STARK DIFFERENCE
I walk back and forth, watch for cars that may be turning into the drive. The loud hawking of geese or sand hill cranes draw my attention as they fly overhead. The hum of traffic on both streets provides a backdrop. This could be any health center except, at this one, a few cars with bloody pictures attached to front and back are parked along the street, some people wear cloth sandwich-boards, with "pro-life" stamped on them and carry white signs with the same message. When a car pulls into the parking lot, several of the women from above (sidewalk and street are elevated since the property is located on the side of a hill) turn from the street traffic, face the parking lot, and hold out their signs. They do not say a word. They continue in their "godly"/judgmental stance until I escort passengers into the building, then resume their vigil.
This day, I click on my left signal to turn into the drive. Same address, same place but something is happening. There are lots of cars parked along the street -- no bloody pictures that I can see. People, mainly women, are gathered along stretches of the sidewalk and even determinedly walking along the street's edge. They are holding up and waving pink signs, green signs that say "My Choice", "Pro-Choice". They are hoo-hawing, woo-hooing, and waving at cars that drive by. The air is filled with intermittent low honking, high honking, strung-out honking, and everything in-between.
I take my place walking back-and-forth and try to read some of the signs displayed on the cars. One begins with "100%..." and another ends with, "...Support Planned Parenthood". When a car pulls into the drive and the occupants step out from their parking space, one of the walkers turns, faces the parking lot and, from above, very clearly yells, "We support you !"
In stark contrast, a few stragglers wearing untied, cloth sandwich-boards stand off to the side at both ends of the sidewalks. They talk among themselves and, periodically, one separates out and trundles along the walk to the other end. A rotund, older male stealthily steps between two parked cars with signs, and, with what looks like a smartphone camera, takes photos of front and back license plates. (Later, I'm told by the uppity women that this is done for effect, for intimidation purposes, but, in the end, intimidates no one.)
With the noisy, colorful enthusiastic display on this day, words like celebrating life, encouraging, empowering, come to mind. Planned Parenthood is all about offering medical care to women (and men), period. It is all about meeting their medical needs. More power today to those women who must run a gauntlet to achieve that goal!
Friday, February 26, 2016
Thursday, February 25, 2016
Marge Simpson politics
In a recent TV news program, a clip from The Simpsons depicts Marge Simpson obsessing over the current mayhem in the 2016 presidential political campaign. She puts her hands on her head, she moves around incessantly, she yells. Bart tries to talk with her but she doesn't listen. Instead, she takes a nap and dreams of her version of the political campaign.
Marge's take on Bernie and Hillary? Bernie is on his knees looking up at Hillary and begs, "If I get elected, please tell me what to do." Truth in a nutshell.
In a recent TV news program, a clip from The Simpsons depicts Marge Simpson obsessing over the current mayhem in the 2016 presidential political campaign. She puts her hands on her head, she moves around incessantly, she yells. Bart tries to talk with her but she doesn't listen. Instead, she takes a nap and dreams of her version of the political campaign.
Marge's take on Bernie and Hillary? Bernie is on his knees looking up at Hillary and begs, "If I get elected, please tell me what to do." Truth in a nutshell.
Monday, February 22, 2016
PASSING ON A GIFT
"Hey, Edith!" a male voice calls. I'm walking along the road, past the Visitors' Center, around the corner, and down to the next road. This is my first full day at Heifer Ranch Learning Center in Perryville, Arkansas. My goal, as a "new" volunteer, is to spend my time roaming the Ranch following roads and paths to see where they lead.
The voice comes from behind me (somebody knows my name already!). "Yes?" I say as I turn in response. I recognize the husband of Mary of the couple Bill-and-Mary. There's also the couple Ann-and-Phil. I've met them all but keeping their names straight this early on and trying to remember who is connected to whom is a definite challenge.
"Mary and I are scheduled to speak at a Methodist Church tomorrow morning in Malvern," continues Bill. "And they're also having a potluck for lunch. Would you like to go with us?" I think quickly. I'm not sure I want to go to church but part of the reason I'm here is to meet new people and I'm determined to do that.
"Sure."
"We're leaving at seven o'clock and will just come by and pick you up." That sounds good to me since the house where I'm staying is about a half-mile back.
"Great. I'll be ready." As it gets toward evening, though, I wonder if I really want to go to church. I've wandered around some of the ranch and decide that maybe my time tomorrow could be better spent doing more exploring. So when I talk to Bill and Mary in their apartment later (living space is attached to the Visitors' Center), I explain my change of mind.
Come Sunday morning, however, the temptation is too great and I reconsider. I mustn't come all this way and stay alone. Using self-talk, I am reminded that I must get out and be with people. Besides, Mary had told me that, earlier in the week, she and Bill had taken two younger volunteers with them to a school so they could make a presentation on Heifer Ranch Learning Center. This is part of the volunteer work they do here: give presentations about the Ranch. They even take several animals with them. For this school, it had been a rabbit and a kid goat.
That sounds fascinating and finally convinces me to go with them on Sunday morning. Maybe I can learn something!
We pull into the church parking lot over an hour later and wonder if there's enough space; lots of cars today. Bill and Mary introduce us to the church staff, minister and find that their program on Heifer International is scheduled during/after the Potluck. We settle in for the service and minister's talk. Interestingly, and maybe not so serendipitously, his theme is "transformation", a topic that fits in very well with Heifer International's mission: "to work with communities to end hunger and poverty and care for the earth." Transformation comes in a community changing itself from one of economic deprivation to one of economic sustainability -- all the while also caring for the earth. "'Passing on the gift' is fundamental to Heifer International's approach to sustainable development. As people share the offspring of their animals, their knowledge, resources, and skills with others, an expanding network of hope, dignity, and self-reliance is created that reaches around the globe."
Brochures, pamphlets, small donation boxes are distributed around the large fellowship hall, sporting nearly-full tables overflowing with lots of food, and matched to lots of church members/visitors eating it. Bill and Mary both give some history of Heifer International, tell stories from different cultures where Heifer lends a hand. They get the children enthusiastically involved in guessing the "7 M's" that can come from different animals while also supporting families (milk, meat, material, muscle, money, manure, and motivation -- to help selves). Discussion, questions and answers, and an invitation to visit Heifer Ranch Learning Center take place. Laughter, joking, and warm camaraderie generate from the group.
"We'd love to visit the Ranch. Maybe we can get a group together," says one voice.
"It's been a while since we've been there but I'd really like to visit again," states another.
"Really enjoyed your presentation today," pipes up another.
With our stomachs full and with all the well-wishing and future plans in our ears, we take leave to start back home. It has been a worthwhile trip. Bill and Mary's presentation hit a chord with the group -- they have passed on a gift of information, time and travel to share the story of Heifer International. The fellowship of the group and their appreciation for the program is reflected in much good will and warm feelings, a gift they pass on to us (to say nothing of the almost-$100 donated to Heifer).
"Passing on the gift" comes full circle. It takes place not only in the actual working of Heifer International in countries around the world but also, on a smaller scale, in the Fellowship Hall of Magnet Cove Methodist Church in Malvern, Arkansas.
"Hey, Edith!" a male voice calls. I'm walking along the road, past the Visitors' Center, around the corner, and down to the next road. This is my first full day at Heifer Ranch Learning Center in Perryville, Arkansas. My goal, as a "new" volunteer, is to spend my time roaming the Ranch following roads and paths to see where they lead.
The voice comes from behind me (somebody knows my name already!). "Yes?" I say as I turn in response. I recognize the husband of Mary of the couple Bill-and-Mary. There's also the couple Ann-and-Phil. I've met them all but keeping their names straight this early on and trying to remember who is connected to whom is a definite challenge.
"Mary and I are scheduled to speak at a Methodist Church tomorrow morning in Malvern," continues Bill. "And they're also having a potluck for lunch. Would you like to go with us?" I think quickly. I'm not sure I want to go to church but part of the reason I'm here is to meet new people and I'm determined to do that.
"Sure."
"We're leaving at seven o'clock and will just come by and pick you up." That sounds good to me since the house where I'm staying is about a half-mile back.
"Great. I'll be ready." As it gets toward evening, though, I wonder if I really want to go to church. I've wandered around some of the ranch and decide that maybe my time tomorrow could be better spent doing more exploring. So when I talk to Bill and Mary in their apartment later (living space is attached to the Visitors' Center), I explain my change of mind.
Come Sunday morning, however, the temptation is too great and I reconsider. I mustn't come all this way and stay alone. Using self-talk, I am reminded that I must get out and be with people. Besides, Mary had told me that, earlier in the week, she and Bill had taken two younger volunteers with them to a school so they could make a presentation on Heifer Ranch Learning Center. This is part of the volunteer work they do here: give presentations about the Ranch. They even take several animals with them. For this school, it had been a rabbit and a kid goat.
That sounds fascinating and finally convinces me to go with them on Sunday morning. Maybe I can learn something!
We pull into the church parking lot over an hour later and wonder if there's enough space; lots of cars today. Bill and Mary introduce us to the church staff, minister and find that their program on Heifer International is scheduled during/after the Potluck. We settle in for the service and minister's talk. Interestingly, and maybe not so serendipitously, his theme is "transformation", a topic that fits in very well with Heifer International's mission: "to work with communities to end hunger and poverty and care for the earth." Transformation comes in a community changing itself from one of economic deprivation to one of economic sustainability -- all the while also caring for the earth. "'Passing on the gift' is fundamental to Heifer International's approach to sustainable development. As people share the offspring of their animals, their knowledge, resources, and skills with others, an expanding network of hope, dignity, and self-reliance is created that reaches around the globe."
