Children are the challenge - Kiera Chapter 2

It's been six years since I last wrote about Kiera on this blog.  Two years ago we moved to Iowa.  She has developed into a fine young woman and turned a corner last year in which she decided her friends needed to reflect her own common sense.  This path was realized by open, frank, and timely conversations.  She is surrounded by high quality friends who are nicely positioning themselves to rule the world.  

I am pleased that as she has matured, she still includes her mother and I in her life and her decisions.  She feels comfortable enough with us that she doesn't need to hide who she is.  Last year, interrupting a moment of silence, she told her mother she thought she might be bi-sexual.  There was a girl in her friend group she was emotionally and physically attracted to. A couple of months later she told us she was pansexual.  She discovered this scale on the spectrum when she  joined the Colors group at school.  Colors is a group that supports LGBTQ kids and their friends.  

We didn't dismiss this revelation.  We accepted it at face value.  We also didn't share her news outside of our immediate family.  We knew she was trying to figure out what it meant.  She "dated" a couple of kids from school.  Both boys and girls.  The guidance she received from us was, "Only do what you are comfortable with." We also advised her to take things slow.  Don't rush to commitment. Don't limit yourself to dating just one person.  Some of our advice was well received and some of it has been ignored.  At the end of the day, we are observers.  Our only role is to preserve her ability to consent.  

We knew we had little to worry about from the kids she chose to "date".  We were less concerned with the fact she believed she was bi-sexual than we were about how our conservative Mormon family members would treat her.  The pernicious evil that exist in our world is not homosexual relationships. The evil exists in a self righteous belief that their brand of morality is better than ours.  It is in the harm they might inflict on our child out of ignorance and hate. 

Last week, Kiera made it public.  She is in a relationship with a girl.  Téa is a delightful young woman.  She is a senior and has been accepted to the University of Iowa. She comes bundled with a ton of energy. We asked Kiera if she realized she had outed herself when she posted the Facebook status.  She said she had nothing to hide.  We agree.  

How long will this relationship last?  We don't know.  We will be moving in a year.  It could end long before the move or it could endure in spite of the move.  What we do know is that if anyone has anything harmful or judgmental to say to our child, they will hear from us.  We would rather end a familial relationship or a friendship than to allow them to make her feel she is broken, twisted, perverted or immoral. Our child and her mental and emotional health are precious to us. What we do know is the move to Iowa allowed Kiera to discover who she is.  We cannot imagine how much more difficult it would have been to help her navigate this portion of her life if we had remained in Utah.     

You may have been born that way... but it was your choice!

I recently posted this article on Facebook: http://www.occupydemocrats.com/a-nun-brilliantly-exposed-pro-life-hypocrites-with-this-hard-hitting-quote/> It is an article in which a nun calls out the conservatives in this country with this quote:

"I do not believe that just because you’re opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don’t? Because you don’t want any tax money to go there. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-
birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.”

 Now the article is clearly about the way we treat children who are poor and disadvantaged once they are born. The article is not about abortion. The conservatives in my feed couldn't help but make it about that.  You can read the entire thread here:

https://www.facebook.com/kqdudley/posts/10207627350105610?comment_id=10207659129900085&notif_t=feed_comment_reply 

David, a 20 something white Mormon male who lives in Provo, UT, entered into the discussion. What caught my attention was his application of Mormon theology.  I am very familiar with his mind set here.  I had just forgotten how twisted it can be.

In regards to the moral and up righteous, I was recognizing or trying to recognize that there are people of variable moral focuses.  My point when using those words was that pretty much no matter what, if a woman who is raped and impregnated, of her own choice, decides to go through the pregnancy and raise the child, no one is going to come up to her and say "You are a terrible person, how dare you do what you just did, it was morally wrong for the following reasons:" because they would have no reasons.  If you can come up with one please, go ahead and tell me.  As for fertilization and conception, that is focused primarily in both my knowledge of biological science and religious belief.  I believe that we were all spirits before we came into this mortal life.  I believe we Volunteered to come into this mortal existence because it was only through experiencing mortality and being able to choose between right and wrong that we would be able to become more like our Heavenly Father, the father of our spirits.  I believe that when conception occurs, when the ova and sperm cell combine, that that new cell which is now as capable of becoming an adult human being as a baby outside of the womb, is given to one of my spirit brothers and sisters who still lies beyond the veil.  That body, though it be a single cell, is theirs, and just for us the moment it dies there goes all future chances for mortal experience in this life for them, they don't get another body.  This is why the "It would be better if they don't get born in a terrible situation" argument doesn't work with me.  I believe the(y) Volunteered, knowing full well what they were getting themselves into, to be put in that body.

