Jules

This 'blog entry is lovingly dedicated to Jules K. Dahn, July 24- July 28, 2008.

Time. It's the one commodity everyone covets, works hard to have more of, wastes in a myriad of silly and superficial ways, and ultimately loses track of because it cannot be controlled.

It cannot be bought, it can't be bartered (although some, including myself have tried this), and it can't be captured, not really.

We try to catch time and hold it fast. Film, magnetic tape, disk, canvas, paint, ink -- all ways to record a slice of a moment that exists independent of our effort, darting this way or that like a spark from a bonfire flying haphazardly up into the night.

And so it was with Jules, the long-awaited, much loved, hoped for son of a friend of mine from high school.

His story started out pretty much like all baby stories -- excitement, anticipation, the pinning on of a future that began to take shape long before he was due to arrive.

The derailment came when doctors said he was the victim of a vicious chromosomal storm that would not let up.

There were options. . .

My friend and his wife chose the road less travelled, the one the poet Robert Frost writes of so eloquently, the one that isn't the favored way but promises great reward at its end.

They left their son alone to grow in the safety of his mother's womb.

Time always loomed large, and for those of us not directly suspended in this exquisitely painful-joyful limbo, it seemed to fly by quickly.

Seeing Jules' birth photos made my heart sing. Oh, he is so beautiful, so handsome, so reflective of all that is true and right and purposeful! Knowing he had survived the potentially treacherous journey to reach his parents' arms had me crying and laughing at the same time. My friend used to report from time to time how active Jules was in utero and this always spoke volumes to me. Jules had a purpose, a role to play, a task to carry out. He wasn't privy to the musings of those who said he wouldn't, couldn't, or shouldn't.

And so he defied them all, living long enough to give his parents that precious, albeit fleeting, gift of time together with their much-beloved son.

I don't presume to know how long it takes to begin to recover from having to say goodbye so soon after meeting one's child.

But I do know this, that time is not the enemy so many people make it out to be. No, the real enemy is our failure to hope, a failure that cheats us of more than we could possibly know.

I'm glad my friends had the good sense to beat back that impulse, because their hope became our hope and it strengthens us even now. Was having Jules for only three days worth the months of anxious waiting?

One look at the beautiful faces of my friends smiling down on their beautiful boy leads me to believe it was.

The Archbishop of Canterbury thinks it is . . .

It's bad enough when a snarky corporation engages in sophomoric name-calling, but it's another thing entirely when one of our own weighs in.

My previous post explored the notion of Christians as hatemongers because of their desire to adhere to biblical statements prohibiting homosexual conduct.

Now we hear from the Church of England's own Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams that Christian doctrine is offensive to MUSLIMS.

Let's start a list, shall we? My guess is that by the end of the year it will be quite long.

We'll title it, "Who Can Christians Piss Off Next?"

1. Homosexuals

2. Muslims

3. Meat-eaters (because the Bible says we ought to be kind to animals)

4. Vegetarians (because the Bible also includes numerous descriptions of animal consumption)

5. Married people (because the Bible says there will come a time when we don't need to be married or given in marriage)

6. Children (because the Bible says children should take time to honor their parents)

7. Parents (because the Bible says parents should not provoke their children and, let's face it, aren't there times when even the most loving parent struggles against the temptation to provoke their kids?)

8. The wealthy (because the Bible says the meek will get everything eventually)

9. Women (because the Bible says there will be travail in childbirth and makes snide remarks about unvirtuous women)

10. Sculptors (because the Bible speaks against worshipping statues in favor of worshipping God instead)


Whew. I'm up to 10 and that took all of about five minutes to compile. No wonder Christians are taking a hit everytime we turn around, eh?

Anyway, back to Archbishop Williams, he's quoted as saying that the Trinity -- the idea of God as Three in One, i.e. Father, Son, Holy Spirit -- is "difficult, sometimes offensive, to Muslims" because it conflicts with Islamic teaching that there is only one all-powerful God.

So . . . would he have us change that up to suit our detractors? Maybe we should edit future editions of the Bible to leave that part out? (Cutting out uncomfortable passages would make some other folks -- see No. 1 on the above list -- very happy, too.)

