrong. I'm not going to waste time answering every talking point. If I make an assertion, and you ask me to defend it, I will do my best to explain why I feel that way or from where comes my conclusion. But the minute it becomes about winning a debate, I will ideally pull out. I don't care if I'm accused of something unsubstantiated, like "typical liberal can't take a debate." I've been called a "typical liberal" many times, for this reason, even if my accuser only knows one thing about me (like my stance on the war, for example). Whatever. I'd love to engage with you on why you feel the way you feel, and why I feel the way I feel. But that means listening, sharing, asking, nodding, being very present to the experience of you and me being who we are, connected as humans. Can we do that? If not, then it's time to move on, because, to steal from Spong, it's "no longer worthy of my time or energy."

No offense, but I've spent too much time playing these games. I want a boyfriend, a life's vocation, a purpose. I want to connect and mingle, not bash my head against yours.

Peace and all good

The continuing irrelevance the big music labels

2010-01-08T12:38:00.000-08:00

In response to:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8444854.stm
and
http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2006-01-04-music-sales-main_x.htm

Getting close to the death of the big record labels, or at least the significant (and overdue) downfall of its influence on the state of the music industry, which they have abused for the past ten years or so, but not put more long-term commitment into bands that don't become megastars with their debut album, and other problems like that. If debut album sales were the only factor in label support historically, we would not have seen the rise of great bands like R.E.M. and U2, for example.

Downloads are more environmentally friendly too, though the physical product issue could be partially solved if they committed to using recycled or sustainable materials in their packaging. There would still be the carbon-releasing problems associated with shipping, of course, but I don't know how significant that really is, since the mail is being delivered regardless.

Putting those environmental issues aside, I consider this to be fair pay-back to these companies, which frankly earned their downfall. I'd like to see (ideally) the "illegal" downloads calm down and purchases increase, but maybe music shouldn't be about making millions in profits anyway. Great music is more accessible than ever because of the internet. One can discover new artists by following links in blogs, Youtube pages, Myspace, and elsewhere. The relevance of the big mega-labels is dissipating, and this is a good thing. Let them be the suppliers of the overproduced emotionless autotuned forgettable pop American Idol offshoots and copycats. But let us refrain from mourning that they are beginning to lose their ability to speak for the masses, let alone the music connoisseurs. They have their niche, and don't deserve our attention any longer.

2009 - Best Albums by Men (According to Andrew)

2010-01-06T15:07:00.000-08:00

When I try to fit so many albums on a list, ranking starts to reach a level of absurdity.

I had about 130 or so that I chose to listen to, and I added a couple here and there as I explored...I did have to sample a lot. But I listened to enough to know what to do. But it did get to the point where it was obvious that five or six albums in a row were of equal quality...so basically, if it's on this list, I recommend it.

I disqualified "Dark Was the Night" for myself even though it is excellent...it's a compilation of various modern indie bands as part of the Red Hot series of albums which benefit AIDS groups. It's simply too hard to know how to rank it, but I DO recommend it.

Why is this list so much longer than my women's list? Put simply, there are simply more male-created artists that I am drawn to. Note though that my number 2 album is really a team effort, men and women together making music. And Matt & Kim...one of each!

Another one I missed: the live Tom Waits album, Glitter and Doom Live. I was leaving out live albums, but I noticed as I was digging up video links that the Steve Vai album was of course live. Obviously Tom Waits never really does wrong, so if I had caught the mistake earlier, I would have removed Steve's album. Anyway, both are excellent as far as live albums go.

1. Animal Collective - Merriweather Post Pavilion (the Fall Be Kind EP is fantastic too, but I'll restrict to one release)

2. The Decemberists - The Hazards of Love

3. Baroness - Blue Record

4. Bill Callahan - Sometimes I Wish We Were an Eagle

5. Mastodon - Crack the Skye

6. U2 - No Line on the Horizon

7. The Red Chord - Fed Through the Teeth Machine

8. Mos Def - The Ecstatic

9. Sonic Youth - The Eternal

10. Wolfmother - Cosmic Egg

11. Pete Doherty - Grace/Wasteland

12. Gomez - A New Tide

13. Torche - Healer/Across the Shields EP

14. Wilco - Wilco (The Album)

15. Piano Magic - Ovations

16. Matt & Kim - Grand

17. Mumford & Sons - Mumford & Sons

18. Orthodox - Sentencia
I cannot find a musical sample for you, but you can read about this Spanish Doom/Jazz band here: http://www.thesirenssound.com/2009/09/22/orthodox-sentencia/

19. Flaming Lips - Embryonic

20. Yosh - Fistful of Lies

21. Morrissey - Years of Refusal

22. Les Claypool - Of Fungi and Foe

23. Mowgli - 93

24. Sondre Lerche - Heartbeat Radio

25. NOFX - Coaster

26. Phoenix - Wolfgang Amadeus Phoenix

27. Monsters of Folk - Monsters of Folk

28. Jay-Z The Blueprint 3

29. The Joint Chiefs of Math - You Are Here

(I wish there was a better video for these guys, so listen here: http://www.myspace.com/thejointchiefsofmath)

30. Causa Sui - Summer Sessions vol. 2 and 3 (not sure how to break these up...they are equally good...and volume 1 came out in 2008, and now they have all three out there as a set.)

31. Arctic Monkeys - Humbug

32. The Big Pink - A Brief History of Love

33. The Avett Brothers - I And Love And You

34. Midlake - The Courage of Others

35. El Grupo Nuevo de Omar Rodriguez Lopez - Cryptomnesia

36. Grizzly Bear - Veckatimest

Is this the creepiest video ever?

37. Mr. Scruff - Ninja Tuna

38. Mexican Institute of Sound - Soy Sauce

39. The Mountain Goats - The Life of the World to Come

40. Steve Vai - Where the Wild Things Are

41. Megadeth - Endgame

42. Bruce Springsteen - Working on a Dream

43. Moby - Wait For Me

44. Other Lives - Other Lives

45. Marduk - Wormwood

46. Tom Russell - Blood and Candle Smoke

47. Julian Casablancas - Phrazes for the Young

48. For Against - Never Been
Check it out here: http://www.myspace.com/foragainst

49. Dirty Projectors - Bitte Orca

Somehow I messed up...this should have been on my women's list. Well, enjoy it and don't complain ;-)

50. Snoop Dogg - Malice in Wonderland

51. The Who Boys - Now That's What I Call the Who Boys!
Couldn't find videos, but you can download the album for free on their website: http://www.zen8003.zen.co.uk/twic/index.html

52. Jay Brannan In Living Cover

53. Bob Dylan - Together Through Life

54. The Barcode Experiment - Yellow Ball, Glass Wall

Not the best video! Check 'em out here: http://www.myspace.com/thebarcodeexperiment

55. Bear in Heaven - Beast Rest Forth Mouth

56. Brakes - Touchdown

57. Akron/Family - Set 'Em Wild, Set 'Em Free

58. Jarvis Cocker - Further Complications

59. Girls - Album

60. John Vanderslice - Romanian Names

61. Jay Reatard - Watch Me Fall

62. Ryan Leslie - Transition

63. Napalm Death - Time Waits for No Slave

64. Gallows - Grey Britain

65. Titãs - Sacos Plásticos

66. Elvis Costello - Secret, Profane & Sugarcane

67. Eels - Hombre Lobo

68. Mama Rosin - Black Robert

69. Phish - Joy

70. Meat Puppets - Sewn Together

71. Mariachi El Bronx - Mariachi El Bronx

72. Loney, Dear - Dear John

73. Nick Cave & Warren Ellis - The Road (score)

74. Fuck Buttons - Tarot Sport

75. M. Ward - Hold Time

76. Dinosaur Jr. - Farm

77. Mudvayne - Mudvayne

78. Nox Arcana - Blackthorn Asylum

79. Isis - Wavering Radiant

80. Son O))) - Monoliths and Dimensions
You can hear one of the songs here: http://www.myspace.com/southernlordrecordings

81. Yo La Tengo - Popular Songs

82. Aerosol - Airborne

83. Vomit Heat - The Melody Haunts My Reverie EP
http://www.myspace.com/vomitheat

84. With Abandon - Maturation EP

85. Woodpigeon - Die Stadt Muzikanten

86. The Swell Season - Strict Joy

87. Church of Misery - Houses of the Unholy

88. Converge - Axe to Fall

89. Cymbals Eat Guitars - Why There Are Mountains

90. Drake - So Far Gone

91. The Prodigy - Invaders Must Die!

92. The Mighty Mighty Bosstones - Pin Points and Gin Joints

93. The Lytics - The Lytics

One I should have probably ranked higher.