Brochures, pamphlets, small donation boxes are distributed around the large fellowship hall, sporting nearly-full tables overflowing with lots of food, and matched to lots of church members/visitors eating it. Bill and Mary both give some history of Heifer International, tell stories from different cultures where Heifer lends a hand. They get the children enthusiastically involved in guessing the "7 M's" that can come from different animals while also supporting families (milk, meat, material, muscle, money, manure, and motivation -- to help selves). Discussion, questions and answers, and an invitation to visit Heifer Ranch Learning Center take place. Laughter, joking, and warm camaraderie generate from the group.
"We'd love to visit the Ranch. Maybe we can get a group together," says one voice.
"It's been a while since we've been there but I'd really like to visit again," states another.
"Really enjoyed your presentation today," pipes up another.
With our stomachs full and with all the well-wishing and future plans in our ears, we take leave to start back home. It has been a worthwhile trip. Bill and Mary's presentation hit a chord with the group -- they have passed on a gift of information, time and travel to share the story of Heifer International. The fellowship of the group and their appreciation for the program is reflected in much good will and warm feelings, a gift they pass on to us (to say nothing of the almost-$100 donated to Heifer).
"Passing on the gift" comes full circle. It takes place not only in the actual working of Heifer International in countries around the world but also, on a smaller scale, in the Fellowship Hall of Magnet Cove Methodist Church in Malvern, Arkansas.
Friday, February 19, 2016
If there is enough food for all, why don't all have enough?
I sit in a chair in a circle with about 18 other volunteers ranging in age from 19 to 74. In the large open space at our feet is a very large world map painted on heavy canvas and showing signs of much-used wear. This map is the focus for our training this morning.
So begins another session being held for volunteers at Heifer Ranch Learning Center in Perryville, Arkansas. Questions are asked, suggestions are proffered; volunteers walking, sitting; discussions growing deeper and connections being made. (Our floor map comes in handy.) This is all part of the experiential learning process that is taking place.
What is the world population? How is it dispersed among continents/regions? Where are the greater percentages of people located? Where are the lesser percentages? Are your guesses correct? If not, where do you think we should make the changes? Correct answers emerge: Asia has 60% of the world population; Africa, 16%; Europe, 10%; Latin America, 9%; North America, 5%; and Oceania, 0.5%
Next question: If these are the population numbers, is there a match between that and the percentage representing private consumption of goods and services? In other words, do continents/regions with the largest populations also privately consume the greatest percentage of goods and services? For example, Asia has the highest percentage of population in the world. Does Asia then privately consume the highest percentage of goods and services? North America represents 5% of the world populations, near the bottom of the list. Does that mean North America also represents a small percentage of private consumption of goods and services compared to other continents/regions?
Discussions ensue, educated guesses are offered. The results? You may have guessed that North America, although representing a low percentage of world population at 5%, has the greatest percentage of private consumption of goods and services at 32%. Europe is also a mismatch: With 10% of the world population, Europe privately consumes 31% of goods and services. Asia, with 60% of the world population, privately consumes only 25% of goods and services; and Africa with 16% of world population privately consumes only 2% of goods and services. The most balanced continent/region is Latin America which has 9% of the world population and privately consumes 8% of goods and services. Oceania brings up the rear with 0.5% of population and 2% private consumption of goods and services.
So what does this exercise suggest when we compare world population to private consumption of goods and services among various continents and regions? Could this be part of the answer to our question above: If there is enough food for all, why don't all have enough? (my italics)
This is only one training session that illustrates "the purpose of Heifer Learning Centers is to provide experiential education that inspires, challenges, and engages people to end hunger and poverty and care for the earth". It's effective -- it works.
I sit in a chair in a circle with about 18 other volunteers ranging in age from 19 to 74. In the large open space at our feet is a very large world map painted on heavy canvas and showing signs of much-used wear. This map is the focus for our training this morning.
So begins another session being held for volunteers at Heifer Ranch Learning Center in Perryville, Arkansas. Questions are asked, suggestions are proffered; volunteers walking, sitting; discussions growing deeper and connections being made. (Our floor map comes in handy.) This is all part of the experiential learning process that is taking place.
What is the world population? How is it dispersed among continents/regions? Where are the greater percentages of people located? Where are the lesser percentages? Are your guesses correct? If not, where do you think we should make the changes? Correct answers emerge: Asia has 60% of the world population; Africa, 16%; Europe, 10%; Latin America, 9%; North America, 5%; and Oceania, 0.5%
Next question: If these are the population numbers, is there a match between that and the percentage representing private consumption of goods and services? In other words, do continents/regions with the largest populations also privately consume the greatest percentage of goods and services? For example, Asia has the highest percentage of population in the world. Does Asia then privately consume the highest percentage of goods and services? North America represents 5% of the world populations, near the bottom of the list. Does that mean North America also represents a small percentage of private consumption of goods and services compared to other continents/regions?
Discussions ensue, educated guesses are offered. The results? You may have guessed that North America, although representing a low percentage of world population at 5%, has the greatest percentage of private consumption of goods and services at 32%. Europe is also a mismatch: With 10% of the world population, Europe privately consumes 31% of goods and services. Asia, with 60% of the world population, privately consumes only 25% of goods and services; and Africa with 16% of world population privately consumes only 2% of goods and services. The most balanced continent/region is Latin America which has 9% of the world population and privately consumes 8% of goods and services. Oceania brings up the rear with 0.5% of population and 2% private consumption of goods and services.
So what does this exercise suggest when we compare world population to private consumption of goods and services among various continents and regions? Could this be part of the answer to our question above: If there is enough food for all, why don't all have enough? (my italics)
This is only one training session that illustrates "the purpose of Heifer Learning Centers is to provide experiential education that inspires, challenges, and engages people to end hunger and poverty and care for the earth". It's effective -- it works.
Thursday, February 18, 2016
TURN ABOUT IS FAIR PLAY
I read about, and listen to, most of the political talk nowadays. I hear purple-faced Republican presidential candidates do nothing but rant/rave about their poll numbers; talk incessantly about who is lying; blame President Obama for everything bad in the world; and claim they, the Anointed Candidate, can do the impossible, even command the Second Coming.
I hear Democratic presidential candidates lay out their issues of concern. They name the issue, they explain the background of the issue, they share on which side they stand and how they can work with that issue, and then ask for my vote. Ah-h-h, some reason is inserted into a crazy presidential campaign year.
But wait! A question repeatedly drums in my brain: how is it that we know everything possible thing there is to know about Hillary just short of how often she uses the bathroom (although, come to think of it, one Republican candidate has already crossed that line), but we know very, very little about Bernie? And yet Bernie wants to start a "revolution". Bernie is starting a "movement". Bernie has the "momentum". Really? Really?
Just what has been happening to Bernie to qualify his starting a "revolution"? I read his background on Wikipedia and realize he has substantial experience in political movements about which he feels strongly. He is Jewish but, according to his brother, is "quite substantially not religious". Early on, before his presidential campaign, Bernie is asked about his personal life. His response is that he refuses to discuss it, that his personal life is his and not to be addressed.
If Bernie were anyone else and not someone who is running for President, I would agree. However, given the fact that Hillary's personal life as well as her public life (including making her personal emails public) has been investigated ad nauseam, I wonder why Bernie gets a pass. Why isn't his personal story of interest to the nation, to people who will be making a decision about his integrity, his honesty, his dependability? Doesn't any of that have an influence on how he lives his life today and how he makes his decisions? Why aren't we privy to it? Is there something that is embarrassing to him that he doesn't want us to know? If so, what is it? Shouldn't his personal life also be an "open book" just as Hillary's has been?
Why does the media not do their investigative work when it comes to Bernie Sanders? My response to the question is to point out the one big difference between Bernie and Hillary. They are both white, they are both older but the one big difference is that Hillary is a woman. And because she is also running for the Presidency, attempting to crack the glass ceiling, she opens herself to any and all abuse that the media and Republicans wish to heap on her head. That has been plenty. She has withstood it and has overcome. But Bernie? Not so sure he can measure up.
I read about, and listen to, most of the political talk nowadays. I hear purple-faced Republican presidential candidates do nothing but rant/rave about their poll numbers; talk incessantly about who is lying; blame President Obama for everything bad in the world; and claim they, the Anointed Candidate, can do the impossible, even command the Second Coming.
I hear Democratic presidential candidates lay out their issues of concern. They name the issue, they explain the background of the issue, they share on which side they stand and how they can work with that issue, and then ask for my vote. Ah-h-h, some reason is inserted into a crazy presidential campaign year.
But wait! A question repeatedly drums in my brain: how is it that we know everything possible thing there is to know about Hillary just short of how often she uses the bathroom (although, come to think of it, one Republican candidate has already crossed that line), but we know very, very little about Bernie? And yet Bernie wants to start a "revolution". Bernie is starting a "movement". Bernie has the "momentum". Really? Really?
Just what has been happening to Bernie to qualify his starting a "revolution"? I read his background on Wikipedia and realize he has substantial experience in political movements about which he feels strongly. He is Jewish but, according to his brother, is "quite substantially not religious". Early on, before his presidential campaign, Bernie is asked about his personal life. His response is that he refuses to discuss it, that his personal life is his and not to be addressed.