Williams doesn't really say. He does issue a call for people of all faiths to come together to help and defend one another and those less fortunate. I'm hip to that.

Williams also notes that faith has no connection with political power or force yet some Christians in the past have acted as if it does.

This last comment naturally strikes a chord with conservatives in the Anglican Church who believe that Judeo-Christian teaching is foundational to British laws and society. Reminds me of the folks who say America was not founded according to Christian principles though they never do manage to explain away that pesky last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence in which the name of "Providence" is invoked.

Anyway, I guess I'm tired of being told to walk around in a perpetual state of contriteness and apology because of my religion. The good archbishop may want to don sackcloth and ashes to atone for, say, the Crusades, but I'm inclined to let bygones be bygones and to instead focus wholeheartedly on the Golden Rule put forth by The Good Book.

If I'm treating my fellow citizens -- regardless of their heritage or faith -- as kindly as I want to be treated, that oughta put me in good enough stead with my Christian brethren. If my adherence to the teachings of Christ causes any of those fellow citizens to blow a gasket, well, then, that's really their problem -- as long as they ignite only themselves.

Is the greatest book ever written a manual for hatemongers?

The McDonald's Corporation, pushers of the diet that's helped to make Americans fat, is now out to make a large segment of said population madder than a stepped-on hornets nest.

Seems that Mickey D's thinks that if you oppose something for religious reasons, you MUST be a hatemonger.

In this case, that "something" is homosexuality.

Before I wade deeper into what promises to be very treacherous territory, let me state for the record three things: One, I am a professed Christian. Two, I do not now feel nor have I ever felt anything remotely akin to hatred for anyone unless they were involved in the purposeful abuse of a child, an elderly person or an animal. If the barbarian happened to be homosexual, that was irrelevent. Three, I prefer a partner of the opposite sex and hope each of my children will, too. (Again, because our family is the thing noted in No. 1 of this list and not because I liken an alternative lifestyle to, say, bubonic plague.)

Because of No. 1 I consult the Bible frequently and make every effort to apply its teachings. I don't expect everyone else to do this because Everyone Else consists of many religious traditions.

To ask me to adopt, embrace, or otherwise promote something that my guidebook specifically prohibits (and yes, it DOES speak against homosexual behavior, contrary to what some revisionists would like to think) is like asking a devout Muslim to not face Mecca when praying or asking a devout Jew to not eat kosher.

So, does this mean I hate homosexuals? No, it does not. The Bible says the behavior is wrong, it does NOT say we are to hate those who engage in it. Ergo, I don't.

Does this mean a devout Muslim has something against Paris or Morocco or Buenos Aires? Nope.

Does it mean the devout Jew despises the companies that don't certify their foods as kosher? I hardly think so.

So to put it plainly, expecting practicing Christians to agree to something their religion specifically prohibits and then expressing surprise and disdain when they don't is just pretty damn ignorant.

What's started this whole flap is a $20K donation by MD's to the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce in exhange for a seat on the group's board of directors. One of MD's hotshot corporate officers is also reportedly gay. The NGLCC lobbies Congress on various issues including that of same-sex marriage.

The conservative Christian American Family Assoc. (AFA) protests the deal and has called for a boycott of the company.

Referring to the AFA boycott, McDonald's corporate spokesman Bill Whitman has been quoted by the Wash. Post as saying "hatred has no place in our culture."

What Whitman either fails to understand or chooses to ignore is that AFA is NOT lobbying for the mistreatment of gays, nor is it asking MD's to not hire gays. It is asking the company to remain neutral on The Homosexual Issue by not playing footsie under the table with a gay rights lobbying organization.

But I think the AFA is mistaken in this instance. It thinks McDonald's actually cares about gay people. I think McDonald's actually cares about money and the more of it the better. It can't be neutral on the issue of homosexuality because homosxuality is not its focus in the first place. Profit is.

There's no shame in making money. This is America, after all, and capitalism is the name of the game.