Mormons believe we were all spirits in a pre-existence.  The number of bodies are finite and were all conceived by a heavenly father (god) and a heavenly mother.  It also could be a father and several mothers because polygamy is still alive and well in the afterlife. They are conceived mechanically the same way you and I were conceived by our parents.  They gestate in the same way humans do now.

If a child dies in childbirth or in the womb it is considered to have lived its life.  It has one chance to get a mortal body.  That is it.

Here is where the theology becomes concerning:  Mormons believe that we all choose to come to earth and to get a body.  We knew, in some cases we would be born into challenging situations. Those might be:

• to a mother that was raped
• it might be in desperate poverty
• that might be with a physical or mental disability
• that might be with "same sex attraction"

It matters not the plight... we chose it!  This belief disconnects your average Mormon from empathy and divorces them from any responsibility to fix anything outside of their sphere.  It also allows them to dogmatically cling to "god's law" without considering the harm or potential harm the the theology may cause. 

What Mormon's fail to see is the disconnect in believing the above and the application of "free will" in this life.  The life you chose was pre-determined.  You knew you would be born to a woman who was raped.  Therefore she had not choice but to be raped.  The male who raped her had no choice.  If they hadn't been complicit in their destiny you wouldn't be able to realize your own. They fail to see how it leads to "this life must be endured" mentality instead of "this life should be lived."

It is easy for David to regurgitate these teachings.  It is much more difficult for him to think critically about what they really mean.  This is the pernicious nature of Mormonism.  It divorces the believer from critical thought... because that is the only way it can survive.  It does that at the expense of the human condition and ultimately harms our humanity.  

Sexism: Just another reason David Alvord is Wrong for South Jordan!

Sexism:

1
:  prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially :  discrimination against women2
:  behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

My discussion around David Alvord's candidacy for Mayor of South Jordan has been as much about temperament as anything.  Well David can't help himself.  If you are from Utah and know anything about Mormonism you have probably heard of the Ordain Women movement.  It is a feminist movement that asks the Mormon church to treat members of all sexes equally.  They staged a protest during the last LDS General conference.  They are brave women who know asking for equality means they risk excommunication and ostracism.  However David Alvord, the sexist, thinks it is fair to belittle their request.

   So he was supported by a few folks but largely criticized by others for his flippant insensitivity and sexism.  As a result, David did what he usually does... he deleted the post.  He also did what he usually does... put up another post to make his point.

  I support David's right to "BLURT".  I would just think he would use a filter knowing that he was running for political office and someone like me might write about it.  Why would he do such a thing?  Well, because he was defending the church thats why!

I think, most importantly, he thinks sexism is ordained by god:

It is becoming clearer that David Alvord lacks the temperament to be Mayor.  He has a context in which he looks at the world that makes him a poor candidate to represent the rest of the community.  South Jordan needs a leader that is fair to everyone no matter their sex or religion.

Alvord: Wrong on Housing... Still Wrong for South Jordan

Hot off the presses:

David Alvord, and now his buddy Steve Barnes, are pushing misinformation and fear.  AGAIN!

In the above photo (taken from David's campaign site) he claims there is a link between tax rates and high density housing.  He has also claimed that high density housing overburdens the schools and stress the city's infrastructure.  There are Alvords and Barnes' claims... and then there is reality.

This is one of those topics that has been studied exhaustively.  There is no negative relationship between tax rates and high density.  There is no negative relationship between high density and school size or traffic congestion.  And in communities that had low crime rates before high density there is no change by adding high density housing.

This study discusses the numerous studies on this matter:  http://www.nhc.org/media/documents/Dontputithere.pdf

I know, it is a study, it uses objective facts, it is Alvord proof.

What you might notice that they refer to affordable housing in this study.  That is really what Avlrod and his buddy Barnes are talking about.  They don't want affordable housing in South Jordan.  Affordable Housing units bring in those disgusting poor people who have poor habits.