If Bernie were anyone else and not someone who is running for President, I would agree. However, given the fact that Hillary's personal life as well as her public life (including making her personal emails public) has been investigated ad nauseam, I wonder why Bernie gets a pass. Why isn't his personal story of interest to the nation, to people who will be making a decision about his integrity, his honesty, his dependability? Doesn't any of that have an influence on how he lives his life today and how he makes his decisions? Why aren't we privy to it? Is there something that is embarrassing to him that he doesn't want us to know? If so, what is it? Shouldn't his personal life also be an "open book" just as Hillary's has been?
Why does the media not do their investigative work when it comes to Bernie Sanders? My response to the question is to point out the one big difference between Bernie and Hillary. They are both white, they are both older but the one big difference is that Hillary is a woman. And because she is also running for the Presidency, attempting to crack the glass ceiling, she opens herself to any and all abuse that the media and Republicans wish to heap on her head. That has been plenty. She has withstood it and has overcome. But Bernie? Not so sure he can measure up.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
BACKWARD IN TIME -- Twice Over
It hits me like a punch in the gut! A swift intake of breath comes as my foot touches the ground: familiar smells, trees, damp air, and rocky creek bed. This is Arkansas -- first time back since my husband's death four years earlier. As I walk toward the creek, unbelieving, my eyes fill and regret sinks in. I drop my head. It seems incomprehensible that a small "Rest Area" just outside Bentonville gets to me this way.
There isn't much time to grieve after Rel's passing in October, 2011. Selling our house in New Mexico, packing and moving to Montana, are the priorities. Making a new home, becoming involved in a community, take time and attention. Our eight years of previously living in Arkansas slide into the background -- until today.
Already this drive to Heifer International Ranch in Perryville retraces often-traveled paths: from regular visits to see Rel's father in Rapid City to now staying in the same motel we stayed in for his father's funeral. Different landscapes along the journey through South Dakota, Iowa, and Missouri, and now into Arkansas bring back memories. As I return to my car, I feel sad, disoriented, vulnerable -- I had not expected this.
Several hours later, I pull into the entrance of Heifer Ranch. The sights, smells, and just plain quiet seem to soothe my spirit as I park my car and prepare to settle in as a Volunteer for the next three months. Although I know some of the history of Heifer International from my days as a student at Manchester College, orientation sessions provide the details. How did Heifer International begin*? Not only that, but why do I feel a sense of well-being when arriving at Heifer Ranch?
The story begins with Dan West, an Indiana farmer, a member of the Church of the Brethren, graduating from Manchester (now University) in 1917. West is a pacifist and, as such, refuses being drafted into military service. He spends two years in WWI serving as a conscientious objector. He is married and active in his church. He travels the country leading youth camps, inspiring young people to become world citizens, encouraging them to lead a simple life and one of service. He is a Christian educator for his Church of the Brethren while his wife tends to their soon-to-be five children.
In 1937 he is assigned as Director of a relief program that provides aid to refugees and victims of the Spanish Civil War. What he finds causes him distress. Not only are many young men killed in the war, barns and homes burned, and animals destroyed, the women and children left behind have no food. The benefactors of his organization of Mennonites, Quakers, and Church of the Brethren have donated reconstituted powdered milk, along with used clothing, that is distributed. The problem is there is not enough milk for the children, and the same families keep returning. Babies are dying. It gets to the point that if a baby is weighed and found to be losing weight rather than gaining, no more milk is given -- the ration of milk must be stretched. It is then that Dan has an epiphany: What is needed here is not a cup of milk but a cow. A cow can furnish all the milk families would need.
He shares his idea with friends and fellow church members back home, most of whom are farmers themselves. They begin to piggy-back more suggestions onto Dan's.
"Why not," asks the Superintendent of Animal Husbandry at Goshen College, "send bred heifers to Spain? That way they wouldn't need to be milked during the journey, and, once there, would have a calf and milk."
"How about," speaks up another, "setting up the understanding that the recipient of the original heifer will give the first female calf to a neighbor? In other words, pass on the gift. Milk from the heifers will grow within the whole community."
"And it won't only be milk," adds a friend. "There will be from these animals what we can refer to as the "7 M's: milk, meat, muscle (for help with labor), material (hide), money (from selling milk), manure (for fertilizer), and motivation (to help themselves). These families will no longer be holding out their hands asking for food; instead, they will be holding out their hands with a gift for their neighbor."
This is the kind of thinking that warms West's heart. His Dad's philosophy is reflected in West's world view: "...we must recognize human worth, celebrate individual differences, and assist in developing each person's potential..." West feels that "restoring dignity through passing on the gift will change the situation from one of relief to that of sustainability".
West never gives up on the idea of giving a cow instead of a cup. What at first seems to be a crazy idea and an impossible task now begins to take the shape of a plan. Donations of heifers start with a Guernsey calf called "Faith" who is shortly followed by "Hope" and "Charity", all coming from members in Church of the Brethren congregations. Mennonites, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans and even some Amish donate heifers. As more heifers become available, the next question of how to transport them is tackled. Heifers for Relief and the Farm Security Administration come to their aid. In 1944, the first shipment of 18 heifers (plus a new calf) is sent by ship to feed hungry families in Puerto Rico. "This is the beginning of a worldwide, interfaith, self-help program known today as Heifer International."
At the end of WWII, it becomes safe to begin shipments of heifers to war-torn countries in Europe. Every six weeks for eight years, 60 animals are shipped to Europe for reconstruction (some shipment are horses). The invention of sea-going cowboys and some cowgirls is created to care for the animals while in transit.
In later years, it makes more sense financially to purchase animals from within the country or region where need exists rather than use shipments from the U.S. A variety of animals like sheep, pigs, goats, and more (not just heifers), are currently matched to the ecology and climate of the region-in-need. Training and skill development are now provided to make sure the farmer is successful.
Heifer International has been in 150 countries. Today, in 2016, it is in 20-30 countries. Why? Because once the organization has come in (by invitation of the country), the task of providing help is completed within seven to eight years; in-country citizens are furnishing on-going aid as needed. Currently, an emphasis is placed on helping small-scale farms be successful, mainly run by women in countries like Nepal.
As Dan West might say, "Human beings want to be actors, not spectators, in their liberation from poverty. Unless people feel they can grow as human beings, master their own destinies, and share in decisions, no amount of material effort will liberate them. Human beings also long to live in a peaceful world where their children are well-nourished and educated. The day may yet come when we all agree to turn our swords into plowshares by laying down our guns and doing everything we can to build sustainable communities."
What about my sense of well-being when entering Heifer Ranch? I recognize another memory: that of visiting the family farm in eastern Ohio, renewing relationships and just catching-up with cousins at annual family reunions. This is a restorative community, this family, this farm and, by extension, so it can be at Heifer Ranch. This is as it should be.
*Information taken from "Dan West Monologue" by John Haman and Jan Shrock, prepared for the 60th Anniversary of Heifer International. (Google)
It hits me like a punch in the gut! A swift intake of breath comes as my foot touches the ground: familiar smells, trees, damp air, and rocky creek bed. This is Arkansas -- first time back since my husband's death four years earlier. As I walk toward the creek, unbelieving, my eyes fill and regret sinks in. I drop my head. It seems incomprehensible that a small "Rest Area" just outside Bentonville gets to me this way.
There isn't much time to grieve after Rel's passing in October, 2011. Selling our house in New Mexico, packing and moving to Montana, are the priorities. Making a new home, becoming involved in a community, take time and attention. Our eight years of previously living in Arkansas slide into the background -- until today.
Already this drive to Heifer International Ranch in Perryville retraces often-traveled paths: from regular visits to see Rel's father in Rapid City to now staying in the same motel we stayed in for his father's funeral. Different landscapes along the journey through South Dakota, Iowa, and Missouri, and now into Arkansas bring back memories. As I return to my car, I feel sad, disoriented, vulnerable -- I had not expected this.
Several hours later, I pull into the entrance of Heifer Ranch. The sights, smells, and just plain quiet seem to soothe my spirit as I park my car and prepare to settle in as a Volunteer for the next three months. Although I know some of the history of Heifer International from my days as a student at Manchester College, orientation sessions provide the details. How did Heifer International begin*? Not only that, but why do I feel a sense of well-being when arriving at Heifer Ranch?
The story begins with Dan West, an Indiana farmer, a member of the Church of the Brethren, graduating from Manchester (now University) in 1917. West is a pacifist and, as such, refuses being drafted into military service. He spends two years in WWI serving as a conscientious objector. He is married and active in his church. He travels the country leading youth camps, inspiring young people to become world citizens, encouraging them to lead a simple life and one of service. He is a Christian educator for his Church of the Brethren while his wife tends to their soon-to-be five children.
In 1937 he is assigned as Director of a relief program that provides aid to refugees and victims of the Spanish Civil War. What he finds causes him distress. Not only are many young men killed in the war, barns and homes burned, and animals destroyed, the women and children left behind have no food. The benefactors of his organization of Mennonites, Quakers, and Church of the Brethren have donated reconstituted powdered milk, along with used clothing, that is distributed. The problem is there is not enough milk for the children, and the same families keep returning. Babies are dying. It gets to the point that if a baby is weighed and found to be losing weight rather than gaining, no more milk is given -- the ration of milk must be stretched. It is then that Dan has an epiphany: What is needed here is not a cup of milk but a cow. A cow can furnish all the milk families would need.