No, the shame lies in the fact that Christians who choose to oppose the company's decision are branded as haters for nothing more than refusing to try to reconcile what, according to the word of their God, cannot be reconciled.

I hope the McDonald's Corp. has calculated its future earnings carefully, allowing for the loss of profit as Christians choose to take their business elsewhere. That $20K may just prove to be the worst investment the company has ever made.


In the interest of journalistic integrity and full disclosure, readers should note that I am a vegetarian (no, this doesn't mean I HATE meat-eaters, but I do HATE the fact that I even feel compelled to make such a silly disclaimer) and thus do little to no business with McDonald's. I do like their vanilla shakes, but in the interest of my waistline I choose to refrain from those as much as possible. It's got nothing to do with religion and everything to do with common sense.)

We are overly amused

A good friend of mine recently gave me my own copy of Neil Postman's life changer of a tome, "Amusing Ourselves To Death" in which the author decries the slide of American culture, the result of a society in which being entertained and amused is way more important than thinking deeply and acting consciously.

Coincidentally, I just finished reading an article in Home School Enrichment magazine about how to quell boredom in young people during the summer months. The gist of the piece is that for many homeschoolers boredom isn't much of an issue because the summer is no different than other times of the year so there's no letdown or lack of friends with whom to visit. Business as usual, in other words.

But the author of the magazine article offers up an interesting opinion that I want to share here. Hopefully by giving full credit I won't get nailed for copyright infringement.

Writer and homeschooling mother Cindy Puhek says, "Children need to understand that God views time as precious and as a commodity that should be wisely invested. We must shelter our kids from the amusement park, thrill-a-minute mentality of our society that is destroying people's capability to enjoy simplicity."

Puhek goes on to say, "Our culture uses thrills like a drug, and the stakes keep going higher and higher. Amusement park rides are becoming progressively more dangerous as people demand a faster, higher, scarier experience. Many movies have given up on telling a real story and instead hurl their audience from one tense situation to the next for two hours. Children are hurried from activity to activity lest they miss out on experiencing something in their childhood."

Ms. Puhek links this insatiable desire for thrill to a lack of spirituality, in effect reasoning that by putting material, sensational needs first we are shoving God and all things related to spiritual progress to the back burner. She writes, "This thirst for thrills is a symptom of our society's rejection of God. . . Because the physical is all that is left, people demand that their senses be tantalized constantly."

Could this be true? Could it explain the ever increasing rates of ADD and other learning disabilities in children, a generation raised on technology that leaves those of us born just 40 years ago scratching our heads (just what does a Blackberry do that makes it worthwhile anyway)?

Moreover, could this separation of the physical from the divine account for the sense of despair and restlessness that so many people, especially younger adults, seem to be grappling with these days?

I have never used television or a computer as a babysitter for my children and have no plans to alter this arrangement. We don't take our kids to flashy, noisy, high-energy places mainly because we don't want to spend our money or our time that way but also because they've never asked.

Instead, we hang out at area parks, go to delis, make sandy wet messes in the backyard, visit with friends, read lots of books, write, color, cut and paste. We sing, play dress-up, paint, and talk about the mundane and the deep. We learn and live and worship and think and it's often hard to distinguish one of these from another because it's all so intertwined.

Come to think of it, in the eight years I've been a mother I've never once heard a child of mine utter those famous words, "Mom, I'm bored."

With any luck at all, I never will.

Oh, so that's what they mean by . . .

SOCIALIZATION.

For those of you who either don't homeschool or know someone who does, the "S Word" is considered quite profane by many in the autodidactic community (an autodidact is a self-directed learner).

To other homeschoolers, it's just plain silly and/or not applicable to their lives full of extracurriculars, field trips, academic competitions, sports, scouts, and the like.

To me, it's a no-brainer in light of the most recent -- but by no means the most shocking (I save that for school shootings) -- debacle to manifest in public schools. I'm talking about the so-called "pregnancy pact" discovered at a New York high school that's resulted in 17 pregnant young women.

Peer pressure in the extreme?

Peer pressure that's part and parcel of, you guessed it, "socialization."

If that's the vital skill homeschooled students are going to be lacking then more power to 'em.