94. Wild Beasts - Two Dancers

95. Candlemass - Death Magic Doom

96. Calamar Audio - Squid Fluid
http://www.myspace.com/calamaraudio

97. Brutal Truth - Evolution Through Revolution

98. Boris - Japanese Heavy Rock Hits (EP)

99. Pains of Being Pure at Heart - Pains of Being Pure at Heart

100. Mark Vidler - Tension (EP)
http://www.myspace.com/markvidlerGHP
http://www.gohomeproductions.co.uk/

101. Lamb of God - Wrath

102. The Devil's Blood - The Time of No Time Evermore

103. Adam Lambert - For Your Entertainment

104. Bad Lieutenant - Never Cry Another Tear

105. Miles Benjamin Anthony Robinson - Summer of Fear

106. Coalesce - OX

107. W.A.S.P. - Babylon

108. Hatebreed - Hatebreed

109. The Leisure Society - The Sleeper

I guess this is a re-release. I don't know much about it...

110. Bibio - Abrasion

111. Biffy Clyro - Only Revolutions

112. Crystal Method - Divided By Night

113. The Mars Volta - Octahedron

114. Anaal Nathrakh - In the Constellation of the Black Widow

115. My Dying Bride - For Lies I Sire

116. Harlem Shakes - Technicolor Health

117. Robin Thicke - Sex Therapy: The Experience

118. Revocation - Existence is Futile

119. Atlas Sound - Logos

120. Nile - Those Whom the Gods Detest

121. The Positives - Person L

122. Letting Up Despite Great Faults - Letting Up Despite Great Faults

123. Holopaw - Oh, Glory, Oh, Wilderness.

124. Amorphis - Skyforger

The search for God, the search for spiritual community

2010-01-06T10:48:00.000-08:00

My friend Peter Turiansky asked me this question:

> Andrew,
>
> You have spent a good part of your adult life seeking a deity and a faith community that meet certain criteria that have been established by, well,
> yourself. Does it not occur to you that any such god would be one of your own making, and not a real one at all?

I answered thusly:

The search for the community is not the same thing as the search for
God. Truly, I search for a community that shares my understanding of
God, rather than a community to tell me that God something different
than I already experience God as being.

The real question that applies to my own search is: how do we know the
"truth"? Do we need to be told by a traditional or dogmatic (etc.)
religious path, or do we need to find out for ourselves? When I
resist/leave a church, it is usually because the dictated
understanding of God does not compute. Rather than creating God, I
feel I am constantly discovering God, and because that has been
happening (for me) at such a personal level,it is increasingly obvious
to me that theologically I cannot be stuffed into a pre-existing box.

The appeal to Episcopalianism was the openness in terms of individual
interpretation. It seems to me that this is the case among Mennonites
as well, though as I said, there is much I do not know.

This actually addresses your previous question about me being a
closeted atheist. I might as well address that here!

I cannot find the article I mentioned..but it differentiated between
different kinds of belief, and I'm probably not being 100% faithful to
what that writer said, but that isn't really important:

1. Absolute certainty that there is a God, and "I" know that God.
--Strong Theism
2. Absolute certainty that there is a God, but I don't know that God.
--Seeker with Theism (not the right term)
3. It's possible that there is a God, but I don't believe there is.
(Atheistic agnosticism)
4. It's possible that there is a God, and I believe there is.
(Theistic agnosticism)
5. I know for certain that there is no God. (Strong Atheism)
6. We cannot know either way, period. (Strong Agnosticism)

Something like that.

I fit number 4. My understanding of God is very non-specific. I
believe there is a God...and that God may be a neutral energetic force
of creation, or a loving energy, or a potentially personal God, or
whatever.

I believe in afterlife, that science is the study of creation and is
therefore true theology, that scriptures are highly questionable but
potentially inspirational.
Some meandering thoughts anyway. I'm sure I'm leaving a lot still
muddled, but this is God we're discussing, after all.

Christian Elitism

2010-01-03T07:49:00.000-08:00

A post by Seanna at the Liberal Faith blog triggered me to consolidate some of my thoughts on this.

The practice of shunning is an accepted practice in the Jehovah's Witness religious world. It's kind of like excommunication, but they won't even hang out with you in this case.

Having witnessed an actual shunning on a JW chat page several years ago, I can't say I find it to be a very savory act.

Moreover, I don't see it as a very Jesus-inspired practice.

Among the more conservative, evangelical Christians, I've seen it in different ways.

See Amy Grant's experience. She released some songs which garnered crossover attention ("Baby Baby" for one) and she was decried as a sell-out. As far as I can tell, "Baby Baby" wasn't non-Christian or anti-Christian or even necessarily a-Christian. It just didn't spell it out.

Be exactly like us to be part of us. Otherwise you aren't really one of us.

Jesus welcomed everyone to follow him. To be a fisher of men does not seem to require perfect conformity.

To be fair, a Christian must somehow deal with this. (Matthew 5:48)

Even there, however one is to intepret "be" and "perfect" and "be perfect," I don't see Jesus saying "be perfect or get out."

Christian exclusiveness is Christian elitism and it is a contradiction in terms.

I'm scratching the surface here, I realize. There are many ways in which religions require some kind of strict adherence in order to take part.

How Jesusy is this, really?

I guess I could do New Year's Resolutions for 2010

2010-01-01T10:11:00.000-08:00

1. If I could achieve a whole week as a pure vegan I would be happy. I made it three weeks once, and that was during Thanksgiving even, so that means I can do it, right?

2. This year I want to reach peace and completeness with where I am in my life. Meaning, what I do every day, or what I don't do. Whether on a career path or in school, I want a sense of inner peace and acceptance about it. Even if I decide that this is no longer a focus of mine, and my focus is more on building relationships and my job is just a means to "be in the world," I want that same sense of inner peace and acceptance. I don't have a conscious grasp on specifics, but my intent is kerneling. Time to fully blossom, I think.

3. The only resolution I made last year was to read 100 short stories over the course of the year. I didn't come close. I finished reading less than ten books too. I did not fulfill any self-promises about writing either. So this year, no resolutions like that. I do want to read more, though. It's fun.

4. I would like to be comfortable in my physical space. I want to make the space itself important.

5. I want to make my body a focus of respect and compassion.

Fun rejected resolutions because of their specificity:

1. write a poem a day
2. write a book
3. exercise six days a week without fail
4. get engaged

2009 - Best Albums by Women (According to Andrew)

2009-12-29T10:06:00.000-08:00

I had some free time and spent a lot of time listening over the past week or so, to solidify my opinions. Very difficult to rank these of course, so a grain of salt would be a good idea!

Including some representative videos when I can here...

1. PJ Harvey and John Parish - A Woman a Man Walked By

2. Karen O and the Kids - Where the Wild Things Are

3. Yeah Yeah Yeahs - It's Blitz!

4. Shakira - She Wolf

5. Neko Case - Middle Cyclone

6. Brandi Carlile - Give Up the Ghost

7. Fiery Furnaces - I'm Going Away

8. Faun - Buch der Balladen

9. Ruthie Foster - The Truth According to Ruthie Foster

10. Cucu Diamantes - Cuculand

11. Camera Obscura - My Maudlin Career

12. Mary J. Blige - Stronger With Each Tear

13. Imogen Heap - Ellipse

14. Angie Stone - Unexpected

15. St. Vincent - St. Vincent

16. Marilyn Roxie - New Limerent Project

17. Florence & the Machine - Lungs

18. Amadou & Mariam - Welcome to Mali

19. Shemekia Copeland - Never Going Back

20. India.Arie - Testimony: Volume 2, Love and Politics

21. Eluveitie - Evocation I: The Arcane Dominion

22. Tegan & Sara - Sainthood

23. Indigo Girls - Poseidon and the Bitter Bug

24. Lady Gaga - The Fame Monster

25. The xx -xx

26. Alicia Keys - The Element of Freedom

27. Elis - Catharsis

28. Carla Bley - Carla's Christmas Carols

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJkdOT_xvIg

Good review of this album here.

29. Kittie - In the Black

30. Fiona Boyes - Blues Woman

Check it out here: Fiona Boyes Website

21. Whitney Houston - I Look to You

32. Patti Loveless - Mountain Soul II

Adolescence Decodified

2009-12-23T05:47:00.000-08:00

Last night's dream. I visited a former high school teacher of mine, a literature teacher who I liked very much. I don't fully remember the reasons for my being there, and at times during the visit I mixed her up with another very teacher of mine, a history teacher very influential to me in ways I'm just beginning to understand.

Weirdness: the teacher recognized me and was happy to see me.

Weirdness: I was digging through her clutter in her classroom and found one of her old notebooks. She was excited about this too.

Evidence of a power-dream: As I bid farewell to her we embraced and she was crying.

I awoke under the spell of those emotions, but it's hard to wake up sobbing with a CPAP mask on your face.

I recall hearing at one point that this teacher (in real life) had passed away too young, sometime after I graduated.

There are teachers who do not know how much I appreciate them, because I never told them. This should be a fairly obvious new year's activity on my part.

As I look back at various influential adults during my adolescence, the ones I hate the most are the ones who stepped on me. Emphasized what I was doing wrong. Punished me verbally (and occasionally physically) for not matching their vision of...something. Obviously something I did at age 12 or 13 was a mirror for something in their adult selves they couldn't stomach.

But the ones to whom I am most grateful are those who allowed us teens to grow without unnecessary critique, judgment, slam-downs. Interestingly, the best teachers kept things slightly impersonal.