He shares his idea with friends and fellow church members back home, most of whom are farmers themselves. They begin to piggy-back more suggestions onto Dan's.
"Why not," asks the Superintendent of Animal Husbandry at Goshen College, "send bred heifers to Spain? That way they wouldn't need to be milked during the journey, and, once there, would have a calf and milk."
"How about," speaks up another, "setting up the understanding that the recipient of the original heifer will give the first female calf to a neighbor? In other words, pass on the gift. Milk from the heifers will grow within the whole community."
"And it won't only be milk," adds a friend. "There will be from these animals what we can refer to as the "7 M's: milk, meat, muscle (for help with labor), material (hide), money (from selling milk), manure (for fertilizer), and motivation (to help themselves). These families will no longer be holding out their hands asking for food; instead, they will be holding out their hands with a gift for their neighbor."
This is the kind of thinking that warms West's heart. His Dad's philosophy is reflected in West's world view: "...we must recognize human worth, celebrate individual differences, and assist in developing each person's potential..." West feels that "restoring dignity through passing on the gift will change the situation from one of relief to that of sustainability".
West never gives up on the idea of giving a cow instead of a cup. What at first seems to be a crazy idea and an impossible task now begins to take the shape of a plan. Donations of heifers start with a Guernsey calf called "Faith" who is shortly followed by "Hope" and "Charity", all coming from members in Church of the Brethren congregations. Mennonites, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans and even some Amish donate heifers. As more heifers become available, the next question of how to transport them is tackled. Heifers for Relief and the Farm Security Administration come to their aid. In 1944, the first shipment of 18 heifers (plus a new calf) is sent by ship to feed hungry families in Puerto Rico. "This is the beginning of a worldwide, interfaith, self-help program known today as Heifer International."
At the end of WWII, it becomes safe to begin shipments of heifers to war-torn countries in Europe. Every six weeks for eight years, 60 animals are shipped to Europe for reconstruction (some shipment are horses). The invention of sea-going cowboys and some cowgirls is created to care for the animals while in transit.
In later years, it makes more sense financially to purchase animals from within the country or region where need exists rather than use shipments from the U.S. A variety of animals like sheep, pigs, goats, and more (not just heifers), are currently matched to the ecology and climate of the region-in-need. Training and skill development are now provided to make sure the farmer is successful.
Heifer International has been in 150 countries. Today, in 2016, it is in 20-30 countries. Why? Because once the organization has come in (by invitation of the country), the task of providing help is completed within seven to eight years; in-country citizens are furnishing on-going aid as needed. Currently, an emphasis is placed on helping small-scale farms be successful, mainly run by women in countries like Nepal.
As Dan West might say, "Human beings want to be actors, not spectators, in their liberation from poverty. Unless people feel they can grow as human beings, master their own destinies, and share in decisions, no amount of material effort will liberate them. Human beings also long to live in a peaceful world where their children are well-nourished and educated. The day may yet come when we all agree to turn our swords into plowshares by laying down our guns and doing everything we can to build sustainable communities."
What about my sense of well-being when entering Heifer Ranch? I recognize another memory: that of visiting the family farm in eastern Ohio, renewing relationships and just catching-up with cousins at annual family reunions. This is a restorative community, this family, this farm and, by extension, so it can be at Heifer Ranch. This is as it should be.
*Information taken from "Dan West Monologue" by John Haman and Jan Shrock, prepared for the 60th Anniversary of Heifer International. (Google)
Sunday, February 7, 2016
AN EPIPHANY I am ashamed. I am embarrassed. I am angry. I am tired. I am critical of our instructor, figuratively stomp out of the room, drag over to the Maintenance Building to complete my last duty, and wearily schlep my stuff on home.
It's Friday afternoon, the end of a long week full of intensive training. This experience, this place, this "volunteer vacation", is what I've been looking forward to for five or six months. I apply, I interview for this job, I wait through the end of summer, the fall months, and all the way to almost-Christmas. Yes! The background check is clear -- I'm in!
I pack. I plan for everything at home. My daughter will care for the dogs and house. I prepare my car for the 1400-mile journey. It takes almost four days and three different motel-stays. No snow, no ice, no incidents -- a lucky dream for the last week of January.
I have two full days to explore the ranch before training begins. I walk paved and graveled roads, stroll dirt paths, and climb grassy, wooden steps. I see pastured goats, sheep, two donkeys, several large truck gardens full of leafy greens and, toward a tree line, cattle grazing.
I observe many buildings, most of them painted red. The first is the Volunteer Center and Gift Shop, memory from an earlier visit with my husband, now-deceased. I'm assisted by other volunteers and, among our housing units, am guided to a smaller house on a hill. Inside is the room where I unpack. This I will call home for the next three-and-a-half months.
Other buildings dot the pine-wooded landscape. Red wood fences surround some small pastures; there are open and closed sheds; a large show barn; a long, yellow two-story structure; greenhouse; and, in the distance, a gray strung-out machine shop or garage. On the other side of my path, I look out toward far hills. Not only is the view spectacular over a small pond closer in, but I spy smaller odd-looking structures peeking through the trees. Intriguing.
Climbing down many uneven wood steps and passing through a small forest of bamboo trees, I discover a village -- a global village in fact. There is a house that would be familiar if it were in Guatamala, a house-on-stilts representing Thailand, a Zambia structure, and more buildings representing other countries as well as a refugee camp and slum housing. Fascinating! It reminds me of an effective teaching tool: if a creative instructor wants to teach students about different countries, what better way than to build life-size models that represent the real thing.
The more I see of this ranch, the more I appreciate it. This is, in fact, Heifer International Learning Center at Heifer Ranch, a 1200-acre property located just outside Perryville, Arkansas. Originally a holding area for heifers waiting to be shipped to countries recovering from WWII, it is now a Learning Center that both models and teaches a commitment to "working with communities to end hunger and poverty and care of the earth". The "Call to Action" is plainly stated: "'Passing on the Gift' is fundamental to Heifer International's approach to sustainable development. As people share the offspring of their animals, their knowledge, resources, and skills with others, an expanding network of hope, dignity, and self-reliance is created that reaches around the globe."
We, as new Heifer volunteers, are learning to carry out the purpose of Heifer International's Learning Centers: "to provide experiential education that inspires, challenges, and engages people to end poverty and care for the earth" (my italics). That is precisely what is being taught at lunch on the Friday of my shame and embarrassment.
As we volunteers file in for lunch, the question on the whiteboard asks, "If there is enough food for all, why don't all have enough?" I am oblivious to the connection between the question and what I choose from the buffet tables to eat. In our verbal analysis after lunch,, however, I hear possible answers to the question. Somewhere in the back of my mind, I think if we run out of bread for sandwiches, more will appear -- it will be restocked. That's the way it always is. But, in this case, it's not true. Those at the end of the line do not receive any bread for their sandwiches; it is gone. I choose more bread than I actually need so I am part of the problem. This discovery hits hard; thus, my embarrassment and shame.
It is early Saturday morning and I am writing in my journal. The epiphany appears: Our Friday lunch experience does exactly what it is supposed to do. It engages me by capturing my emotional reactions of embarrassment and shame. It inspires me to do something about it (what can I do differently?) and challenges me to discover how that change will come about.
My admiration and respect for the teaching process and those guiding it strengthens. I can't teach something I know nothing about: food for most of the world doesn't magically appear when needed. It is the experience of my own awareness (first), the need to take action (second), and discovery of exactly how that change will occur (third) that will allow my teaching success at Heifer to move forward.
This is not the end of such emotional engagement while learning here. I expect more to come. We new volunteers will be dispersed among the different villages and actually sleep in the Global Village one night. In order to eat both dinner that evening and breakfast the following morning with little/no supplies, we must negotiate and cooperate with residents in the other villages. After my epiphany,, will I be better prepared for this experience? Stay tuned.
It's Friday afternoon, the end of a long week full of intensive training. This experience, this place, this "volunteer vacation", is what I've been looking forward to for five or six months. I apply, I interview for this job, I wait through the end of summer, the fall months, and all the way to almost-Christmas. Yes! The background check is clear -- I'm in!
I pack. I plan for everything at home. My daughter will care for the dogs and house. I prepare my car for the 1400-mile journey. It takes almost four days and three different motel-stays. No snow, no ice, no incidents -- a lucky dream for the last week of January.
I have two full days to explore the ranch before training begins. I walk paved and graveled roads, stroll dirt paths, and climb grassy, wooden steps. I see pastured goats, sheep, two donkeys, several large truck gardens full of leafy greens and, toward a tree line, cattle grazing.
I observe many buildings, most of them painted red. The first is the Volunteer Center and Gift Shop, memory from an earlier visit with my husband, now-deceased. I'm assisted by other volunteers and, among our housing units, am guided to a smaller house on a hill. Inside is the room where I unpack. This I will call home for the next three-and-a-half months.
Other buildings dot the pine-wooded landscape. Red wood fences surround some small pastures; there are open and closed sheds; a large show barn; a long, yellow two-story structure; greenhouse; and, in the distance, a gray strung-out machine shop or garage. On the other side of my path, I look out toward far hills. Not only is the view spectacular over a small pond closer in, but I spy smaller odd-looking structures peeking through the trees. Intriguing.