Lets look at his argument:  "A $500,000 dollar home will pay more taxes than a $300,000 home."  This statement is true when said by itself.  This statement is inaccurate when applied to the high density housing argument.  A home worth $500,000 is not built on .19 acres of land.  It is built on at least a .25 parcel and mostly on a .33 acre parcel.  You can feasibly build two $300,000 dollar homes on the same parcel.  That means now we have $600,000 in taxable property.

Now we really aren't talking about $300,000 homes when we talk about high density.  We are talking town homes, condominiums or apartments.  In each case the density of the units equals higher property values for either the management company or each individual owner aggregated in the same area.  So we now have a $2,000,000 building occupying the same foot print as the half million dollar home.  Alvord's math just doesn't add up.

So what is the issue.  Alvord tells you.  It is about keeping the level of housing (or price) high.  By doing this you keep the "other" out.  What they aren't telling you, is that South Jordan is required to provide a certain number of affordable unit to its citizens.  It isn't allowed to discriminate by class.  The city must serve the interest of the poor with equal fervor it dedicates to the rich.

Alvord also claims that he didn't want to debate this issue with Scott Osborne's son.  He would rather debate the issues with Osborne... except that he wouldn't.  He declined to let Scott make a point in an earlier post.  This is what he said:

...But I'm not going to use my campaign page to let Osborne spread the talking points of the left. 

Because Alvord's arguments are... indefensible.

Again, Alvord is demonstrating that ideology trumps reality.  His brand of politics is just plain bad; not only for South Jordan, but for the human race.  

Alvordia the new capitol of Glennbeckistan!

David Alvord is at it again!

From the last post on his Facebook page:

Mayor Osborne is not as conservative as the people of South Jordan... For example, Osborne favors the Marketplace Fairness Act. But worse than that, Osborne used his influence as Mayor to *expand* the tax-collecting ability of the government.

What the act does: is to allow government to collect taxes that it should otherwise be entitled to collect.  Taxes that local business pay but that internet business are not assessed giving them an un fair advantage.  

The real thing going on here is this:  David has cast himself as a liberal hating conservative.  This is evident in this statement: 

Secondly, it's a misnomer. Much like the "affordable care act" makes healthcare more un-affordable for many of us, 

See that.  He he warning us about the bogey man by invoking Obama (or an Obama policy).

Scott Osborne made a case for supporting the Marketplace Fairness act.  Specifically because it leveled the playing field for small local businesses.

Osborne responded on Alvord's page.  It was promptly deleted.  When questioned Alvord's responsed:

 Osborne's argument is on his page. But let me close with this: The Marketplace fairness act is widely discussed on Wikipedia and other sources.
Heritage foundation opposes it on constitutional grounds, while President Obama supports it. You can infer what you want from this information.

Read up on it. Take a position, and decide if you like it. I don't. Osborne does.

The people deserve to know where we stand. 

Read up on it. Take a position, and decide if you like it. I don't. Osborne does. 
The people deserve to know where we stand. 
But I'm not going to use my campaign page to let Osborne spread the talking points of the left. 

Again it is about the Bogey man Obama and Alvord is willing to forgo any type of reason if the words or Obama or Liberal are any where near it.  

So what is the big deal?  The Mayoral election ins a non-partisan election.  It is about supporting the voters in South Jordan.  It is not about the divisive political ideology.  David would have you believe that the Mayor's office has something to do with the passage an enforcement of federal legislation.  It doesn't he knows it but he would have you believe that the Liberals are out to destroy the country.  What he fails to acknowledge is the Conservatives have beat us to it.

The following comments, in my opinion say much:

Of course, not all of South Jordan is conservative... and there are plenty who vary from issue to issue as to what label may best suit them. I hope whomever is elected mayor will approach issues with the perspective of how they best serve South Jordan residents as a whole, and not be overly concerned with party ideologies.~Andrew Hackman

And these two:

"I'm not going to allow my campaign page to represent those in the community who may disagree with me. That's why I'm campaigning for political office, to represent my needs." 

 It seems to me he is running on a "look, I'm Mormon, conservative, and hate taxes" platform, not an informed one. ~Revrnd Skyler Dudley

A vote for David Alvord is a vote for the increasing depths of despair that divisive politics inflicts on a community.  It is a vote to make South Jordan the new Alvordia, the capital of Glenn Beckistan

Belief in God Renders you Deaf.... and Kills your compassion!

Is this photo dangerous? Is it obscene?