As I look more deeply into the teaching field, initially in an effort to add some meaning to my own meandering, self-focused adulthood, I am seeing so much value there. I want to be a support without trying to be a parent. Adolescence is a time when people who aren't your parents become important. It would be so easy to blow it as a middle school or high school teacher. Such a tightrope. Loving intentions are what fuel all truly successful people. I don't mean capitalist or career/ambition successes. I mean what I've always meant by success: making a difference.

These are new, early morning, post-dream thoughts, but I think I'm onto something.

One more odd thing about the dream. At the end of it, there were students gathering around to bid be farewell, along with the teacher. At the back of the classroom were a bunch of art projects (for some reason.) One of the kids picked up his clay monkey baby, which came to life, jumped on this teacher, and tried to suck her breast. Of course, at this point, my sister appeared in the dream and started laughing. It's the sort of thing she'd laugh about. Me too.

A more humane Christianity, via Paul!

2009-12-10T06:39:00.000-08:00

(I know it's been awhile since I've posted anything here. There's been some turmoil and my focus has been elsewhere.)

This article briefly describes a compelling interpretation of the Pauline letters of the Bible as NOT anti-Jewish, but actually pluralistic. This is definitely a gentler, more reasonable and humane message. If it is embraced in popular Christianity, we may see that the religion itself also becomes more gentle, reasonable, and humane.

The teaser: "Saint Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, set the theological foundation for centuries of Christian thinking about faith and redemption—and for as many hundreds of years of implicit (and explicit) anti-Semitism. But what if Paul has been misread?"

Article is called Paul the Pluralist: Jesus’ Number Two Was Not a Christian, and it's by Pamela Eisenbaum. Religion Dispatches, 12-09-2009.

Link:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/religionandtheology/2067/paul_the_pluralist:_jesus%E2%80%99_number_two_was_not_a_christian

Spiritual Experience: Doug's Forgiveness

2009-11-24T07:24:00.000-08:00

This isn't the first time I've written about this, and it won't be the last. It is probably the central event of my life.

Most of my spiritual have been visions and dreams.

At age 11 my friend was crossing a street, was hit by a drunk driver,
and his body flew a block away. He went into a week-long coma that
ended in death. As that week progressed I started hoping he would
die. I wanted to know what it would be like for him to die. I am
also impatient in general and dislike uncertainty. (I'm working to
get past that these days...have been for some time). Of course, when
he did die, it was a relief and I also felt guilty that I had hoped
for it.

I didn't understand it this way, but when I first met Doug, at age 8
or so, it was love at first sight, at least for me. It was my first
experience of being physically and emotionally attracted to someone.
I remember the feeling when I first met him as if it was yesterday.
He was a personal friend in many ways. He would confront me if he was
angry with me. I cannot say WE were best friends necessarily, because
that has always been a somewhat artificial construct to me, but
HE was extremely important to me, possibly the most important friend I
had at the time.

I used to pray to him after he died. Confessed to him how I had felt
when he was in the coma, and how I had wanted him to just go ahead and
die. At some point later, I had a dream in which I was sitting at the
foot of a hill at night, and a light came over that hill, and he appeared and forgave me.

To this day, more than 25 years later, I still miss him and my heart
is still broken, but at the same time, I feel a certain peace from
that dream.

Do I know if that was more than just a psychological need that my
subconscious created for me? I don't know. And in some way, it
probably doesn't matter.

Movies!

2009-11-23T12:08:00.000-08:00

Movies!
Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities
I watched a ton of movies this weekend.

The Bubble (aka Ha-Buah). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0476643/
Israeli film from 2006. An Israeli soldier meets his future boyfriend at a Palestinian checkpoint. It shows the good and the bad on both sides of that phenomenon, if too simplistically in my opinion. Well-acted, lovely film with a frustrating ending and the unfortunate inclusion of the typical "funny gay roommate" and "funny straight woman roommate" which is just done waaaay too much in gay flicks. But I did enjoy watching it in spite of all of that and nudged my vote up a bit due to the experience of it. (4/5)

Hellraiser. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093177/
Finally saw this. An extra point for creativity. But really very badly acted and incredibly pointless. (2/5)

Criminal. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0362526/
Yep, pretty much just another heist movie. FANTASTIC cast with great performances all around. John C. Reilly, Diego Luna (probably my biggest movie star crush right now), and Maggie Gyllenhaal. So yeah, totally worth watching for the pure enjoyment. Reilly is great as a bad guy (not evil, just bad). (3/5)

Manhunter. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091474/
I liked this very much. Tom Noonan is a fantastic creepy serial killer actor...he almost reprised this by playing John La Roche in the freaky X-Files episodes "Paper Hearts." And after the big finale, I simply have to love Inna Gada De Vida again.

Walk on Water. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0352994/
A joint Israeli-Swedish film that takes place in both Israel and in Germany. Young gay German man comes to visit his sister in Israel. Israeli intelligence agent doubles as the gay guy's tour guide because it turns out that the German's grandfather was a particularly horrible Nazi leader back during the third reich, and has been hiding out in Argentina. Different reasons to really love this: it's not a movie about gayness--it's a movie about friendship; the acting is fantastic all the way around; it's got a nice untidy plotline; the actors get to go from speaking Hebrew to English to German -- which I find very impressive. Really great film. (5/5)

Time to Leave (aka Le temps qui reste). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417189/
Of course I had to watch a French film! Especially with a gay lead character. Rather snotty gay fashion photographer finds out he has terminal cancer with a couple months to live. So he reacts by being nasty to people, then mellows out. I won't give too much away...no point anyway, as it's more a character film than a big ole plot film. Really nice, and I loved the ending. (4.5/5)

Metroland. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119665/
Late 90s film starring Christian Bale and Emily Watson with lots of nudity. But it's fun too. Film about entering your thirties wondering if you've made the right choices so far. Is it too late to give up the typical adult lifestyle and be a kid again? It's a Spanish/French movie but the primary language is English. In fact, there were no subtitles for the brief scenes that were spoken in French, but it was pretty easy to guss what they were saying. A bit universal in theme. Lovely scenery. Good acting. (4/5)

Indigo Girls - Live at the Roxy. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1206480/
I had recorded this off of Logo. They cut off the encore so they could fill up space with commercials and teasers for other shows...actually this is very common for Logo. It's a cable channel but they censor the heck out of the films they play. And waaaay too many commercials. But some good programming now and then, particularly the music-oriented shows (why bother watching Queer as Folk or The L Word on a gay channel that won't show nudity?). This concert was from a year or two ago, and they had some other musical guests on there, including Brandi Carlile, who fits right in, and is really into the music. And yep, I danced around during "Closer to Fine." (5/5)

Started to watch, but gave up pretty quickly:

The Embalmer (aka L'imbalsamatore). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0322725/
Italian. A middle-aged gay man (I believe he is a dwarf actually), a taxidermist, strikes a conversation with a fashion-model type young guy who expresses interest in learning the trade. Reading the synopsis, it's about a guy with an unrequited obsession over the young man, who is not gay. It looked good, but I had trouble with all the dead stuffed animals. Too much for me at a gut level.

An American Tail. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090633/
That cartoon from the mid-80s. I hadn't seen it. I think I'm not in the right frame-of-mind for these kinds of films. I need an adult element. Maybe this had it, but the way it started was a bit sickly sweet for me, and then of course the cats are totally pure evil. Yeah, wasn't in the mood. Zzzzzz. You know how it goes.

The absurdity of third-party salvation

2009-11-21T19:29:00.000-08:00

Playing with some thoughts here...

I've long been bugged by the teaching that Jesus "died for our sins." I hope this blog entry is not too scattered.

First, a bunch of ground questions:

1. We need to be saved?
--- From what? Damnation? Why? Why are we damned? Why is damnation bad?

2. Why is THIS the way we are to be saved?
--- A couple of possibilities come to mind:

2a. God had to become a person so God would know what it is like to be human and then die in order to have empathy with us. Otherwise, God would not be of the right mind to do so. (This certainly seems to limit God to an absurd, if somewhat poetic, predicament.)

2b. God has always required sacrifice for salvation. Hence, the murder of animals on altars throughout history were necessary until Jesus took their place (Seems to put God in an even more absurd position)

3. A non-literalist approach could be something like this:
---We are saved in the sense that we are taught by an avatar (God as man, i.e.: Jesus) how to be in the Kingdom of Heaven here and now, where we stand, in what we stand, and no longer in need of such an avatar once we learn from Jesus' example. Death was necessary; otherwise, we could easily assume that Jesus was not a man, and therefore not accept that we ourselves could reach salvation.
-----Jesus' resurrection was to show us that death was an illusion. Because we are to follow Jesus' example, we too are immortal, and are beyond the bounds of mortality.

#3 is the only one that makes sense to me.

The literal notion that Jesus' death, spilling his blood all over our sins (and all of that imagery), really was a physical necessity to keep us from damnation.

This in turn implies that we need a third party (God) to actually save us.

And I find all of that absurd.

It makes more sense to me that we are who we are and can move at our own pace, of our own free will, into enlightenment / salvation.

I think of it like this:

You live in a house in which everyone drinks too much alcohol, eats too many Twinkies, and always seems to be on crack.

You decide that you would like to be healthy, so you do not participate in the same habits.

You did this. It wasn't, "I chose to refrain from these activities and suddenly a bunch of Jesus' blood poured all over me and I was miraculously prevented from having liver disease, diabetes, and whatever happens to people when they use crack."

It was something purely natural: you did this and as a result you -- YOU -- avoided those side effects.

It's the same thing with salvation. Sure, I could say the sinner's prayer and claim to be saved (whatever that might mean) by God and do, basically, nothing else and remain in a cloudy place of doing whatever the rest of the people in my (hypothetical) church are doing. Dum-dee-dum. Twiddling my thumbs here.

Or I could follow Jesus into the Kingdom of Heaven right now, experience salvation now, because it's already there, and I can do what it takes to wake up to it. You know, the whole letting go of everything and following. More than words, more than faith. Action.

Caveat: I have no idea what that action looks like.

But: I think perhaps I will be able to find out when I stop asking permission from people who claim to know more than I do about God, about spirituality, about that which is invisible, about that which is difficult to explain.

I keep on giving my power away. By doing so, it seems like I'm giving my salvation away too.

Peace and all good,
Andrew

Why the word "Christian" doesn't really work for me

2009-11-20T12:27:00.000-08:00

The Bible, as a source of spiritual truth, I find to be pretty much useless, outside of the gospels, which I don't find to be containing the fullness of said truth.

How truth is discerned is a personal matter. I go with my intuition and my heart. Others go with the Bible itself, but I see no reason for it personally. Still others go with a churchly authority, which I've tried time and again and I just can't fit in that box.

Most define Christianity in some way in relation to the Bible. Me, I'll take the four Gospels, but I won't take them 100% literally, because I don't believe Jesus tossed demons into pigs (for example). I'll also consider the non-canonical gospels. And Tarot cards. And the Qu'ran. And the Tao te Ching. And and and ...

The church is the candle before me, the books beside me, the heart within me, and you, and me.

Rambling about the media and Sarah Palin, and the interactions between them

2009-11-17T12:37:00.000-08:00

A friend online stated that he thought the attacks on Sarah Palin have been over-the-top. I'm not sure, but he may be right. She has certainly said some outrageous things, and her constant associating of Obama with Ayers was also over the top (not to mention part of a larger tendency among the members of the right wing to associate Obama with anti-Americanism, which I do consider a dangerous set of accusations). If she wasn't such a spotlight monger, she certainly wouldn't be receiving so much negative attention.

The problem I really see is that both sides are too eager to turn off their brains and feed on these media hogs. Because I am more familiar with what I see on the left, there are tons of stories on shows such as Keith Olbermann's which focus on the outrageous antics of Glenn Beck, Palin, Rush Limbaugh, with little attention paid to whether or not these people are actually influential in the way things turn out.

In the end, the attention is warranted, but it's too circusy. Rather than have a field day with every silly rant that Beck makes on TV, the serious matter is that not only to thousands of people take his word as solid truth, but our national, state, and local lawmakers often use similar arguments in their decision making. It affects politics, which means it affects us.

I have yet to hear a truly unreasonable negative comment aimed at Sarah Palin. However, I think such things are sucking up too much energy, both in terms of those who really wish to make change in the state of things, and probably the national ethos in general. To extend that to its inevitable conclusion, it affects the whole world.

The people with the power to change public policy and foreign affairs activities are the ones we should be concerned with. Media clowns didn't start the war on Iraq or cause 9/11. People with weapons or people with governmental powers did. That's where the focus should be.

Animal Rights Activism and "Terrorism"

2009-11-17T07:55:00.000-08:00

I'll come out first by saying I'm not willing to endorse bombing or destroying animal testing facilities or the automobiles or homes of those who commit animal testing.

Aside #1: Yes, I used the word "commit."
Aside #2: Let's not forget the probable irrelevance of Andrew Werling's endorsement or lack thereof.

Paul Finkelman, a professor at Albany Law School's Law and Public Policy, recently gave a lecture on the question of whether or not John Brown was the nation's first terrorist. You can watch it here: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/289567-1

This blog entry is not about that exact topic, but about Finkelman's definition of terrorists.

"Terrorists are willing to take lives, destroy property, without regard for the guilt or innocence of the people they are harming, without regard for whether innocent bystanders are harmed by these things."

In addiction to car bombings in the Middle East, he includes certain similar acts by anti-abortion activists and animal rights activists.

Now, as this was just a way to create a definition of a "terrorist," I'm not certain that his goal was to editorialize on these matters, though I do have to wonder why he chose to let out his own astonishment that, say, a car bomb in Los Angeles set off by a member of the extreme end of the "animal liberation front" (a misunderstood group too often blamed for such things) will destroy wildlife as collateral damage.

Moving away from Professor Finkelman's speech, I'd like to delve into this topic on my own. I don't want to suggest that anything I write from here on in this entry is something that Finkelman would disagree with. I don't know that, and that is not my concern in writing. Rather, impressions on animal rights activists are often colored by perceptions of the more extreme actions, and so that is what I would like to address. In briefly searching to discover how frequent such acts of violence committed by animal rights activists actually are, I couldn't find anything. I also don't know how common are similar actions by anti-abortion activists.

In debates on both topics, it is too common to point to such incidents as indicative of the nature of the respective movements. While I do not have statistics, I think it is fair to say that these are the extreme elements who engage themselves in such activities, and not anywhere near the majority. We see the same thing in arguments over religion, and censorship, and pornography, and drugs.

Not only is this dishonest, it's a way of denying the humanity of people who have heartfelt convictions. I see more power and harmony in trying to understand each other's passions and perspectives than in demonizing. As I am an animal rights believer, I can tell you my reasons are based on compassion, strong emotion, and logical reasoning. All mixed together. I am not a demon.

I don't endorse acts of violence or even necessarily acts of destruction of "property." If an activist knows what s/he is doing, however, the liberation of animals from factory farms, laboratories, and similar facilities, I am in full support of. If an animal is suffering in a lab or farm, then even euthanasia is better for them. They cannot free themselves, so they do need the help.

It's also true that, in a world so strongly based on profit-building, one of the best acts of change can be economically based. But such things are difficult to activate at a large scale. Certainly, if tons of people refused to buy any animal-tested product, animal testing might wither away as an accepted practice.

Changing social attitudes are frequently only semi-effective. While we have laws regarding civil rights, there are still significant numbers of people still opposed to them for various reasons. Sometimes its on the merits (or lack thereof) of specific policies, but sometimes it is still based on an -ism, a prejudice, even a hatred (we use that word too often). That's why direct action is frequently necessary. We are committing and supposedly benefiting from atrocious actions, and without a mass animal revolt, we are the only ones who can stop it.

Most of us - I would say a massive majority of us - do not seek these ends through violent means. Please stop associating the entire movement on those who do.

Peace and all good.
Andrew

Transition (not noun, verb, adjective, but something more than all of these)

2009-11-16T11:44:00.000-08:00

Image found here: http://tarotbyarwen.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/wheeloffortune.jpg

Maybe it was ten years ago when a group of friends and I did a tarot exercise in which this was "my card." I don't remember if we drew these cards at random from the major arcana, or if we determined them in some other way. Heck, I remember very little about that experience, except we had fun.

What I do remember is this: there is a stage at which one is at the end of something and at the beginning of something new.

Supposedly my soul is at that place.

I was telling my mother recently that I wasn't sure if I was an "old soul" or a "young soul." A palm reader a long time ago told me I was a young soul, because I didn't have lots of lines on my palm. Well, I was 13 or so, so I could be wrong about that.

Maybe more accurately, as I often feel old and naive at the same time (in a spiritual way), I am in both places.

I don't know what I'm ending and what I'm beginning. It's not physical death, but perhaps this lifetime, or epoch, or whatever, is a transitional time.

It's very uncomfortable.

I saw "Where the Wild Things Are" yesterday. It's not a simple kid's movie. Max, the young star, is in a stage of growing up...definitely still a kid (eight or nine perhaps?), still full of imagination, but also full of that energy that doesn't know where to go. Kind of a frustrated mania. The world doesn't respond according to the wizardly wimsy of a child's mind. Max goes into another world in which the creatures he encounters are easy to subdue, and they are excited about his strange, stream-of-conscious dictates. They eagerly agree to build a complicated city with tunnels and magical powers, and participate in a rumpus, and a dirt-clod fight.

But the creatures are not puppets. They have emotions - they are in many ways like kids. They don't always act the way Max might want them too.

Max is struggling with reality vs. fantasy, with growing up, with pent-up volcanic oozing kid-ness. It's not a moralistic movie, a predictable formula movie, a condescending or patronizing movie. It's primal and real, real, real.

I had a tear-duct geyser at several points while experiencing this masterpiece. Where the Wild Things Are is about transition...no, not "about"...it IS transition. There is no thesis or metaphor, even though it applies to leaving one's parents on the way to life in adulthood, to encountering middle age, to changing a career, to breaking up with (or falling in love with) someone, to getting seriously ill, to dying.

I know this crisis mode. I am Max. Max did not remind me of myself, or illuminate my self. He unlocked my heart and crawled inside and we adventured and raged and cried and laughed together.

The postscript is that I felt moved to go to Mass today for lunch, and I went back and forth between the Episcopal Mass that starts at noon and the Catholic one that starts at ten minutes after. I'm fortunate that I work so close to two different traditions who have daily Mass.

I decided that I didn't have to stick to my promise not to return to the Catholics, so I started down the street to the cathedral. Then I was easily deterred. I had no money in my pocket for the collection plate, and walking a few blocks to church might wear me out for the walk from the bus stop to home later, and besides, why the heck do I want to sit through a Mass anyway? The money machine was closer, so I went there, got some cash out for the next couple weeks, and turned back to work. I remembered the childish lecture about the proper way to receive Communion. I remembered how easy it is to turn on the "I'm so sorry, Lord" faucet whenever I participate in Christianity. How every prayer must include contrition. I used to fall asleep at night trying to get the whole prayer formula down...acknowledgment (thou art great), contrition (I'm so sorry), thanksgiving (for this and for that), and supplication (please give me this and that). ACTS is the abbreviation.

They don't want you to forget anything I guess.

I rarely even got to the thanksgiving part. I guess I see the point in the formula (though contrition is an odd thing...perhaps for another blog entry).

So, hey, church, my first instinct in the choice to go to Mass was - guess what? - that I should go to confession and be oh-so-sorrowful that my anger with the pope and the church leaders has led me astray or something.

But, see, I'm not sorry, and I'm not going to force sorrow onto myself so I feel worthy to take Communion.

Not gonna do it.

And that's when I remembered the Tarot.

Peace and all good.
Andrew

New Book - St. Basil the Great's "On Social Justice"

2009-11-09T11:10:00.000-08:00

This book looks great.

Whenever I see things like this I feel Orthodox. Arg.

http://www.svspress.com/product_info.php?products_id=4154

Homosexuality in Saudi Arabia

2009-11-09T07:03:00.001-08:00

I came in to work this morning to find out that the company I work for, a large international architectural/engineering firm, is going to assist in building a skyscraper in Saudi Arabia.

My first reaction is, great, we're getting our profits from a country that executes queers.

So I decided to look into that subject, and found this:

http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/03/13/homosexuality-in-saudi-arabia.htm

Yes, it's an atheism blog, but it links elsewhere as well. Even though the danger of arrest and prosecution is always there, apparently things are changing. And in a country wherein the law is so fluid, and contrasted to the strange approach the U.S. is taking towards equality, indeed things could go in many directions.

Now, that blog entry was written in 2004. In 2007, this article appeared in The Atlantic:

tp://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200705/gay-saudi-arabia

I don't know if a United Statesian could adjust to the closeted lifestyle of a gay person in Saudi Arabia. It's kind of "don't flaunt, don't get arrested" there. Sort of. It's also a place that considers the homosexual act, rather than the identity, at least at the time of the article I just referenced. Sex is rampant, while a focus on identity (gay orientation) is discouraged. What to make of the attitude towards women as described in the article, I'm not sure. But as someone whose spiritual path always seems to have strong roots in the Middle East (I've never been there, but Jesus, Nazareth, spirituality of the desert), learning about life there seems to be a magnet for my attention.

What's the difference?

2009-11-08T07:20:00.000-08:00

What is the difference between following the party line of the Roman Catholic church, and "100% faithfulness to Jesus Christ and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church"?

(That's a quote from someone replying to a comment I made about people following the party line regarding gay marriage).

Hell, Purgatory, and Other Means of Hating Ourselves

2009-11-05T06:41:00.000-08:00

I don't believe in an eternal place that is impossible to escape.

I also think that the whole Purgatory hellish sin-purge thing is outdated and totally negates the power of God.

God CAN handle "impurity." It's not what goes in, it's what comes out. Jesus said so himself. We don't need to be cleansed for a billion years just so we can be in the presence of God. What, did Jesus only feel safe to be around imperfect unbathed humans because he had the human flesh barrier between him and his godliness?

Do we presume to assert that his skin and muscles and fingernails and organs and blood vessels and bodily fluids were not also in some way "God"?

Seriously?

If we must be purged, I think we do it here. For me, it's pretty literal. When I'm letting go of something rather toxic in my psyche, or going through a big transition, I tend to have at least one rather horribly violent vomit session.

I see neither a logical nor intuitive connection between the loving, perfect God, and the need for us to be squeaky clean in order to achieve "salvation" (another term with all sorts of interesting definitions).

Peace and all good.

Two dads

2009-11-04T11:25:00.001-08:00

Check out more pix at uberpix.net!

The Roman Catholic Church - Ta-Ta Bitch!

2009-11-03T20:23:00.000-08:00

I'm watching the results trickle in on Question 1 in Maine, which would trash gay marriage and take away equal rights from my queer brothers and sisters in that state.

It's very close, but as I write this, the margin has gone up from 50-50 to 51-49, in favor of the people who want to spit in our face.

I don't live in Maine, but I take this personally.

I take this personally because my church, the Roman Catholic Church, fought for this to happen.

I take this personally, no matter what the outcome, because it can still be this close, in spite of everything.

I take this personally because I'm gay and I am supposedly an equal citizen in this country.

I don't think I'll be able to forgive my church for this. No more.

Put your money into the basket, it can go to crap like this.

Fuck you, church. I'm done with you, for the very last time.

Hallowe'en Soul Wisdom

2009-10-31T06:04:00.000-07:00

Hallowe'en night, the dead are close to us.

They say that.

They.

And they may be right.

We are fascinated with the stupid stuff.

"The witches have cursed the candy supply."

I think maybe not the witches...they're thinking of Project Mayhem. Not an easy mistake to make, unless they haven't seen Fight Club.

And the candy, the pure molded shit we smoosh with our molars and send careening down into our bloodstreams, is big business.

Do we worry about Nestle? They do horrible things. But we buy their candy, and give it to our kids.

The Daily Show did a pretty astute clip regarding the futility of boycotts, or at least the frustration of attempting them:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-27-2009/whole-foods-boycott

But enough about consumerism. In the cold Hallowe'en desert night, we can drive to a desolate area, and sit under the moon. We can make magic happen. But I'll probably stay home, remote control in one hand, bottle of wine in the other. The magic dissipated many years ago. The veil between the physical world and the invisible world, be it thick or thin, I don't think it registers anymore. I don't feel anything.

Maybe tonight can be my new year's. Tomorrow, push away all the chemicals, the people-pleasing, the games, the existential focus on materialism. Why wait till tonight? I think I'll start now.

Disengagement Just Happens. Freedom Just Happens.

2009-10-27T21:26:00.000-07:00

This is personal.

Something happens:
A priest says something stupid about the proper way to take communion.

Something that small is usually not enough, but if it's compounded by something big, it usually is enough:
The pope welcomes disaffected members of another denomination of Christianity into the Roman Catholic fold, on the basis of a negative rather than a positive.

The drifting begins.

Sometimes it's very depressing. Not this time. It was just drifting. "I'll go over here, to the Episcopalians."

But no, that doesn't seem right. No click.

Drift, drift. Peacefully arrive at:
Full disconnect.

Disconnection from the church. Disconnection from concern about said disconnection.

Float some more.

Feel attraction to the more purely spiritual energies, the elements, the spirits, the music and tools of magic, the freedom of exploration.

This time it is a pleasant breeze. Sometimes it is a cool river, but this time, a breeze.

I am a feather in the breeze. Not caught by it, but freely IN it.

It's not a path, necessarily, but a state.

Disengage. Pull the plug from the base of my spine, from the hole in my neck.

Intrigued by, attracted to Kundalini. To something that smells better, has more energy, more promise.

The door in the prism of my heart is open in true wonder.

The light.

Peace.

And all good.

A note about slavery

2009-10-26T11:30:00.001-07:00

I'm currently reading Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, and he points out (on page 28 of the 2003 paperback printing) that slavery in the colonies was "the most cruel form of slavery in history" because of two factors:

"...the frenzy for limitless profit that comes from capitalistic agriculture; the reduction of the slave to less than human status by the use of racial hatred, with that relentless clarity based on color, where white was master, black was slave."

And while we think sometimes that we already understand what slavery in the American colonies was like, to get a very real first-hand account, I highly recommend that anyone interested read "The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano."

"Interesting" is an understatement!

It's an accessible read, it's contemporary to the times, and Equiano experienced not only U.S. slavery, but also Caribbean slavery.

New thoughts on "Fight Club" (the movie) - SPOILERS WITHIN

2009-10-26T11:28:00.001-07:00

Okay, so I just finished watching Fight Club again, first time in almost ten years. (I saw it several times back then, and the DVD has sat on my shelf for many years since. It was time to revisit.)

These thoughts are for those who have indeed watched the film already. It gives away too much if you are planning to see it. There's your warning!

My earlier feeling was that this movie metaphorically described how to get out of rut, out of the matrix, so to speak.

Watching it this time, I really started to wonder what to do with the brainwashing aspect of the Durden plan. The new recruits are head-shaven. Slogans are shouted into their faces over and over and down the line, passed on. You are not a unique and beautiful snowflake. You are not...you are not....

You have no names...

And then, even when he tries to point out that it's not true, that they do have names, it becomes another slogan. His name is Robert Paulson....

Animal Farm...the initial pig who dies, but first gives a big speech, essentially the Karl Marx of the book...his words are perverted by later pigs, until they become as bad as their original oppressors.

Fight Club seems to be doing something similar, though in the end, yes, no one gets hurt by the exploding buildings, but still...

It's happily not simple. Which makes it not a nice neat metaphor after all.

It's making me think about the film's intent more. Yes, it still blows me away in some ways. But most of that comes from the first act, as Roger Ebert describes in his review:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19991015/REVIEWS/910150302/1023

I think he is too dismissive in his review, but if I toss aside his desire to turn his observations into criticism and his refusal to try to see a bit deeper his own cynicism, he provides some insights. I don't share his critique of the art, but it is nice to notice that someone else sees the Fascist parallels...

Is Fight Club more about Nazism than about freedom?

I'm thinking it's very possible. And how difficult it is to know the difference between freeing yourself (hitting rock bottom) and deciding that you are a victim (the middle children of society, or whatever).

Catholic, Anglican, Episcopalian - Episcopalian, Anglican, Catholic

2009-10-21T07:32:00.000-07:00

Many of you have patiently observed and smile-n-nodded as I have taken the dizzy spiral of religious seeking. I could try to give a timeline; it's boring or boggling or both, so feel free to skip to the paragraph after if you want!

Baptised Catholic...lost specific faith definitions at age 12 when they told me you can't get out of hell once you're there...agnostic through adolescence but got confirmed Roman Catholic anyway...Occult for a while...back to Catholic...then Pagan...then Catholic, wanted to be priest...then experimented with EVERYTHING....then Catholic, wanted to be a priest again...then moved to Denver...then Catholic, then Wiccan, then Orthodox...back to Albuquerque...officially became Orthodox via Chrismation...back to Wicca...then Episcopalian (received even)...then nothing for a while...then Orthodox for a month...then nothing again...now lately been going to the Roman Catholic church.

And I'm sure I missed something there. Oh yeah...some time with the UUs and the Religious Science paths...

I look at all of these paths with positivity and love. I think they all work in many ways. I disparage none.

Belief-wise, Episcopalian is for me. This has been the case for some time. But I didn't feel at home without my church of birth. Cradle Roman Catholic here. Raised on Vatican II churches. Great music for a while (yes, folky, with guitars, but they were great songs) though not every parish utilizes the good stuff.

I noticed a couple things coming back to the RCC (Roman Catholic Church).

1. Almost every sermon mentions or dwells on abortion. It would seem there is no other real passion among the church leadership anymore.

1a. Except putting money and effort into defeating any gay rights initiative in civil society, and berating us gays for, well, being ourselves.

2. The archdiocese here is having this men's course. How to be a Catholic man. Accepting the leadership role in the family. (This is Catholic? It sounds so...right-wing Christian) Women should encourage men to take on this strong leadership role.

3. There is a lot of focus among the laity about "error" in liturgy, and how the only real Mass is Tridentine. This is a belief among friends of mine online, many of them.

4. There is still compassion for the individual among the priests.

5. The pope is worse than the one we had before I left. I say that from my own perspective. This one is almost a crusader, "investigating" nuns, forbidding gays to become priests, generally making faces in public that are scarier than Dick Cheney's.

5a. Pope's behavior does not surprise me. Ratzinger has always been like this.

Still, this is my church. The RCC is made of the people, who are bigger than the sum of the parts, and about whom I care more than I do about the Vatican. The Vatican should care more about the people than itself too.

I was so set on sticking around. They aren't gonna drive me out!

(I'm pretty sure the Papacy would like we dissenters to leave, however, if we aren't willing to pickle our brains in the brine of dogmatism.)

Now, we have hypocrisy. That's what this is:

"Yo," says the pope, "you Anglicans who prickle and burn with umbrage over women and gays in the clergy, you are welcome here, for we are a sanctuary for you, who are righteous and intolerant of such evils. And, hey, you can keep your wives too."

See, if you are a faithful Catholic, and want to be a priest, you cannot have a wife. (Hell, even if you want to be celibate, but are gay in orientation, you can't be a priest, because we just cannot have a person who might seduce kids...oh, wait...never mind...).

But if you convert because your underwear is itchy, you can have all kinds of privileges.

I can't help but wonder if this is a way to get more priests in the church without having to change the rules and allow married priests.

The church is growing among the intolerant and conservative (not always the same thing, but usually). It is shrinking among the free-thinking. I'm sure the Pope is gleeful about this, as his creepy visage takes on its sinister grin.

Is it time for me to finally let go of my childish clinging to the church of my youth? Is it time to cut the string for good? Is it possible for my heart to fully grow into a more liberal path and work to make it my home?

Orthodoxy came close, but only in pockets, wonderful independent churches who were very gay-friendly and often shunned by established jurisdictions (especially among those members who converted from something else).

What attracted me to the Episcopalians originally was that people prayed together, took communion together, no matter how they differed in matters of dogma, morality, even theology. The Creed and the Book of Common Prayer bind the people together. And hey, you can intepret that as you do. No pressure to accept specifics. They don't even seem to mind that I don't say the filioque.

If my understanding is faulty, someone please let me know.

But the next service I attend will be Episcopalian. There, I won't be adding funds to anti-gay initiatives. There, I can love God without worrying if I'm taking communion correctly. There, I can accept the Eucharist without worrying if I should have gone to Confession first.

There, see, God and I can have a relationship without some crazy guy in Rome getting in the way.

Peace and all good.

Finding meaning

2009-10-19T07:08:00.000-07:00

I go through periods that I call "so what?"

You know, nothing really matters. The world is pointless and absurd, and therefore so are our endeavors. Or dreams and goals and actions and emotions.

Hopelessness and depression. What else to call it?

"So what?"

A couple of months ago I dropped out of school, in despair of the job market. See, I wanted to be a history professor. Or, really, I wanted to be a historian, surrounded by that which I love, the human journey, the mysterious corners of a thousand years ago, the reasons that Reagan became president (and what that event wrought thereafter). The globe is beautiful. Right there is the Mediterranean. Do you know how much happened there which made the current world possible?

See England? Voltaire loved it and wrote about it. He inspired people who ended up doing good and terrible things because of what he wrote and said. Rousseau, same time period, French, inadvertently inspired revolutionary movements not only in the United States, but in South America as well.

It really does matter.

It matters because it's interesting. Inspirational. Terrible. It makes *today* seem more *worthy* of my energy. I don't want to just wake up each day, go to work, float through it, pay my bills, go home and eat a lot of food before going to bed again.

I don't care if I become a history professor. But I am going to study history. If you and I live long enough, you can, if you choose, call me Dr. Werling someday.

The drive for finding meaning leads some to church, some to charity, some to career.

I found it ages ago, back in World History class. 12th grade. Mrs. Barbara Murdoch is one of my saints. I'd love to have a photograph of her to place near my altar, so I may show her respect. I should find her and tell her that. She doesn't know how much she shaped my sense of wonder, my love of academics, my interest in living.

Peace and all good,
Andrew

Salvation separation?

2009-10-16T08:29:00.000-07:00

I loved Stephen Colbert's comment a couple nights ago, about how the cross can be a symbol both for those who are Christians and those who are going to hell.

So one group of Christians, anyway, says that you have to do the Jesus Prayer to go to heaven. Something like, "Jesus, I confess that I am a sinner and ask you to be my lord and savior." And you have to mean it.

Another says you have to be baptized and go through a purging after death in order to get to heaven.

Another says that you work with God, and God is working to save you throughout life.

Does this make Christians severely split?

Or is it all symbolic anyway? One priest told me that he believed that heaven is so glorious that, when faced with the choice of acceptance or rejection of Christ when the door of Heaven was opened to him, even Adolph Hitler chose heaven.

I think Hell, in the end, is empty. Even Satan is hanging out in the summerland. We're all together for eternity. And we're happy. Bite me, gloomy types.

St. Paul and the Nature of the Bible

2009-10-12T22:11:00.000-07:00

A general question was brought up at a blog I follow over on myspace (Click here): how should Paul be understood, and in what way (if at all) should we Christians follow his teachings?

Paul was a gifted, thoughtful writer, to be sure. A key to shaping the early church.

I personally don't base my faith on "taking the bible as a whole inerrantly etc. etc." We must use discernment. For one thing, Paul himself only wrote some of the letters attributed to him. Scholars have pretty much agreed that he didn't write Ephesians or Colossians, for example. Among others.

When Paul wrote about homosexuals in Romans, it's obvious he wasn't given any divine insight into the concept of sexual orientation, only studied with any real seriousness in the 1900s and beyond. Like most of the Bible, the specifics in his teachings have little application to us in in the modern Western world. We need a heavy amount of interpretation to find value in his discussions on slavery, or women in church.

I'm one who considers the bible to be a collection of books, all written by humans, inspired by God but not directed by God. If I am inspired to sing God's praises when I beyond a beautiful landscape, that is not God singing God's praises...it's me, inspired by God. I don't even necessarily think God intended for me to sing those praises. I'm inspired by what I behold and experience and interpret. That's how I think the Biblical texts were written. I believe that the canonization of the various works that became the anthology that we call the Holy Bible is an artificial construct, originally put together for convenience, and then placed in an order which suggests the inevitability of events from other events.

Hence, the nature of God, the behavior of Yahweh, the reasons for Jesus Christ's presence and activities on earth - this was interpreted by the writers based on what they experienced, what they were told as the stories were passed down. What I have before me in a Bible are those interpretations and literary presentations, and I too must then interpret and discern for myself how to understand God and God's mission with humans and with Creation in general.

Hence, that's how I read Paul. His letters reflect his experience, interpretation, and possibly political aims, in relation to Jesus. I could choose to just put all the responsibility on Paul's shoulders and take him literally. It's easy; I'd just say that God told him what to write. Instead, I wrestle with it, and do my best to be in communication/relationship/interaction with the books in the Bible. The Bible, for me, is neither a book in stone nor the only medium for coming to God. There are the gospels which never ended up in the Bible. There are other texts considered sacred in other religious paths. There are trees, and movies, and novels, and scientific discoveries, and babies, and music, and rabbits...so many ways to approach God. My spiritual path must be living. Living waters, as they are called. To drink of those waters, for me, means to dive in and really experience them.

Coming Out - Big Explosive Wormhole to Freedom

2009-10-11T10:03:00.000-07:00

In the fall of 1989 I came out to my friend John, via a cassette. We were friends since fifth grade, and as we we went to college we stayed connected for a few years via spoken letters on cassettes. Looking back, that was the perfect thing. Our friendship was partly based on the chemistry of verbal interaction, in a mutually developed sense of humor and appreciation of the ridiculous which still informs the person I am today.

After walking all over the campus with my portable tape player, which my parents bought for me for recording lectures but ended up being used solely for letters such as these, I did a build up that made obvious what I was going to say: "I'm gay."

Putting it into the mailbox pretty much sealed it.

Technically, the first person who knew for a fact that I was gay was a counselor at school, with whom I had already made an appointment and saw before the letter got to John's possession. But John got to witness the vulnerable first step.

After that, I confided in a couple more friends, but that was it, until 1991, October 11, National Coming Out Day. There was a listserv mailing list online called "Gay Net" which was for college queers and which was very active with lots of readers. I sent a simple message that said something like, "Today is National Coming Out Day. Here I am, coming out."

There were waves of acceptance from this. For the next couple years I slowly came out to more friends and family on a personal level. I was never rejected for it, was very fortunate to have a flexible and very loving family who adjusted very quickly to a new knowledge of who I am. My parents even sent a coming out letter to the extended family members, coming out as parents of a gay son.

Yeah, I'm pretty lucky!

Coming out made it impossible for me to lie. I stink at lying. It's a skill I'm trying to relearn as I rebuild some boundaries these days, due to other issues I haven't come to grips with yet.

But coming out led to a renewed awakening of my spirituality, my cradle church, and I went to a priest at the local Newman Center (a college-focused ministry; these are parishes that exist near universities to minister to the students) about returning to the faith. I felt the Holy Spirit's blessing as I walked away from that meeting.

I told the priest I was gay too.

I was a gay Catholic, and I am today as well.

Coming out is a remarkably, explosively freeing event. It can even create freedom in an instant, like a wormhole (do you like my clever blog-entry title?). It also, I learned, can lead to a little bit of grief. It is a separation from the way things were, even if the way things were lacked, well, goodness. I didn't find that grief to be overbearing or even a big deal. It was just adjustment.

They say coming out is a lifelong process. I'm not officially out at work. I mean, a bunch of people do know, of course, though they haven't said anything. How could they not know? But I never came out. The four-plus years at my job in Denver were the same way, though I think fewer people knew there.

There are many ways to come out. I'm a pretty honest person, especially on the internet. The way for me to come out now is to move from the self-focus to the other-focus (without losing centeredness in the heart). By giving I am more fully being. By receiving I am able to more fully give. Connection without enmeshment. Honesty without neediness.

I'm out. Are you?

Engaging and Approaching the Bible - Rewriting It?

2009-10-09T07:19:00.000-07:00

Obviously the conservative bible is a silly idea, and if they want to
waste their time and money on such a thing, I figure it's there
problem. And hey, as I'm not one who really holds the Bible (as it
is) as sacred really (I know that's weird for a Catholic to say), I
think it's probably a good thing. At least they are engaging with the
text and being creative with it. Okay, more likely they are trying
very hard to force the bible into their own weird mold of what they
want it to say. I'm being generous here.

Thomas Jefferson did the same thing, of course, which is a fun thing about him.

Stephen Mitchell, who is not a Christian (as I recall) wrote a
fascinating book called The Gospel of Jesus, in which he goes on
recent scholarship AND his own instinct to pull out everything that
doesn't seem to fit in the Gospels. Interesting and at the very least
encourages active thinking and engagement with the Gospels.

Allow me to share this link to what I think is a BRILLIANT essay on
this. It really helps me in its explanation of a good way to approach
and engage with the Bible. I really encourage everyone here to read
it.

"The project, as it turns out, indulges in an error common not just to
conservatives, but to liberal believers and atheists as well. Namely,
these conservative ideologues seem to think that the Bible should tell
them what they already know, rather than challenge their beliefs."

http://www.religiondispatches.org/blog/religionandtheology/1892/because_the_bible_has_a_liberal_bias/

Seriously...follow the link. It's the best blog entry I've read in some time.

Coexisting with Those Against Us

2009-10-07T07:56:00.000-07:00

Perhaps we are simply being normal people when we react with anger towards those who are in a state of "againstness" towards us, particularly when they are yelling at us. We gay people deal with it all the time.

Much of it comes from the Christian "right wing."

When they use the military vocabulary (soldiers, spiritual armor) in a spiritual sense (this is a very foreign concept to me, but I understand there is a Pauline verse that fuels this kind of thing), I get nervous.

If they are soldiers against me and my queer sisters and brothers, should I be a soldier too, a defensive soldier? What would that look like?

And the more immediate question: are the actions of people such as these worth addressing at all? You know, I find that when I don't watch Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, the right wing seems less threatening to me. I think it's because of all the attention they put on them.

If he won't disclose church attendence, that certainly means it's miniscule.

Something that just crossed my mind. How about a movement of queers with the message: "We love you"? As in, openly gay people who, as a group, feed the homeless, hold community events, help kids in need, etc. etc., who also make a point to be loving towards the folks who are so outraged by our existence. Not judging, debating, trying to change them. Just being humans with love in our hearts.

Then maybe some of them will change their minds of their own accord.

Frankenberry on Wood, "Liberal or Literal?"

2009-10-05T07:12:00.000-07:00

RE: "Liberal or Literal? James Wood, Terry Eagleton, and the New Atheism" by Nancy Frankenberry.

Not sure what to do with this article. It's certainly insightful.

My problem with much "new atheist" critique is resulting from those who espouse it in forums online, the ones who accuse me of accepting dangerous fairytales in lieu of "reason." I haven't read Dawkins or any of the others, with the exception of a brief excerpt from Harris, which I found very easy to refute and so didn't bother reading more.

The literalism I run into in daily conversation online, then, is a dismissive insistence that it's all mythology (as if mythology itself were foolish) and only serves as escapism or deflection of responsibility.

It ignores deeper experiences of those of us who are religious. As a liberal religious person, I have problem with neither the divinity of Christ and existence of spirits NOR the use of reason and science in the material world. It's easy to reconcile the two, because religion for me is not about explaining away everything. It's about getting deeper, getting energized.

I'm glad that atheism is getting airtime, and that atheists are speaking out, particularly against those who would turn the U.S. into a theocracy. But those who wish to convert us to atheism are missing the point. I am not dangerous, I am not deluding myself. I am living more fully than I would be if I rejected religion and spirituality altogether.

Pro-Life Politics and St. Francis of Assisi

2009-10-04T13:20:00.000-07:00

The Feast Day of St. Francis of Assisi seemed like a good day to get off my butt and go to my first Sunday Mass in over a month. He is the saint I chose (who chose me?) when I was Confirmed back in 1988. And if I ever do answer that calling to a religious order (secular order or otherwise), there is a good chance that it will be a Franciscan one.

Today also happened to be a church-wide anti-abortion day.

If this was unintentional on the part of whoever decided the latter, I don't find it accidental.

The priest this morning gave a long, thoughtful, and I thought sensitive discussion on human life issues. He did not budge from his perspective on abortion and while I do question some of the comments he made, I can find no fault with his approach and delivery.

It was very political. That's fine too.

I think, however, that this "issue" is poorly served by thrusting it into the political arena. Reducing abortion cannot be achieved through legislation. And the last thing we really need is another reason for the courts, cops, and lawyers to get into our lives.

Compassion for all is more important to me, personally. Compassion for the mothers, especially. It's been said a million times, but it doesn't hurt to reinforce the fact that among those people who have been through the abortion experience, it's pretty rare for their attitudes about it to be marked by casualness, indifference, joy, or celebration.

I respect that.

The priest also mentioned stem cells, which is also more complex than most people acknowledge. He mentioned euthanasia, which I don't think is anyone's business but the person who wants it. He mentioned war and the death penalty. It's rare to have a pro-life sermon or discussion in which all of this is put into parallel. I appreciate that.

No mention of St. Francis of Assisi except in the announcements before the Mass started. They're blessing pets at some point today.

But the connection isn't hard to make.

Francis wrote a lovely piece, The Canticle of the Sun. Read it here (it's short!): CLICK.

Pro-Life I am. May the life of Creation thrive. May we cooperate with that. May we encourage the health of the planet and universe.

Pro-Life I am. May we move in compassion in our treatment of all creatures, human and non-human alike.

Pro-Life I am. May we extend that not only in our physical and material decisions, but in our spoken and unspoken interactions, and may we nurture our hearts to grow in love.

Pro-Life I am. May the Living Spirit of God recognize itself in us.

Peace and all good.

Beware the Scrupulous Scowl

2009-10-03T20:25:00.000-07:00

And believe me, it's a scowl.

Fr. X, back in 8th grade. Weekly mass for us kids. The only thing I remember about his sermon? "I watched you walk into God's house and not one of you said to Him, 'Good Morning.'"

You bad, bad, pathetic, worthless little Catholics. You didn't do it right. I'd like to smoosh you with my little thumb.

It's 25 years later, and I've spent a lot of time reconciling my independent nature and emotional upheavals and creative instincts with the church of my cradle. I often go to Daily Mass. It's good for me. Doesn't even take half a day for me to get discombobulated at work and all it takes is a half-hour of Mass and I am able to be normal again.

People can call me a lot of things in relation to my faith journey, but "insincere" is not one of them.

I've also got a bit of OCD. If I cut myself, the worst thing I can do is get blood on anything, especially another person.

So in the communion line this past Wednesday, I scratched my ear. Apparently I scratched too hard. I was afraid there was blood on my finger. For me, even microscopic blood is enough to trigger my compulsion to NOT let you touch my hand.

If that doesn't make sense, I can only ask that you accept that the urgency is real.

So this was my left hand. I'm right handed. I put my right hand on top of my left to receive communion from Father Y, then I bring my hand up to my mouth to take Communion. No, this isn't elegant. But even though I'm about to chew up this host and allow it to pass through my digestive system, I'm sure as heaven not going to get blood on it.

Communion ends. Before the final blessing, Fr. Y stands up and offers a bit of information on the proper way to receive Communion. Hey, I don't mind education. It's not something I remember. Proper way to receive Communion. To me it was always about mindset. Reverence. Gratitude. That sort of thing. Communion has always been the highlight for me. It blows my mind.

So imagine:

"The proper way to receive communion is to put your non-dominant hand over your dominant hand, then take the communion with your dominant hand and put it into your mouth. Those of you who play games and keep it in the same hand and bring it up to your mouth in order to gulp it down are not doing it correctly."

Playing games? Gulp it down?

Sorry Father, but it's God who knows my heart, not you. Bite me.

And it's not like I can go take communion from him again. He'll be watching me.

It's bewildering to me. Here is the priest I'm always pleased about when it's his turn to do the daily Mass. His sermons are simply yet unique and insightful. I went to him for confession once and thought he was amazing and very caring.

And then this crap. Who pissed in your Wheaties, Father?

It sucks sometimes, when spiritual leaders get all *human* on you.

But because I'm not back at the church in order to second guess my every move, in order to scrupulously and anxiously make sure I jot and tittle my way to heaven, I must reject his admonishment. Not the information within it. But yes, the insulting and demeaning assumption he made. I'm sad, but I won't be going to his Masses again.

Ecumenism: one church?

2009-09-29T06:44:00.000-07:00

I don't argue about there being one church.

I'm not so convinced that Catholics have everything "right" about the "truth." Because we are human it is difficult to know if our interpretations are correct. Do we think Ratzinger is right about everything? If not, why do we assume that the early church councils were right about everything? A lot of those things were dictated by Constantine, who was only possessed of a very rough understanding of even basic Christian belief at the time he was alive.

I have faith in God, and the best place for me to meet God is the RCC. Because relationship requires more than one party, I need to do what I can to be as receptive as possible. I find it easiest to do that in church. I don't assume that the church is infallible, though I do not have any problem, and even like, what the church teaches about Mary (as the two times papal infallibility was invoked involved her).

Again, because of our humanness our understanding is limited. It is necessarily shaped by our experience, studies, personality. The U.S. black church's understanding of Jesus' mission is partly shaped by the history of slavery and subsequent oppression, for example. In the U.S. in general, a do-it-yourself kind of country, telling people to just go to church and trust councils and encyclicals to explain the truth is a pretty unrealistic expectation.

Just like it's unrealistic to expect me and many of my fellow and sister Catholics and Orthodox Christians to use only the Bible and our own (again, necessarily) imperfect interpretive abilities to understand that truth.

We do what we can. We do our best. Theology is not a perfect science. And I really don't think we will ever be "one church" again. We can be at peace with that and pray for each other, or we can wring our hands and get into flurrious conniptions about heresies.

No thanks. This is about God, who I frankly doubt gives two figs about much of this.

Peace and all good.

PS: did you notice the word "flurrious"? Did I make that up? Gee, I sure hope so!

We do what we do. We do our best.

Ecumenism? Why?

2009-09-27T20:52:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure what drives ecumenical efforts.

Is it to heal the schisms?

Is it so we simply get along? Or is it to create a universal communion among all Christianities?

As a Catholic, I find that the vocabulary and even some of the concepts of the more evangelical Protestant groups is foreign to my own experience and beliefs.

I don't even think we speak the same language half the time.

(No, I'm not pretending to speak for all Catholics.)

Are we all Christians? I remember someone in a class I was taking tell the professor that he would like to write a paper discussing the differences in marriage ceremonies between Catholics and Christians.

I thought, hey, I'm a Christian. What are you implying?

But it doesn't matter. "Christian" is just a word. I don't really care if we all agree. My suspicion is that we all have different means to effectively approach God. What I need for that endeavor is not going to be realized at a Sunday service which is predominantly a pastor spending an hour analyzing a chapter of the bible verse-by-verse, or through speaking in tongues. A lot of people I know cannot handle the sitting and standing and kneeling that happens in a Catholic Mass.

All well and good.

They do their thing, I do my thing. It doesn't even matter if it's to the same end.

I'd rather have the divisions than have people all try to fit into the same church to the point wherein there is one church that somehow incorporates everything into it. If a priest at a Mass started having altar calls I'd have to stop going.

Just sayin'. Hey, look at what's happening in the Roman Catholic church now, from the Vatican itself. It's going as conservative as it can. If one believes EWTN, party-line television for the modern Catholic fuddy duddy (though I do love their music programs, and the Rosary programs they feature), we're about as fun-loving as a plastic-covered couch.

Try to integrate the rest of conservative Christianity into the Church, and good grief. Well, let me just say no thanks.

I tend to think there are good reasons we have different Christianities. Let's just keep it that way. I know I find it hard enough as a gay liberal cradle Catholic who finds comfort in his home church and either ignores, rejects, or "gives to God" the more dictatorial aspects of the Magisterium. No additional pressure. Please and thank you.

Rosary v. Gin

2009-09-24T21:02:00.000-07:00

Getting drunk gets you that neat tipsy feeling and might do something temporarily about emotional turmoil or hangups. Then if you don't pass out it tends to make things a bit worse, where you feel like crap and the morning is that much more difficult to face, and you're sluggish the next day and frankly, it's not much fun anymore.

I know, I didn't use "I" language in that paragraph. I meant "I."

I find that saying a Rosary has a calming effect as well, and no negative after-effect.

Just something I notice.

What do I mean by "Dark Magnet"

2009-09-20T21:19:00.000-07:00

Folks talk of balance. You can't have creation without destruction (or vice versa), they say, or light without darkness.

The darkness attracts the light too.

It's an imperfect metaphor. Darkness perhaps reveals the light more than attracts it.

Looking for God in the Dark Corners, Without Permission

2009-09-20T09:52:00.000-07:00

That's what I'm doing with this blog. Rather, that's what I'm doing in life, and sharing about it by writing it down, here.

I am a Roman Catholic, who has decided to approach God with the faith of a child. I need church, but I don't need dogma. I need God, but I don't need to be dictated to by humans.

I have explored many faith paths, both within and outside of Christianity. I think God is in all of them.

Because religion is the attempt to connect with God collectively.

It's fine to have heroes. It's finer to be in touch with God in your heart.

My eyes and heart are open, and I hope that anxiety and tendencies toward religious scrupulosity will be lovingly transformed into peaceful wonderment and acceptance. I'm glad we have priests, bishops, and even a pope. None of them, however, trump God in the heart. Not for me anyway.

I hope as this blog proceeds you will be moved, edified, or inspired to explore. Please don't condemn. Heresy is an overrated concept.

Peace and all good.