Climbing down many uneven wood steps and passing through a small forest of bamboo trees, I discover a village -- a global village in fact. There is a house that would be familiar if it were in Guatamala, a house-on-stilts representing Thailand, a Zambia structure, and more buildings representing other countries as well as a refugee camp and slum housing. Fascinating! It reminds me of an effective teaching tool: if a creative instructor wants to teach students about different countries, what better way than to build life-size models that represent the real thing.
The more I see of this ranch, the more I appreciate it. This is, in fact, Heifer International Learning Center at Heifer Ranch, a 1200-acre property located just outside Perryville, Arkansas. Originally a holding area for heifers waiting to be shipped to countries recovering from WWII, it is now a Learning Center that both models and teaches a commitment to "working with communities to end hunger and poverty and care of the earth". The "Call to Action" is plainly stated: "'Passing on the Gift' is fundamental to Heifer International's approach to sustainable development. As people share the offspring of their animals, their knowledge, resources, and skills with others, an expanding network of hope, dignity, and self-reliance is created that reaches around the globe."
We, as new Heifer volunteers, are learning to carry out the purpose of Heifer International's Learning Centers: "to provide experiential education that inspires, challenges, and engages people to end poverty and care for the earth" (my italics). That is precisely what is being taught at lunch on the Friday of my shame and embarrassment.
As we volunteers file in for lunch, the question on the whiteboard asks, "If there is enough food for all, why don't all have enough?" I am oblivious to the connection between the question and what I choose from the buffet tables to eat. In our verbal analysis after lunch,, however, I hear possible answers to the question. Somewhere in the back of my mind, I think if we run out of bread for sandwiches, more will appear -- it will be restocked. That's the way it always is. But, in this case, it's not true. Those at the end of the line do not receive any bread for their sandwiches; it is gone. I choose more bread than I actually need so I am part of the problem. This discovery hits hard; thus, my embarrassment and shame.
It is early Saturday morning and I am writing in my journal. The epiphany appears: Our Friday lunch experience does exactly what it is supposed to do. It engages me by capturing my emotional reactions of embarrassment and shame. It inspires me to do something about it (what can I do differently?) and challenges me to discover how that change will come about.
My admiration and respect for the teaching process and those guiding it strengthens. I can't teach something I know nothing about: food for most of the world doesn't magically appear when needed. It is the experience of my own awareness (first), the need to take action (second), and discovery of exactly how that change will occur (third) that will allow my teaching success at Heifer to move forward.
This is not the end of such emotional engagement while learning here. I expect more to come. We new volunteers will be dispersed among the different villages and actually sleep in the Global Village one night. In order to eat both dinner that evening and breakfast the following morning with little/no supplies, we must negotiate and cooperate with residents in the other villages. After my epiphany,, will I be better prepared for this experience? Stay tuned.
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
A Health Issue
I have a health issue; I see my doctor. She examines me and explains options to take care of my health. I discuss the options with family and trusted friends. I make a decision of which option to follow, whether it's medication or procedure. If needed, I arrive back at the health center, follow the option and go home to heal. This is the United States. This is what we do, day after day after day.
Not so fast. That process isn't so easy for me. You see, I'm a woman. Strangers think they can tell me what to do with my own health. If I choose not to listen to them, they stand outside my health center, hold up bloody signs, yell at me. Some strangers even kill over my health decision. They kill my doctor; they kill other strangers. Yell, intimidate, kill.
My Planned Parenthood Health Center is still here. It's not going anywhere.
I have a health issue; I see my doctor. She examines me and explains options to take care of my health. I discuss the options with family and trusted friends. I make a decision of which option to follow, whether it's medication or procedure. If needed, I arrive back at the health center, follow the option and go home to heal. This is the United States. This is what we do, day after day after day.
Not so fast. That process isn't so easy for me. You see, I'm a woman. Strangers think they can tell me what to do with my own health. If I choose not to listen to them, they stand outside my health center, hold up bloody signs, yell at me. Some strangers even kill over my health decision. They kill my doctor; they kill other strangers. Yell, intimidate, kill.
My Planned Parenthood Health Center is still here. It's not going anywhere.
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: How to Muddy the Waters
"Religious freedom" is a phrase coined by Evangelical Christians and used to practice bigotry and hatred (examples include Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee). How does such a phrase become twisted to meet their own political ends? Here's the recipe.
1. Adopt the identification of oneself as an Evangelical Christian.
Who are Evangelical Christians? According to The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, the Unabridged Edition, A Christian is defined as "of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ" and, "exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ: Christ like." The descriptive word of "Evangelical" means, "marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause". The key words then in defining an Evangelical Christian are "a zealous Jesus Christ follower who is Christ like in spirit".
Why would politicians want to identify with them? Eighty-three percent of Americans label themselves as Christian. If I want to have political sway over a large number of people, it would seem logical to choose the largest-size religious group within which to work.
2. Ignore teachings of Jesus Christ, Diety of Evangelical Christians; act as if those teachings don't exist.
What are the teachings of Jesus Christ [if indeed he truly existed]? What better place to look than through Jesus' own words? Those words, of course, can be found in the Christian Bible, in the section called, "The New Testament". As a child in elementary school, I received a gift of a Bible from a mother in one of our church families (at the time, my father was pastoring an Evangelical-Christian church in Illinois). What was interesting in that book were the words of Jesus Christ, which were the only words printed in red. They begin in the book of Matthew and continue through the book of John. There is no confusion about which words were those of Jesus.
Another source for identifying words of Jesus Christ is so-called, The Jefferson Bible, authored by Thomas Jefferson, hence the title. In The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, the original title, with Editor, Douglas E. Lurton, and published by Wilfred Funk, Inc., New York, 1944, Lurton explains Jefferson's purpose in separating out Jesus' sayings: "During his first term in the White House, [Jefferson] revealed his dream of separating the sayings which were indisputably the words of Jesus from what he considered to be extraneous matter in the Holy Library of 66 volumes, 1189 chapters, 773,000 words..." (The Jefferson Bible)
Three years later in 1816, Jefferson writes to Charles Thompson, "I, too, have made a wee little book from the same materials, which I call the philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus..." [One has to wonder how Jefferson was able to explain the obvious dissonance between his slave-holding and 'doctrines of Jesus' that he espoused, having freed only a handful of slaves during his lifetime.] "...If I had time I would add to my little book the Greek, Latin and French texts, in columns side by side." Later, such a work is completed and placed in the United States National Museum at Washington in 1895. The 57th Congress in 1904 provided for publication of this work; a limited edition of these volumes was presented to members of the House and Senate. From thence, comes the English section of the text edited by Lurton (The Jefferson Bible).
From Evangelical Christians who truly believe doctrines of Jesus, these are the actions we would we would expect to see: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you... Bless the peacemakers... Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them... Ye shall know them by their fruits [actions]."
3. Focus only on tangential, ambiguous and inconsistent writings that are not credited to Jesus Christ but, instead, are mostly found in "The Old Testament" as well as a few from followers of Jesus in "The New Testament".
Evangelical Christians use the Old Testament to argue for or against many issues. Whether the issue is gun control, Obamacare, or Planned Parenthood, Christians can interpret verses, can find something no matter how ambiguous, to support their argument. [Just as importantly, nonbelievers can cite Biblical verses that counter those same arguments.] The fact remains, however, that the words of Jesus are the "Gold Standard". It is his teachings from which their religion of Christianity arose and Christ is, after all, the namesake of their religion. Old Testament text or Paul's writings (marketing expert extraordinaire) or letters from any other follower do not qualify without exact words of Jesus. As Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Adams in 1813, "We must reduce our volume to the simple Evangelists; select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the [ambiguous grammatical structure] into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from Him by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves [my Italics]. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man." (The Jefferson Bible)
"Religious freedom" is screamed only when issues surround use of tangential, ambiguous, or inconsistent writings [call it "extraneous matter"] from both Old and New Testaments to justify behavior toward a particular issue. Imagine these scenarios: Jesus appears at a Planned Parenthood Clinic where mainly women receive all kinds of health care, including abortions. He gets into the face of a patient walking into the Clinic, holds up horrendous pictures of fetuses and screams epithets against women who are actually making a private, legal decision about their own health care. Jesus tells his followers to buy more and more guns because that's the only way to maintain peace and safety. Jesus says that lack of health care for those unable to afford it is just too bad; quality health care is only for those who have money or can afford a good health insurance plan.
These kinds of behaviors don't speak to the writings of the Evangelical Christian's Jesus ("Christ like...exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ"). Rather, these behaviors sound like actions of "...those guiding or influencing governmental policy, or of winning and holding control over a government..." and "political affairs...especially competition between groups or individuals for power and leadership." In other words, these behaviors illustrate the meaning of politics (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus).
The recent use of the phrase "religious freedom" is not at all about religion; it's all about politics. It's a misnomer created to draw into the political fold any Evangelical Christians who buy their supposed message of religion. Instead, their goal is absolute power and control. The real meaning of "religious freedom" is the "quality or state of being free" in "relation or devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or Diety." (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus) In no way have Evangelical Christians been kept from the freedom of practicing the words of Jesus, their Diety.
Political shysters have turned the meaning of "religious freedom" on its head, purposefully to confuse, to muddy it, and make its true meaning unclear. In reality, the phrase becomes an excuse to practice bigotry and hatred. Wake up, Jesus-followers! You've got several wolves (like Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump, etc.) in your midst. They're not interested in your religion; only in your politics -- and your vote!