It is if you are a member of the religious right.  It is if you subscribe to the American Family Association's One Million Moms.  I entered into a protracted Facebook debate because the One Million Moms group decided to target Jc Penney for showing loving a loving lesbian couple and their family in an ad campaign.  Sadly, the sword was taken up by a bunch of Mormon moms in my area and spread to Facebook.  What I found quickly in the debate on Facebook was that those moms were completely without compassion.  They could not see that this campaign is hurtful to people.  You know people, with skin, hair, eyes, and feelings.  They could not see the parallels to the way the blacks were treated in their own church, during the civil rights movement and throughout our not to distant past in the his country.  Hell, they cannot even see the parallels to their own purported persecution in the mid 19th century.  Instead we see nuggets like this being repeated:

I don't hate anyone who is gay or lesbian. Marriage was ordained by God to be between a man and a woman. Period. It's kind of ironic that people for years did not feel the need to get married because it was just a piece of paper. As soon as the gay and lesbian community realized it was something they could not choose, it became something they wanted. Marriage is designed by God to create children. Lets make laws to have benefits for partners, but stop trying to destroy marriage. That is a hate agenda in my book. ....  Thanks for posting this. I will never shop at JC Penney again.

So she does not hate gay and lesbian folks but the push for marriage equality is hate.  She also repeats the talking points of the right that have been show to be full of fallacious arguments.

I've recently unfriended a bunch of people on my facebook page for their constant posting of hateful anti right rantings. I didn't call them and get mad at them, I just removed them so I don't have to be insulted everyday. I'm just tired of the other side (a minorityin this society by the way) dictating what I have to believe all the time.

Yet he is willing to dictate what the left does...hypocrisy here?

I have several relatives that have chosen a homosexual lifestyle. I love them very deeply and am grateful they are a part of my family. And I believe in God's plan--that families can be together forever, when sealed by the holy spirit of promise. Heavenly Father requires us to live His law if we desire to return to Him and be together as eternal families.

And how does the accepting attitude of Jc Penney threaten her beliefs?  It doesn't!

The next two are the problem and lead to my point:

Sorry Kevin, but you are wrong. It is most definitely NOT something you are born with, nor is God's law an "arbitrary moral construct that has its basis in the Old Testament." It is a law that transends time and space, an eternal truth that one day ALL will know and have to answer for; and yes, we can KNOW that our religious views are correct and that they will serve us quite well in the next life. God's laws are eternal, they have always been there and they will always be there.        is right to oppose this ad. I feel sorry for the little girl and the other girl not shown in the picture. They will grow up being taught something that isn't true.

As if the claims of Mormonism have any evidence of being true?

There is no "oppression" in stating a fact! Men and women create children together in the beautiful bonds of marriage because God created us and gave us a sacred power to create life. There is nothing wrong, mean, or hateful about stating the obvious that so many people are trying to ignore and normalize. Homosexuality is not the way God intended us to live, it doesn't make sense and will not make us happy eternally, which is His plan. Men are that they might have joy. Marriage between a man and woman is so central to Gods plan and very sacred to me. So I will support Michelle and Sara in never shopping at JC Penney again. So sad they choose to lower standards to make people think this is alright.

I had a person contact me during the debate and thank me for my persistence in making the point that bigotry is bigotry whether you are religious or not and this issue is about compassion.  This person said, however, that once they play the god card they stop listening to reason.  He is right.



 The problem with this type of bigotry is that is gets passed on to the young.  This high schooler repeats the party line without stopping to analyze how foolish the statements are. The idea that god makes you gay to test you is not only absurd but it removes compassion from the believer.

         is right, It was ordained by God, marriage is only to be between a man and woman, it doesnt matter what society thinks about it if its true. Im not about to believe in it just to go with the flow. I know its wrong, and yes i know you are born with it, but you are born with it because Our Heavenly Father knows you're strong. Its just like any other thing everyone else has to overcome, just like being addicted to chocolate! Just a bit harder to live with. You're not going to hell because your gay, and its not against the rules to be attracted to the same sex, but you are not to act on it. Just something you have to overcome and be strong with. So quit giving       a hard time about it, she is right, get used to it (Kevin).I have nothing wrong with homosexuality but when they start ads about it. it certainly does bother me. PS dont attack the church if you have not read the scriptures and UNDERSTAND them, it just makes you sound like a fool. PSS sorry if i hurt anyones feelings but some comments got me fired up.