"Religious freedom" is a phrase coined by Evangelical Christians and used to practice bigotry and hatred (examples include Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee). How does such a phrase become twisted to meet their own political ends? Here's the recipe.
1. Adopt the identification of oneself as an Evangelical Christian.
Who are Evangelical Christians? According to The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, the Unabridged Edition, A Christian is defined as "of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ" and, "exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ: Christ like." The descriptive word of "Evangelical" means, "marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause". The key words then in defining an Evangelical Christian are "a zealous Jesus Christ follower who is Christ like in spirit".
Why would politicians want to identify with them? Eighty-three percent of Americans label themselves as Christian. If I want to have political sway over a large number of people, it would seem logical to choose the largest-size religious group within which to work.
2. Ignore teachings of Jesus Christ, Diety of Evangelical Christians; act as if those teachings don't exist.
What are the teachings of Jesus Christ [if indeed he truly existed]? What better place to look than through Jesus' own words? Those words, of course, can be found in the Christian Bible, in the section called, "The New Testament". As a child in elementary school, I received a gift of a Bible from a mother in one of our church families (at the time, my father was pastoring an Evangelical-Christian church in Illinois). What was interesting in that book were the words of Jesus Christ, which were the only words printed in red. They begin in the book of Matthew and continue through the book of John. There is no confusion about which words were those of Jesus.
Another source for identifying words of Jesus Christ is so-called, The Jefferson Bible, authored by Thomas Jefferson, hence the title. In The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, the original title, with Editor, Douglas E. Lurton, and published by Wilfred Funk, Inc., New York, 1944, Lurton explains Jefferson's purpose in separating out Jesus' sayings: "During his first term in the White House, [Jefferson] revealed his dream of separating the sayings which were indisputably the words of Jesus from what he considered to be extraneous matter in the Holy Library of 66 volumes, 1189 chapters, 773,000 words..." (The Jefferson Bible)
Three years later in 1816, Jefferson writes to Charles Thompson, "I, too, have made a wee little book from the same materials, which I call the philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus..." [One has to wonder how Jefferson was able to explain the obvious dissonance between his slave-holding and 'doctrines of Jesus' that he espoused, having freed only a handful of slaves during his lifetime.] "...If I had time I would add to my little book the Greek, Latin and French texts, in columns side by side." Later, such a work is completed and placed in the United States National Museum at Washington in 1895. The 57th Congress in 1904 provided for publication of this work; a limited edition of these volumes was presented to members of the House and Senate. From thence, comes the English section of the text edited by Lurton (The Jefferson Bible).
From Evangelical Christians who truly believe doctrines of Jesus, these are the actions we would we would expect to see: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you... Bless the peacemakers... Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them... Ye shall know them by their fruits [actions]."
3. Focus only on tangential, ambiguous and inconsistent writings that are not credited to Jesus Christ but, instead, are mostly found in "The Old Testament" as well as a few from followers of Jesus in "The New Testament".
Evangelical Christians use the Old Testament to argue for or against many issues. Whether the issue is gun control, Obamacare, or Planned Parenthood, Christians can interpret verses, can find something no matter how ambiguous, to support their argument. [Just as importantly, nonbelievers can cite Biblical verses that counter those same arguments.] The fact remains, however, that the words of Jesus are the "Gold Standard". It is his teachings from which their religion of Christianity arose and Christ is, after all, the namesake of their religion. Old Testament text or Paul's writings (marketing expert extraordinaire) or letters from any other follower do not qualify without exact words of Jesus. As Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Adams in 1813, "We must reduce our volume to the simple Evangelists; select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the [ambiguous grammatical structure] into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from Him by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves [my Italics]. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man." (The Jefferson Bible)
"Religious freedom" is screamed only when issues surround use of tangential, ambiguous, or inconsistent writings [call it "extraneous matter"] from both Old and New Testaments to justify behavior toward a particular issue. Imagine these scenarios: Jesus appears at a Planned Parenthood Clinic where mainly women receive all kinds of health care, including abortions. He gets into the face of a patient walking into the Clinic, holds up horrendous pictures of fetuses and screams epithets against women who are actually making a private, legal decision about their own health care. Jesus tells his followers to buy more and more guns because that's the only way to maintain peace and safety. Jesus says that lack of health care for those unable to afford it is just too bad; quality health care is only for those who have money or can afford a good health insurance plan.
These kinds of behaviors don't speak to the writings of the Evangelical Christian's Jesus ("Christ like...exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ"). Rather, these behaviors sound like actions of "...those guiding or influencing governmental policy, or of winning and holding control over a government..." and "political affairs...especially competition between groups or individuals for power and leadership." In other words, these behaviors illustrate the meaning of politics (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus).
The recent use of the phrase "religious freedom" is not at all about religion; it's all about politics. It's a misnomer created to draw into the political fold any Evangelical Christians who buy their supposed message of religion. Instead, their goal is absolute power and control. The real meaning of "religious freedom" is the "quality or state of being free" in "relation or devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or Diety." (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus) In no way have Evangelical Christians been kept from the freedom of practicing the words of Jesus, their Diety.
Political shysters have turned the meaning of "religious freedom" on its head, purposefully to confuse, to muddy it, and make its true meaning unclear. In reality, the phrase becomes an excuse to practice bigotry and hatred. Wake up, Jesus-followers! You've got several wolves (like Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump, etc.) in your midst. They're not interested in your religion; only in your politics -- and your vote!
Saturday, November 21, 2015
A Control Issue, Maybe?
Evangelical Christians now make up an identifiable voting block within the world of politics. The power they wield belies the low numbers they have (extremist Republican caucus in the House of Representatives, for example) compared to other voting blocks, like independents, moderate-to-liberal thinkers and voters. Where does this Evangelical Christian group come from?
During most of the 20th Century, Evangelical Christians are viewed as a religious entity only. The family in which I am reared is part of that group. We children are taught that we are special. Why? Because we are chosen people of God. Of all the people in the world, we are the only chosen ones: we are Evangelical Christians. We have a market on knowing who will go to heaven and who will not -- we are positively adamant that there is a heaven and a hell. If we follow what our church teaches us (study the words of Jesus Christ, and follow his precepts: that is the meaning of "Christian" is it not?), we will be guaranteed a place in heaven.
Some of the church rules of Christianity we are to follow? Rules to show we are special? Girls cannot wear long pants, shorts, jewelry, or make-up. We children cannot go to dances or movies. We cannot play cards, smoke, or drink alcohol (adults are to follow the same rules).
Are these required actions connected in any way to our religious belief system? Do we feel special as a result? If that means feeling like I'm sticking out like a sore thumb, maybe. Climbing trees with other friends is near to impossible for us girls; staying away from high school dances is alienating. Is it human for parents to want to protect their children and do what is in their view the right thing? It is not special. It has nothing to do with the religion (our cousins go to the same Evangelical Christian denominational church in another state and have a lot more freedom than we do). For whatever reason, it is human on the part of our parents. (Control issue, maybe?)
What about the following words that Jesus Christ used? His parable that says "For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." (Christian Bible, Matthew 25:35-40)
How do these words preached by Jesus Christ fit into the behavior of Evangelical Christians? Do these words inform the behavior of the Evangelical Christian voting block? Not as I can tell. The plight of Syrian refugees (LGBT's; women's rights to their own bodies, to equal pay; workers' low pay, etc.) wouldn't be nearly as controversial if Evangelical Christians actually followed the words of their namesake. If actions they take are any guide, these actions of Evangelical Christians are not in the least connected to anything religious, or to what they would define as being religious. They are human reactions based on fear. Their religion has nothing to do with it. They are human and they are afraid. (Control issue, maybe?)
Is there anything wrong with being human? The only thing wrong is when Evangelical Christians say they base their behavior (when it comes to issues like that above) on their religious beliefs. If this were true, their behavior would follow the parable of Jesus Christ. Since they are not following the words of Jesus Christ, their actions have no basis in "religious freedom." Is anyone stopping them from following Jesus Christ's example?
Nowadays Evangelical Christians are masquerading as a religious group; they are not. They are a political block not tied to anything preached in Matthew 25:35-40. Their purpose? Control issue? Of course!
[In the 21st Century, the Evangelical Christian church in which I grew up allows dancing, even on their college campuses. It's more expedient when selling their wares to other cultures, I'm told.]
Evangelical Christians now make up an identifiable voting block within the world of politics. The power they wield belies the low numbers they have (extremist Republican caucus in the House of Representatives, for example) compared to other voting blocks, like independents, moderate-to-liberal thinkers and voters. Where does this Evangelical Christian group come from?
During most of the 20th Century, Evangelical Christians are viewed as a religious entity only. The family in which I am reared is part of that group. We children are taught that we are special. Why? Because we are chosen people of God. Of all the people in the world, we are the only chosen ones: we are Evangelical Christians. We have a market on knowing who will go to heaven and who will not -- we are positively adamant that there is a heaven and a hell. If we follow what our church teaches us (study the words of Jesus Christ, and follow his precepts: that is the meaning of "Christian" is it not?), we will be guaranteed a place in heaven.
Some of the church rules of Christianity we are to follow? Rules to show we are special? Girls cannot wear long pants, shorts, jewelry, or make-up. We children cannot go to dances or movies. We cannot play cards, smoke, or drink alcohol (adults are to follow the same rules).