I pointed out, during the debate, the LDS church has been on the wrong side of history on many issues, the blacks (inter-racial marriage and the priesthood), polygamy, and they would be found to be on the wrong side of history on homosexuality.  However, my comments were of no consequence.  I was outed by one clever Facebooker who looked up my profile:

There is not going to be any common ground found with Kevin Dudley. Just checked out his profile, and he is extremely anti Mormon. Homosexuality is clearly one of MANY issues he has with the LDS church. Mormons will lose every time with people like Kevin. Just my two cents, for what it's worth.

My calls for compassion were completely ignored.  It is easier to see homosexuals as sinners who have been lead away by Satan or as sinners who failed to pass the test that god gave them.  What is clear is they are not to have an equal standing in gods society.  I enjoyed this post and photo my friend Andrew Hackman put up after the North Carolina vote to ban gay marriage:

Do you think any of these scowling, angry women thought of themselves as bigots? I would guess not. They probably thought of themselves as moral, upstanding, God-loving folk; who were only looking to protect their children and their families. However, history rightly remembers them as bigots. 

In the same way, I am sure the folks who voted for Amendment One in North Carolina would never self-identify as bigots. They probably think of themselves as moral, upstanding, God-loving folk; who are only looking to protect their children and their families.

But history will also, rightly, remember them as bigots.

 These are powerful words and words I agree with completely.  To all of you who have tried to marginalize homosexuals and to keep them in the closet and out of the the public eye; To those of you who use your piety to your god to temper your compassion; to those of you who think your eternal salvation rests on controlling others... you are bigots and I am ashamed to admit this is still a problem in 2012.  Please support me in letting JC Penney know you find the ad campaign progressive and appropriate by signing Change. org's petition.

Media Messages, Cultural Misogyny, and the Lie of Modesty

This video was making the rounds on my Facebook page this morning.  Here is the longer version ( http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=2349117563337 ) I agree in part with the trailer's premise; I also think they are missing the mark here.  I have long said that our girls need strong role models and the writer and I agree here.  However I don't think the media is responsible for the objectification of our girls and women.  I think the media represents or reflects our societal image of the role of women but they didn't create the image.  Are they guilty of perpetuating the stereo type... sure but culturally we accept it.  


In the early 1970's the series All in the Family aired an episode which portrayed our prejudices regarding male homosexuality.  If we were to produce that same episode today it would not only be a flop but an outrage because our society has morphed.  The fact that less than 30% of high power media positions are held by women has more to do with the persistent messages we give to our daughters in our homes than what we show on TV and in magazines.  In fact I would postulate, as a whole, the objectification of women is born and nurtured in the misogyny of the conservative movement.  


There is this morsel from the 2011 LDS Church's general relief society meeting:

I know that each of us has a vital and essential role as a daughter of God. He has bestowed upon His daughters divine attributes for the purpose of forwarding His work. God has entrusted women with the sacred work of bearing and rearing children. No other work is more important. It is a holy calling. 

Our daughters have reached their potential when they have babies?  There is no a call for them to be scientists, lawyers, or even doctors.  In addition we give them more and more pressure to be modest; to cover their bodies; and to avoid being a "licked cupcake".  It is that same line of thought that denigrates the female form to an object.  We don't value the women for their potential we value them for the conditions of their bodies.  

The above image was circulating on Facebook as well.  If further illustrates the distorted view we have about what modesty and chastity means.  I fully believe they are artificial markers by which we measure American women.  

I think we need to acknowledge a couple of things.  First, humans are sexual beings. Second, we will always find a way to sexualize each other. Third, when you cover breasts, put the curves of women under  loose fitting clothing we will find a way to sexualize non sexual parts.

We will find ways to eroticize shoulders, ears, eyes, or hair length.  The strong sexual drive we have is what propagates our species.  It is natural.  

What is unnatural is to assign rigid gender roles based upon contrived religious or social dogma.  I am going to confess.... of all the women appearing in the above trailer, the one that I find most attractive is Rachael Maddow.  Not because she is super sexy, not because she is a lesbian and I think lesbian sex is hot; but, because she is smart, articulate, educated, and accomplished.  Sure, I find the images of the scantily clad women that are paraded on the trailer, out of context,  titillating.  Why would I not?  I am a sexual being.  However, I cannot say that I am attracted to any of the women.  Our contemporary culture is replete with icons like Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears who appear to be attractive until you hear them speak.  

Unfortunately, we perpetuate the myth that the media operates independent of our culture.  We assume the media tells us what is normal.  If we want to change the context in which our daughter's are developing their identities we need to do it from the very core.  Abandon the idea that their lot is to be mothers.  Motherhood is a choice; in as much, as going to medical school is.  Stop placing artificial emphasis on modesty of dress.  In cultures where women wear nothing but a loin cloth their body ceases to be an object of sexualization.  We need to form our ideas of success in accomplishment not in puritanical ideals based upon a bronze age text.  Our daughters are not the condition of their bodies but the condition of their minds.  If that is what the whole film says... I agree... if not, it is another Bowling for Columbine.  

Charity... what is your position... can you admit it?

If you really want to find out what people believe you look at how they behave and not what they say.~Roger Nygard

www.colbertnation.com

The above video clip has got a bit of attention on facebook this week.  My liberal theist friends have posted it and some have alluded to the fact that Colbert's comments are almost prophetic.  My conservative theist friends have been outraged at the audacity of Colbert to poke fun at them and to take the New Testament out of context.  

The Christmas season brings out two polls on the questions of how we deal with the poor and sick and less fortunate.  Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol is the standard by which we measure a person's commitment to the season.  You are either a Tiny Tim/Bob Cratchit or and Ebeneezer Scrooge.  Nobody wants to be seen as a Scrooge during this season and so there is a bunch of talk about Christian principles and keeping Christ in the season..... while arguing that our government has no business using tax dollars to look after the general welfare of the American populous.  After all, the government cannot tell who is faking it and who really needs the help.

One of my favorite quotes from the Dickens' classic is the result of the dialog between Scrooge and his Nephew Fred.  Fred optimistically states why he loves the Christmas season.:

 ..and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow-passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys.

Immediately, as Fred exits the office Scrooge is met by two solicitors.  Both, in contemporary terms, bleeding heart liberals:

"Scrooge and Marley's, I believe," said one of the gentlemen, referring to his list.  "Have I the pleasure of addressing Mr. Scrooge, or Mr. Marley?"

"At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge," said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and Destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time.  Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."

"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.

"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

"And the Union workhouses?"  demanded Scrooge.  "Are they still in operation?"

"They are.  Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."

"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?"  said Scrooge.

"Both very busy, sir."

"Oh!  I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge.  "I'm very glad to hear it."

"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavoring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink and means of warmth.  We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices.  What shall I put you down for?"

"Nothing!" Scrooge replied.

"You wish to be anonymous?"

"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge.  "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer.  I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry.  I help to support the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."

"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."

"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.  Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that."

"But you might know it," observed the gentleman.

"It's not my business," Scrooge returned.  "It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's.  Mine occupies me constantly.  Good afternoon, gentlemen!"

The section in bold came to mind as I engaged in a debate with a facebook friend who did not find the Colbert video funny.  This is the end of the discussion:

• 
  

  Him:.....
  
  You love to put groups of people into boxes and summarily dismiss the entire box, and that is just wrong. I know many liberals and many conservatives that give of their time and money to help people. I think if you gave them the chance to do the bulk of what is needed to help people who are underprivileged, they would surprise you. There is no one category of people who need help. Every person has a different reason, a different trial or problem. Some are self inflicted, some are not. Some people are truly helpless, others are simply irresponsible. The government doesn't distinguish between the two.

  
  

  December 17 at 3:57pm · 
• 
  

  Me: ‎"Some people are truly helpless, others are simply irresponsible. The government doesn't distinguish between the two."
  
  And based upon the Christian Dogma who is the one who is qualified to make that determination?
  

  December 17 at 4:04pm · 
• 
  

  Him: Only somebody who develops a personal relationship with the person in need. True charity involves giving yourself to serve others and listen and learn, not just give money.

The problem as I see it is that as Americans we are spoiled children of privilege and as Scrooge says:  "It is not my business."  So who's business is it?

My mother is dying of emphysema.  She is in the very advanced stages and is in incredibly poor health.  She also suffers from Post Polio Syndrome.  She struggles to breathe and is in constant pain.  One of the conditions she did to herself.  In fact she still smokes with the O2 turned all the way up.  The other she is a victim of.  She dedicated 30 years to raising her children and did the best she could with the tools she had.  While we do what we can for her including grocery shopping, taking her meals, and getting her to the doctor;  we are of humble means and cannot pay for her care.  She was on a medical retirement for 10 years and now is on social security and a meager pension.