Are these required actions connected in any way to our religious belief system? Do we feel special as a result? If that means feeling like I'm sticking out like a sore thumb, maybe. Climbing trees with other friends is near to impossible for us girls; staying away from high school dances is alienating. Is it human for parents to want to protect their children and do what is in their view the right thing? It is not special. It has nothing to do with the religion (our cousins go to the same Evangelical Christian denominational church in another state and have a lot more freedom than we do). For whatever reason, it is human on the part of our parents. (Control issue, maybe?)
What about the following words that Jesus Christ used? His parable that says "For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." (Christian Bible, Matthew 25:35-40)
How do these words preached by Jesus Christ fit into the behavior of Evangelical Christians? Do these words inform the behavior of the Evangelical Christian voting block? Not as I can tell. The plight of Syrian refugees (LGBT's; women's rights to their own bodies, to equal pay; workers' low pay, etc.) wouldn't be nearly as controversial if Evangelical Christians actually followed the words of their namesake. If actions they take are any guide, these actions of Evangelical Christians are not in the least connected to anything religious, or to what they would define as being religious. They are human reactions based on fear. Their religion has nothing to do with it. They are human and they are afraid. (Control issue, maybe?)
Is there anything wrong with being human? The only thing wrong is when Evangelical Christians say they base their behavior (when it comes to issues like that above) on their religious beliefs. If this were true, their behavior would follow the parable of Jesus Christ. Since they are not following the words of Jesus Christ, their actions have no basis in "religious freedom." Is anyone stopping them from following Jesus Christ's example?
Nowadays Evangelical Christians are masquerading as a religious group; they are not. They are a political block not tied to anything preached in Matthew 25:35-40. Their purpose? Control issue? Of course!
[In the 21st Century, the Evangelical Christian church in which I grew up allows dancing, even on their college campuses. It's more expedient when selling their wares to other cultures, I'm told.]
Thursday, November 19, 2015
RINO?
Recently a friend responded to a political email I'd sent. He used the term "RINO", I assumed, to refer to Republicans. Since I hadn't heard the acronym before, I created my own meaning of it as it pertains to the GOP. (My following creativity with this acronym has nothing to do with it's real meaning which is, I'm told, "Republican In Name Only".)
MY meaning for RINO is "Republicans in the NO!"
The word, "rino", conjures up "rhino", a shortened form of rhinoceros, those large animals found in Africa and Southeast Asia. In reading about the rhinoceros, I realized they are a perfect symbol for GOP leadership and presidential candidates. Here's why:
1. There are black rhinos and there are white rhinos. That's exactly how the GOP sees the world -- in black and white.
2. Rhinos have pea-size brains in relation to their size (adults are one ton). The GOP is too big for its britches; it's leaders collectively think and act very small. Consider: no Obamacare for the needy; no Planned Parenthood healthcare for needy women or men; no increase in minimum wage; no Syrian refugees into our country except maybe for Christians, etc., etc.
3. According to the African Wildlife Foundation, rhino horns in Asia are prized because they are believed to be a cure for hangovers, cancer, impotence. In reality, the horns are made of keratin, the same material as our hair and nails. As one writer put it, their horns "are as effective at curing cancer as chewing fingernails." The GOP's presidential candidates would have us believe they have the solutions to our country's problems. In reality? They solve nothing. In fact, their "solutions" only make our country's problems worse by seeding distrust, practicing extreme partisanship, fostering alienation. Their "horns", their ideas, are only good for chewing one's fingernails!
Let's start a movement to replace the elephant as a GOP symbol! Why not the rhinoceros? Elephants represent the exact opposite of the current GOP -- they are too smart and too empathetic with their fellow elephants to represent the GOP! Then again, rhinoceros are dwindling in their populations. Do we really want to see the GOP dwindle out of existence? Hmmm...
Recently a friend responded to a political email I'd sent. He used the term "RINO", I assumed, to refer to Republicans. Since I hadn't heard the acronym before, I created my own meaning of it as it pertains to the GOP. (My following creativity with this acronym has nothing to do with it's real meaning which is, I'm told, "Republican In Name Only".)
MY meaning for RINO is "Republicans in the NO!"
The word, "rino", conjures up "rhino", a shortened form of rhinoceros, those large animals found in Africa and Southeast Asia. In reading about the rhinoceros, I realized they are a perfect symbol for GOP leadership and presidential candidates. Here's why:
1. There are black rhinos and there are white rhinos. That's exactly how the GOP sees the world -- in black and white.
2. Rhinos have pea-size brains in relation to their size (adults are one ton). The GOP is too big for its britches; it's leaders collectively think and act very small. Consider: no Obamacare for the needy; no Planned Parenthood healthcare for needy women or men; no increase in minimum wage; no Syrian refugees into our country except maybe for Christians, etc., etc.
3. According to the African Wildlife Foundation, rhino horns in Asia are prized because they are believed to be a cure for hangovers, cancer, impotence. In reality, the horns are made of keratin, the same material as our hair and nails. As one writer put it, their horns "are as effective at curing cancer as chewing fingernails." The GOP's presidential candidates would have us believe they have the solutions to our country's problems. In reality? They solve nothing. In fact, their "solutions" only make our country's problems worse by seeding distrust, practicing extreme partisanship, fostering alienation. Their "horns", their ideas, are only good for chewing one's fingernails!
Let's start a movement to replace the elephant as a GOP symbol! Why not the rhinoceros? Elephants represent the exact opposite of the current GOP -- they are too smart and too empathetic with their fellow elephants to represent the GOP! Then again, rhinoceros are dwindling in their populations. Do we really want to see the GOP dwindle out of existence? Hmmm...
Friday, October 23, 2015
Go Hillary!
If ever there was a time to stand up for someone and support her, the time is now. Hillary Rodham Clinton amazed me yesterday with her stamina, her clearness of thought, and her patience, her cool under fire. If she can put up with, and overcome, all the bullying displayed by Tea Party Republicans at their trumped-up Benghazi hearing, she can put up with any mud thrown at her.
Let's be clear. Politics is not an easy game to play. It is particularly dirty when women are reaching for equality, cracking the glass ceiling, becoming the first President of the U.S. who is a woman. It's reminiscent of early feminists like Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony. All they were asking for was the right to their own property, to control their own lives, and later, the right to vote. Hillary is continuing that struggle. For anyone advocating for the rights of women (or girls just reaching for the stars), support for Hillary is a must. Go Hillary!
If ever there was a time to stand up for someone and support her, the time is now. Hillary Rodham Clinton amazed me yesterday with her stamina, her clearness of thought, and her patience, her cool under fire. If she can put up with, and overcome, all the bullying displayed by Tea Party Republicans at their trumped-up Benghazi hearing, she can put up with any mud thrown at her.
Let's be clear. Politics is not an easy game to play. It is particularly dirty when women are reaching for equality, cracking the glass ceiling, becoming the first President of the U.S. who is a woman. It's reminiscent of early feminists like Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony. All they were asking for was the right to their own property, to control their own lives, and later, the right to vote. Hillary is continuing that struggle. For anyone advocating for the rights of women (or girls just reaching for the stars), support for Hillary is a must. Go Hillary!
Monday, August 24, 2015
Transcending the Political: Can it be done?
Having opposing political views can be a detriment to any relationship, whether it is between siblings, friends, or neighbors. Living as a Democrat in a state where the overall philosophy is Republican can mean for some insecurity. Who has my back? Does anyone have my back?
This came up recently as I was negotiating a change in the way things have always been done. As newly-elected President of the Board of the Musselshell Valley Historical Museum, my job, as I saw it, was to help identify a goal for improving the organization. In this case, it was to increase the amount of business over that of the past year: to encourage more people to come through our doors.
In March, a program was initiated between long-time community members and our local school. Through sharing their personal histories with students, it was hoped that community members could serve as a link to our museum. Would students bring their families to visit the Museum this summer?
At the same time, members of our Board were updating and increasing exhibits. They created and constructed a new exhibit, a Tack Room that included early saddles, bridles, angora chaps, cavalry tack, stock brands, tools for horseshoe repair, harness of all kinds, etc.
Students came; families came; visitors from within our state came as well as other states and a few other countries. By late July, we had already exceeded total number of visitors from the previous year. But another problem arose: were we meeting needs of our visitors? Could they wander at will throughout the Museum, visit displays, and better understand those living here in the past? Or, as most recently, was it necessary for them to be toured and explained to all along the way?
Heads butt over responsibility of Guides; I seek counsel from experienced/previous Board members; two volunteer Guides resign. I call for an extra meeting of the Board. What's the problem? How can it be corrected?
For a week, I prepare. I hear rumors, possible machinations taken by another Board member to undercut the meeting, other comments that make me wonder what could happen. It feels a lot like 1981.
Memory floods back. I am a newly-minted Principal of a 500-student elementary school in Indiana. It's 7:00 pm. In the multi-purpose room, I am presiding over a Parent-Teacher-Organization meeting after which primary students will perform for their parents. The second-grade students are lined up at the door ready to come in. Without warning, a parent stands up and begins to complain about a change I had made in bus pick-up for students. Another parent stands, and then another.
I regain control by reassuring parents I will discuss the problem with them after the meeting in a vacant classroom where they can vent their feelings. I do just that. About five or six parents show up (out of a total of 60-80). As they begin, I pick up chalk and, as each parent relates their problem, I list it on the chalkboard. After they are finished, I go through each listed item. I understand their complaint, I apologize where needed, and I resolve to correct whatever mistakes have been made. They have vented, calmed down, and have expressed appreciation as they leave.
Is that experience from years ago similar to what I'll experience in this extra Board meeting? Will I be put on the carpet? Will a crowd of people be gathered in the room when I enter? Will there be anger, frustration, lots of confrontation? Will I be called upon to answer for the two Guides' resignations? Will my opposing political views engender distrust among those attending (views made much more public now than when I was younger)? How will I handle the situation, whatever it is?
There is no chalkboard or chalk in the room where the Board meeting will be held. But I do have a tripod, a large newsprint chart, and black markers. I resolve to record complaints on the chart and, as in the past, go through each one, discuss it, and , in the end, defuse the situation. I calm down, become resolute. This approach has worked in the past; it can work again.
The day of the Board meeting, I enter the room right on time, almost to the minute. Eight Board members sit in their usual places around several tables. They chat quietly across the room. I interrupt a conversation. I ask each person if they are ready to tackle the problem. They answer in the affirmative as I go around the room, calling them by name. It appears my fears have not materialized. No need for giving a speech, laying my resignation letter on the table, or walking out of the room. This groups does have my back -- and we're on our way to resolution.
Several hours later, I leave the meeting, feeling affirmed. Work has been done even though there is a lot more to do. Making nice with one Board member may be the only way to mend differences between us. Overall, however, more problems have been presented and solved than I expected. Most Board members have met me more than halfway. There is no feeling on my part that differences in politics have made any difference in the meeting. Board members had been there to explore alternatives in resolving an issue and that's exactly what we did.
Did we transcend politics? Decidedly. Our desire to overcome difficulties and work as a team ruled the day. Would that political leaders (like Republican candidates for President?) could follow the example of the good people of Roundup. Forget extremism, fostering dissension, and polarizing our country. Use cooperation to "make our country great again"!
Having opposing political views can be a detriment to any relationship, whether it is between siblings, friends, or neighbors. Living as a Democrat in a state where the overall philosophy is Republican can mean for some insecurity. Who has my back? Does anyone have my back?
This came up recently as I was negotiating a change in the way things have always been done. As newly-elected President of the Board of the Musselshell Valley Historical Museum, my job, as I saw it, was to help identify a goal for improving the organization. In this case, it was to increase the amount of business over that of the past year: to encourage more people to come through our doors.
In March, a program was initiated between long-time community members and our local school. Through sharing their personal histories with students, it was hoped that community members could serve as a link to our museum. Would students bring their families to visit the Museum this summer?
At the same time, members of our Board were updating and increasing exhibits. They created and constructed a new exhibit, a Tack Room that included early saddles, bridles, angora chaps, cavalry tack, stock brands, tools for horseshoe repair, harness of all kinds, etc.
Students came; families came; visitors from within our state came as well as other states and a few other countries. By late July, we had already exceeded total number of visitors from the previous year. But another problem arose: were we meeting needs of our visitors? Could they wander at will throughout the Museum, visit displays, and better understand those living here in the past? Or, as most recently, was it necessary for them to be toured and explained to all along the way?
Heads butt over responsibility of Guides; I seek counsel from experienced/previous Board members; two volunteer Guides resign. I call for an extra meeting of the Board. What's the problem? How can it be corrected?
For a week, I prepare. I hear rumors, possible machinations taken by another Board member to undercut the meeting, other comments that make me wonder what could happen. It feels a lot like 1981.
Memory floods back. I am a newly-minted Principal of a 500-student elementary school in Indiana. It's 7:00 pm. In the multi-purpose room, I am presiding over a Parent-Teacher-Organization meeting after which primary students will perform for their parents. The second-grade students are lined up at the door ready to come in. Without warning, a parent stands up and begins to complain about a change I had made in bus pick-up for students. Another parent stands, and then another.
I regain control by reassuring parents I will discuss the problem with them after the meeting in a vacant classroom where they can vent their feelings. I do just that. About five or six parents show up (out of a total of 60-80). As they begin, I pick up chalk and, as each parent relates their problem, I list it on the chalkboard. After they are finished, I go through each listed item. I understand their complaint, I apologize where needed, and I resolve to correct whatever mistakes have been made. They have vented, calmed down, and have expressed appreciation as they leave.
Is that experience from years ago similar to what I'll experience in this extra Board meeting? Will I be put on the carpet? Will a crowd of people be gathered in the room when I enter? Will there be anger, frustration, lots of confrontation? Will I be called upon to answer for the two Guides' resignations? Will my opposing political views engender distrust among those attending (views made much more public now than when I was younger)? How will I handle the situation, whatever it is?
There is no chalkboard or chalk in the room where the Board meeting will be held. But I do have a tripod, a large newsprint chart, and black markers. I resolve to record complaints on the chart and, as in the past, go through each one, discuss it, and , in the end, defuse the situation. I calm down, become resolute. This approach has worked in the past; it can work again.
The day of the Board meeting, I enter the room right on time, almost to the minute. Eight Board members sit in their usual places around several tables. They chat quietly across the room. I interrupt a conversation. I ask each person if they are ready to tackle the problem. They answer in the affirmative as I go around the room, calling them by name. It appears my fears have not materialized. No need for giving a speech, laying my resignation letter on the table, or walking out of the room. This groups does have my back -- and we're on our way to resolution.
Several hours later, I leave the meeting, feeling affirmed. Work has been done even though there is a lot more to do. Making nice with one Board member may be the only way to mend differences between us. Overall, however, more problems have been presented and solved than I expected. Most Board members have met me more than halfway. There is no feeling on my part that differences in politics have made any difference in the meeting. Board members had been there to explore alternatives in resolving an issue and that's exactly what we did.
Did we transcend politics? Decidedly. Our desire to overcome difficulties and work as a team ruled the day. Would that political leaders (like Republican candidates for President?) could follow the example of the good people of Roundup. Forget extremism, fostering dissension, and polarizing our country. Use cooperation to "make our country great again"!
Sunday, July 26, 2015
Benefits of Living Blue in a Red State
I am an introvert; I have always felt in the minority. Some studies show that, in the general population, introverts make up about 10 percent -- which leaves extraverts the overwhelming majority. What's the difference?
According to Kroeger and Thuesen in their book Type Talk, these are the preferences of both:
Introvert Extravert
territoriality sociability
concentration interaction
internal external
depth breadth
intensive extensive
limited relationships multiple relationships
energy conservation energy expenditure
internal reactions external events
reflective gregarious
think, then speak speak, then think
Additionally, I grew up in an evangelical Christian family at a time when that was definitely not cool. Public school was a nightmare in the sense that we as children were encouraged to be in the world, but not of the world. As girls, we were required to wear dresses only (no shorts, long pants, or jeans), no make-up and no jewelry. We could not go to movies, attend dances or play cards. Sundays were for reflection and naps; no play. At that time as a child, I felt weird, faceless, out of sync with my peers. (On a Sunday afternoon, my fifth-grade playmate kept sending me upstairs to my napping mother to ask for a quarter so I could go to the movie matinee with her. No, no and NO was the answer.)
Currently, I'm a Democrat living in a red state. In my town, there is no Democratic organization, no get-togethers with others who have common values, no sharing of ideas or principals. There is no common activism involved in generating enthusiasm for our cause. In our voting district, a small percentage of all voters vote Democratic. We are the silent minority.
I am an introvert with an evangelical Christian background but who no longer tracks in that path; I am a Democrat living in a place where Republicans overwhelmingly outnumber us. I am definitely in the minority. So what could possibly be beneficial about living here?
I am an introvert; I have always felt in the minority. Some studies show that, in the general population, introverts make up about 10 percent -- which leaves extraverts the overwhelming majority. What's the difference?
According to Kroeger and Thuesen in their book Type Talk, these are the preferences of both:
Introvert Extravert
territoriality sociability
concentration interaction
internal external
depth breadth
intensive extensive
limited relationships multiple relationships
energy conservation energy expenditure
internal reactions external events
reflective gregarious
think, then speak speak, then think
Additionally, I grew up in an evangelical Christian family at a time when that was definitely not cool. Public school was a nightmare in the sense that we as children were encouraged to be in the world, but not of the world. As girls, we were required to wear dresses only (no shorts, long pants, or jeans), no make-up and no jewelry. We could not go to movies, attend dances or play cards. Sundays were for reflection and naps; no play. At that time as a child, I felt weird, faceless, out of sync with my peers. (On a Sunday afternoon, my fifth-grade playmate kept sending me upstairs to my napping mother to ask for a quarter so I could go to the movie matinee with her. No, no and NO was the answer.)
Currently, I'm a Democrat living in a red state. In my town, there is no Democratic organization, no get-togethers with others who have common values, no sharing of ideas or principals. There is no common activism involved in generating enthusiasm for our cause. In our voting district, a small percentage of all voters vote Democratic. We are the silent minority.
I am an introvert with an evangelical Christian background but who no longer tracks in that path; I am a Democrat living in a place where Republicans overwhelmingly outnumber us. I am definitely in the minority. So what could possibly be beneficial about living here?
- On Sundays, I ride my bike around town while most everyone else is sitting in church. There are no distractions, few disruptions, just my quiet time to contemplate and enjoy.
- My political stance allows me to stay somewhat invisible. No sense in voting for someone for school board (something I tried last spring) who has opposite political views.
- Society at large tends to ignore me which allows freedom from intermingling with larger groups of people with whom I may not have a lot in common.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)