While I agree with my friend that charity, true charity requires a personal touch, I also think it is unrealistic and impossible for everyone.  I pay into Social Security, I pay income and sales taxes and while it is not my favorite thing to spend my money on; I recognize it is necessary.  My Mother has us.  Many others have no one and the only care they get is the care Medicare of Medicaid covers.  Whether you are homeless by your own choice or because of mental illness; whether you liver is failing from alcoholism or NASH; whether you have lung cancer from smoking or working in asbestos; you deserve the best care you can get and to be comfortable on your way to returning to health or in my mother's case as you prepare to die. If you want to question where the money goes and who deserves it ask yourself who really profits from defrauding the government.  The answer lies in the lobbyists and the capitalist who exploit the system to the tune of billions.  Not the poor who benefit from the programs and exaggerate their conditions to get a few more dollars to live on.

It's time this "Christian Nation" put its money and compassion where its mouth is.... or acknowledge you are hypocrites and just don't want to do it!

    

Tribal Vs Family Values

There is not a term that grates on me more than "Family Values" Not because I have anything against the family unit nor do I fail to value the family unit (I do come from one and have created one) but because it is a code word for hate, bigotry, narrow-mindedness, and self righteousness.

Indeed "family values" represents the doctrine of conservatism, and in this country the doctrine of Christian conservatism. It comes about under the sheep's clothing of providing public policy that supports and protects the family unit. It is against pornography, nudity, immodesty, vulgarity, evolution, global warming, and a myriad of other conservatives causes.

The "Family Values" caucus is responsible for absurd practices like covering legally distributed magazines in the local grocery stores because someone might become aroused by cleavage. Frankly, I think this brings more attention to the periodical and increases the likelihood that little Johnny with become titillated by the airbrushed bombshell on the cover. I find it concerning that we allow any group determine what is potentially offensive to others and the exert their brand of control on that stimulus. I personally think that if you cover the Sports Illustrated Swim Suit Edition or the Women's Fitness magazines because it sexualizes women; we should also cover Modern Bride...after all you know what they are about to do?

In addition to censorship they are also the ones who have lobbied against advertisements of The Gardasil Vaccine, open discussion in public school health classes of the use of condoms as a way to prevent disease and pregnancy to our teens even with our permission. They are first to push capitalism even as it leads to the demise of the family unit through increased work hours and reduced benefits for the parents charged with providing for the family and ultimately a meager retirement for the elderly. They are also the first to push out family members who have been born gay and are foolish enough to acknowledge it and to warn us against social justice.

On its face the "Family Values" unit appears to represent the "Values of Christ" but under the banter of family values celebrities Like Rush, Glen Beck, Dr. Laura, and Sean Hannity, the values of Jesus look more like this....




Unfortunately the family is not really well served by rigid doctrine. It allows no room for mistake, growth or progress. While engaged in pulpit pounding demanding that Americans engage in personal responsibility they fail to acknowledge that everyone is dealt a hand that is somewhat random and not everything is in your control. When those who are poor, liberal, or non-Christian make mistakes, or are dealt with an overwhelming hand, the family values caucus is the first to eviscerate the sinner. However when a man like Rush admits he is addicted to drugs, or like Kevin Garn admits he had an illegal sexual encounter...they are first to circle the wagons. They cannot even give the opposing side credit when they say something that makes sense. Ultimately this is not family values it is Tribal values and is not meant to benefit humanity but to defend the ways of tribe no matter how dysfunctional...

This video was brought to my attention by Leah Elliot of The Whore of All the Earth. It discuss how we are wired as humans in our decisions about what is moral:



I think it is interesting How Jonathon Haidt identifies the the characteristics that form the conservative and liberal moral identities. The two of the five assigned to liberals is Harm(protection) and Fairness. The two assigned to conservatives is Respect for Authority and In group Loyalty. The conservatives "family values", it would seem are about the tribe and keeping control. The liberal values are about valuing humanity and I think are a better fit for my family.

Hey Conservatives....Your Team!!!

My kids used to play a game during our long commute home from their charter school. They would point out the most unique, strange, homely people who were on the street and say " your team". Now the superstition was that you would be tied to that person in heaven. The idea was to assign the oddest menagerie of people to your opponent. I think Glenn Beck is about the oddest guy you could be tied too. Hey conservatives....Your team!

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy