Dubito, Ergo Cogito, Ergo Sum

Hi, My Name Is Jed. And I'm Genderqueer.

2015-02-09T15:55:00.000-05:00

Just like British humor. Either you'll get it or you won't.

I don't expect people outside of my close friends to get it or have any motivation to. In fact, even with them I hesitate. Something I did not anticipate when I started realizing I am GQ (genderqueer), is that it would be such an intimate part of who I am. So to trust anyone with this part of me is hard. I am opening myself up for a lot of pain. More than when I revealed I am an atheist. Or even my sexuality. Gender is part of who you are. At your core. Your heart, so to speak.

But here it goes. What doesn't kill you either makes you stronger or might just be a flesh wound. Right?

A Thought Experiment:

Ever think about what someone subconsciously sums you up as when they first meet you? I haven't given it much thought till recently. But now that I have, I would guess on an average introduction they mentally jot down:

Man, white, tallish (depending on their own height), dark hair/features, serious (I usually am when I meet someone), maybe friendly (I try), quiet, somewhat reserved. Possibly they might pick up on the fact I'm highly introspective and analytical if I have more than 5 minutes with them?

Alright, so right off the bat, they have one thing wrong about me. I'm not a man.

Then What Are You?

While I have a male body, I am not a man. As someone who likes to know and understand people and be known and understood in return, this is unfortunate. From this point forward numerous, mostly innocuous assumptions will be made about me. Most will be dispelled as they get to know me. But some will be laying at the bottom of their subconscious when they interact with me. Their picture of me and my picture of me will be quite different at the foundation. A much more accurate picture would be to understand I am genderqueer. I am not a man or a woman. I fall somewhere in the middle of the continuum.

My Gender Presentation
In the past I have dressed and presented myself in a fairly masculine way. I like the idea of having longer hair, getting my nails done, and wearing make up occasionally. Not into dresses or skirts. Like a tomboy. Feminine on the inside, but often attempt to be "one of the boys" and blend in. I've just been more successful at it than most women because I have a male body. But I've been too good. And now people close to me don't know me quite as well as I'd like.

My Inner Gender Identity

Gender is largely a social construct anyway, so I find it difficult to describe how my inner self is bi-gender or non-binary. But to sum it up I have masculine and feminine tendencies in how I think and interact with people. I much prefer "girl talk" to... ummm what do boys talk about? ;) See?? Yet, I am very competitive and protective. Bits and pieces of what you would assume would be one or the either, but neither.

What does this mean for you, my friend?
Well not a whole lot. But a bit more than just finding out that I am not religious or that I am attracted to both men and women. Because this knowledge about me will need to change how you talk to me or talk about me. One of my main fears with coming out as GQ is that I do not want to impose on my friends or make anything difficult for them. But it really gets down to either my friends truly having the chance to know me as me OR being misgendered and not truly known for who I am. It really is up to you as to whether you think it is worth the trouble. (The trouble of being my friend, rather. No one has the right to misgender someone else.) But here is what I ask:

Pronouns

I prefer to not be referred to by masculine or feminine pronouns. Using the gender neutral "they" will probably be easiest for most of you. If this seems unwieldy due to the historic plural nature of the pronoun "they," there is an alternative that I actually prefer to "they" which is Spivak. It is easy to remember as basically the "they" pronoun minus the "th."

The Spivak pronouns are:

Ey -- subjective

Em -- objective
Eir -- possessive (adjective)
Eirs -- possessive (noun)
Emself -- reflexive
Source: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SpivakPronouns

Ultimately I prefer Spivak, but either is really fine and I defer to your ease of use.

Some things I don't really want or need to hear:
"It will be hard but I will try my best!"
I know. But this is hard on me too. All the time. It is a fault of our language and not your own if you try. I'm not going to be upset if you slip up. Trust me, the first time I had a GQ friend I slipped up all the time and still do occasionally (I have gotten a lot better though). And although you won't mean it this way, it sounds like you are weighing whether my friendship is worth the trouble of not misgendering me. Fair enough if you do weigh that out in your head. But it's not really polite to say it out loud.

"I'll still always kind of see you as a man."
You are choosing to not understand me for who I am and are imposing what you think I should be on me. Our friendship probably will not be very close, if it does not end completely.

"I don't think there is such a thing as genderqueer."
Please do some research. It kind of isn't up to you to decide.

Anything religiously motivated.

Shouldn't be a problem for most of my friends. But no, God doesn't enter into this for me. I don't think there is one.

"I don't get it."

Then please do some research or at least ask some questions. I don't mind answering questions and you getting to know me. But the knowledge is just on the other side of a search engine.

Male or female pronouns. On purpose.

Should be self-explanatory. I won't immediately assume that you are doing it to hurt me. But eventually I will realize you aren't trying or have decided that I've made the whole thing up and am crazy.

Gendered words like "Dude," "Man," "Girl," "Guy," "Brother," "Boyfriend," "Girlfriend."
Exception: If you are using it in a fun way and would honestly still use the word if I was assigned female at birth. For instance, I often will say "Com'on, dude/man/etc" even to female friends. Or my girlfriend has jokingly said, "Hey, bitch!" In these instances, I don't consider you to be misgendering me. But if you are referring to me as a man/woman and holding me to assumptions based on that gender, not cool. Make sense?

Thank you for being my friend.
This is just meant as a guide or quasi-FAQ, because I know many people have never encountered someone who was GQ. I don't lay all these points out so that anyone will feel uncomfortable or like they are walking on egg shells. That is actually one of my biggest fears. If you slip up, I don't want you to feel embarrassed or stressed. I just want to be comfortable as my real self, us to be friends, and for you to know me for who I really am. I welcome questions and discussions about who I am. Hopefully we will be better friends for this.

Like my Facebook Page

Loving Lepers

2014-12-30T15:23:00.000-05:00

by Jonah Griffith

Love is patient,

Love is kind.

Today you wish

You could hit rewind.

But like a DVD

We keep spinning.

You’re trapped in your worldview

That says I’m just sinning.

In spite of my perversion

You reel in your disgust.

Pour through the pages

To love me past my lust.

A book of lines

Drawn in the sand.

"Unclean! Unclean!"

Love comes as reprimand.

You withhold your support

Love the sinner, hate the sin.

But I can't even be comfortable

In my own skin.

This thing you try to have for me

Isn't love, it's a fiction.

I'm just being me.

Your thin love's an affliction.

It isn’t a sin

To not fit the mold.

Do you not realize

That book’s fuckin' old?

A God you’ve never seen,

A faith that cannot be broken.

I’m standing right in front of you

Wishing you’d love me, arms open.

While you’ve been busy

Praying for my perfection.

I’ve been studying

And you’re going the wrong direction.

You’re right that love is patient

And love is kind.

But it’s also sometimes queer.

Don’t be blind.

It isn’t quite so strained

And it’s easy to see.

It’s peaceful and happy.

Something I wonder if you’ll ever be.

You pray you’ll see me

Across the great divide.

I just wish for once

I could see your other side.

You, after a glass of wine,

Sharing a laugh and being free.

Loving my love.

That’s what love would be to me.

Like my Facebook Page

5 Ways to Avoid Being "That White Guy" in Ferguson Discussions

2014-11-26T12:19:00.000-05:00

1. Do not police people's rage about the injustice.

There are already people paid do it with riot shields and tear gas. Think they have it covered. Also you are missing the point. "A riot is the language of the unheard." -Martin Luther King Jr.

2. Do not say racism is over.

What planet are you from? Think about the discussion you are in. You are looking about as dumb in your white skin right now as Donald Trump would if he was to declare that hunger is over.

3. Do not tell people to stop making it about race.

They lived a century taking orders from white people. Our race made it about race when we shipped them over here, disenfranchised them, and refused to give them justice. It is about race. "There are still problems and communities of color aren't just making these problems up." - Barak Obama

4. Do not blame black people for the tragedy or for making the situation worse. Even the ones looting.

I agree with MLK, Obama, and Ghandi's urging to protest peacefully. But not all the protesters are violent. And the ones who are have reasons (although I do not condone or encourage, I understand). They feel they are not honored by the law, so why should they respect the law? Don't miss the point here. Even if it is delivered in a terrible way.

5. Do not tell black people that if they want to make a real difference they should join the police force or government to end the corruption from within.

You just showed your privileged white booty. You think they don't want to or haven't tried? How long did it take for us to get a black president? You don't just "get elected" or just "get a job" or even just "get into college" as a person of color. Hell, sometimes it is even difficult as a white person!

Just don't. Just stop and listen. Watch. Read. Google stuff. Stop reading what other red necks think.

Like my Facebook Page

Black Lives Matter

2014-11-25T12:02:00.001-05:00

"There are still problems and communities of color aren't just making these problems up." -Barack Obama

NY Times Report on Michael Brown Grand Jury

I feel the moral obligation as a human to state what should be obvious to all. That black lives matter. There is no excuse for Darren Wilson not coming to trial. Even if Wilson was to not be found guilty, to not even indict him when the people are calling for justice is a slap in the face to all people. Black lives are human lives. Can you imagine this result if "the jurors, a group of nine whites and three African-Americans" had been nine African-Americans and three whites?

I usually try to find something fairly clever and insightful to say in my posts. But in this case all I can do is echo the men and women already protesting the obvious injustice. If you thought racism is over, think again. How can we expect the relationship to grow between black communities and police, when unarmed black teenagers can be shot and killed with impunity.

I am a big believer in self defense. It is possible that Wilson was innocent. But to not be brought to trial is ridiculous. The system is broken.

Please take action by signing this petition: White House Petition needs 100,000 Signatures by Christmas

Like my Facebook Page

There and Back Again

2014-11-17T21:37:00.000-05:00

Dear Old Forgotten Blog,

It has been a long time.

The last year (plus) has been a doozy. Life experiences out the wazoo. Whatever the wazoo might be.

I think I posted back in June or July, but it was a lazy post and I don't really count it.

For the most part I am tired of talking or thinking about religion, politics, etc. Realistically I don't think I will change the world. Just being honest. But sometimes I still like to think and write. This combined with the fact the crazy levels of my life have subsided... maybe I'll give writing on this blog a spin again.

Today I don't have much to say other than I am back.

So, "Hi," old blog.

The Last Crusade?

2014-07-12T16:39:00.001-04:00

"This topic brings me to the that worst outcrop of the herd nature, the military system, which I abhor. That a man can take pleasure in marching in formation to the strains of a band is enough to make me despise him. He has only been given his big brain by mistake; a backbone was all he needed. This plague-spot of civilization ought to be abolished with all possible speed. Heroism by order, senseless violence, and all the pestilent non-sense that goes by the name of patriotism--how I hate them!"

-Albert Einstein in The World As I See It

I have been enjoying some pleasant moments of narcissism and patting myself on the back for finding that I agree so much with many of the ideas of Einstein while reading this book.

There are many current issues that I am quite passionate about. But one I hear little about, even from liberal and contrarian sources, is the war. I think we forget we are at war. Do we even know what the current war is called or where our troops are? Or why?

Our war is proof that our government is corrupt. The subject has become so convoluted that it is almost impossible to know all the complexities of the conflict. The current objectives of the war are so far removed from an American citizen's interests, that it would be a waste of time to keep up with it really. Few do. Take a look at the wiki page for our current war, the War in North-West Pakistan, and see if you can pick out anything you as an American citizen would have a vested interest in.

Here are some things I think you might actually have a vested interest in:

Total American casualties from the War on Terror
(this includes fighting throughout the world):


US Military killed	6,639^[141]
US Military wounded	50,422^[141]
US DoD Civilians killed	16^[141]
US Civilians killed (includes 9/11 and after)	3,000 +
US Civilians wounded/injured	6,000 +
Total Americans killed (military and civilian)	9,655 +
Total Americans wounded/injured	56,422 +
Total American casualties	66,077 +

^[156]^[157]^[158]^[159]^[160]

The United States Department of Veterans Affairs has diagnosed more than 200,000 American veterans with PTSD since 2001.^[161]

A March 2011 Congressional report^[162] estimated spending related to the war through fiscal year 2011 at $1.2 trillion, and that spending through 2021 assuming a reduction to 45,000 troops would be $1.8 trillion. A June 2011 academic report^[162] covering additional areas of spending related to the war estimated it through 2011 at $2.7 trillion, and long term spending at $5.4 trillion including interest.^{[note 3]}

Expense	CRS/CBO (Billions US$):^[163]^[164]^[165]	Watson (Billions constant US$):^[166]
FY2001-FY2011
War appropriations to DoD	1208.1	1311.5
War appropriations to DoS/USAid	66.7	74.2
VA medical	8.4	13.7
VA disability		18.9
Interest paid on DoD war appropriations		185.4
Additions to DoD base spending		362.2-652.4
Additions to Homeland Security base spending		401.2
Social costs to veterans and military families to date		295-400
Subtotal:	1283.2	2662.1-3057.3
FY2012-future
FY2012 DoD request	118.4
FY2012 DoS/USAid request	12.1
Projected 2013–2015 war spending	168.6
Projected 2016–2020 war spending	155
Projected obligations for veterans' care to 2051		589-934
Additional interest payments to 2020		1000
Subtotal:	454.1	2043.1-2388.1
Total:	1737.3	4705.2-5445.4

And neither major party has offered an ending to the war as an option. Similarly and insufferably entwined is the financial crisis, they give us "Bad" and "Worse" options. Over half of our discretionary spending is on "Defense." Click here for a cool graphic of discretionary spending. But who are we kidding? We've been attacked on our soil once and never again since the war started. It's been almost 13 years since the last time we had to defend ourselves.

Defense? What we are doing is maintaining our control in the region for Israel's sake and for oil, the new gold. What we have here is just another Crusade.

Sunday Muse #11

2013-06-02T10:59:00.000-04:00

How are people so indecent? Within the last several months I have experienced more insane behavior from friends than I ever would have imagined. It is getting to the point where it is almost embarrassing to tell even my brother some of the ways that people have treated me.

I have had a rule about burning bridges: I don't. Growing up as a pastor's kid and moving 20 some-odd times before I graduated high school, I developed a real distaste for goodbyes, judgments, and cutting people off. It seemed like my family was constantly burning bridges. I didn't understand it.

But there comes a point, sometimes, when people do not leave you the option of continuing to consider them a friend. The only way to retain any self-respect is if you cut them off. The sad thing is that even though I have mustered the courage each time this year to call a spade a spade, I still feel desperate. Desperate for friendship. Desperate for loyalty. Desperate for someone to value me.

I do have that, luckily, in my parents, brother, and several friends. But it becomes very difficult to trust when you are no longer surprised when someone screws you over.

Sorry if this is more of a Sunday Bitch rather than a Sunday Muse. I try to avoid these sorts of rants. But I thought it gave some insight into the inner workings of the writer of this blog when it comes to skepticism. Also, I am wondering ("musing") about two things. First, how do people do that? I know from a psycho-economic perspective people almost always make rational decisions based on what they value and what they see as perceived costs. When someone screws you over, what are they valuing more than you? Did you give them a reason to have this hierarchy or is their behavior otherwise understandable when analyzed in this way? If so, I would say at this stage in the relationship one should still not attempt to mend things. But perhaps it would be a useful way to cope? And then secondly, how do people cope? It seems coping well with this sort of thing would lend to being more successful socially as a person who is more reserved/distrusting can have a difficult time of it.

Like my Facebook Page

If you're lost and alone
Or you're sinking like a stone
Carry on
May your past be the sound
Of your feet upon the ground
Carry on

Cake or Death

2013-05-29T09:59:00.002-04:00

It struck me earlier this week that the perceived barbarism of Islamic Jihadists is hardly worse on a conceptual level than modern evangelical Christianity.

It is better (slightly) on a practical, real-world, application level because Christianity's ultimatum of eternal hell, suffering, and damnation is a bluff to be carried out by someone else. So no physical harm is done. Just emotional and psychological. So, yes, on a practical level, Christianity is better. But conceptually, it is no better.

Conceptually, evangelicals believe that this life is ≤ the afterlife. Encouragement is frequently given to those going through difficult times that this life is of no consequence when considered in the scope of eternity. The afterlife is everything to a person who believes our existence and sentience persists for eternity. So the ramifications of the idea that certain people will be tortured and suffer for an infinite amount of time? Why not just shoot me now? 100 years into my eternal punishment I will have long forgotten the few mercy years you let me have.

I digress a little. But what I am saying is that ultimately there is very little difference for the non-believer, to wit: the amount of time and amount of suffering that is the consequence for their lack of belief.

At the core what I find barbaric is the threat. Do this or die. Well that took a lot of creativity on the part of whoever came up with these religions. The italics denote facetiousness if you missed it.

This incentivization of belief is so far behind the times. Believe this or die. How about... I don't know... believe this because it is true? Believe this because I can show you the merits of the supporting arguments?

And who wouldn't believe something that can be proven? Why need the threat of death if there was any proof?

Fishy.

Personally, I prefer cake.

Like my Facebook Page

Naivety

2013-05-23T12:22:00.001-04:00

It has taken time. But I understand now why people are indifferent. I'm resistant to embrace it, but I can see now why it happens.

This blog has evolved over time. I kind of like that. When I first started I had days where I was a gung-ho super Christian and days I was a skeptical seeker. It shifted in 2011 when I deconverted fully and embraced my skepticism. From that time up to a couple months ago I was an "Angry Atheist." I do not apologize for that and still believe there are good reasons for people on the outside of religion to be upset. (Side note: A very good read is Why Are You Atheists So Angry? by Greta Christina.) In 2013 I've focused a little more on LGBTQ issues. But finally, I've started to find the only blogs I want to write are poems and observations.

I am a little tired. When I was a Christian I was a fighter. When I deconverted I was a fighter. I still am. I've taken pride in my thoughts and writing. That tidbit is probably laughable to some of my readers. But it has given me purpose. I thought if I could change one mind, I could help someone. Hopefully I have. But a new realization has changed how I am approaching my blog and the world in general: You can't win.

I am not saying this with an Eeyore voice. I don't think it is pessimism. It seems balanced, practical, pragmatic, and realistic.

Winning is
Not dying.
Finding true love.
Reaching your full potential.
Being completely content.
Making something that will last forever.
Magic.

Now, we can redefine "winning" to fit more reachable goals. But that is not what I have been striving for my entire life. I feel like a lot of people, subconsciously or otherwise, think of winning in the same terms.

This change in my personal paradigm is well exemplified in how I feel about Les Miserables. I loved that movie. Still do. I saw it in January and the last number was a real tear jerker. It was a reprise to "Can You Hear the People Sing," a very emotional and passionate call to arms. All the people who had so far died in the revolution were singing it showing that their legacy lived on. But here I am in May and after all the research I've done on the French Revolution over the last several months I know there was no Grande Finale number like there was in Les Miserables. That war continued for a decade interspersed with worse governments and dictatorships than the first. Sure, there were positive outcomes in the end. But those people were fighting for utopia. And what most of them got was lead. Their song ended with them and with no reprise.

Should we not fight for what we believe in then? And here we go again. A new wall I have never before experienced in my life. I write a leading question like that which would have previously always preceded my point. But I just don't feel like making a point. I don't feel like telling you whether you should be indifferent or fight for something. I feel like discussing reality.

And "what is" does not seem to care much about "what should be."

Like my Facebook Page

Sunday Muse #10

2013-05-19T22:23:00.002-04:00

Been thinking about two of my sides- creativity and analysis. Although their goals and loves are completely different, I seldom feel conflicted about them. But I am aware of some passive aggression between these two parts.

Art is the most intense mode of individualism the world has ever known.
Oscar Wilde

We have art in order not to die of the truth.
Friedrich Nietzsche

Like my Facebook Page

"Let me be lighter, tired of being a fighter"

We Are Never The Same

2013-05-16T16:56:00.001-04:00

Because things are the way they are, things will not stay the way they are.
Bertolt Brecht

Without change, there is nothing. Both time and matter depend on it. In the relatively microscopic piece of the universe which is one of our own human lives, the same applies. We are always different from one millisecond to the next. No matter how gradual the change, it is there nonetheless. You are a different person after having read this paragraph. After this sentence. (Well, yes, technically that was a fragment, but you get the point.)

True life is lived when tiny changes occur.
Leo Tolstoy

To think that we as individuals change from moment to moment and then realize that the universe is full of individuals... No wonder things seem so chaotic all the time. Constant change! No wonder we long for stability. I personally love variety and change. But even I have my limits.

Without accepting the fact that everything changes, we cannot find perfect composure. But unfortunately, although it is true, it is difficult for us to accept it. Because we cannot accept the truth of transience, we suffer.
Shunryu Suzuki

Interactions between people seem to accelerate change. The persons involved cannot escape the touch and influence of the other people. The term we use when talking about couples, chemistry, is perfect. Two essences come into contact and "BAM", "PHIZZLE", or "POP!" Sometimes it's sexy, sometimes it's peaceful, sometimes it's just two murky liquids swirling. Even when one element leaves though, the remaining element seldom returns to its original state.

There is nothing permanent except change.
Heraclitus

If you've been waiting for my point, you can stop reading now. I don't think I have one. I've just been pondering change. It seems inescapable. And even for a lover of change, like me, it seems scary at times or after it has not turned out so well on several consecutive occasions. Nevertheless, it will happen. I guess my brain figured it would start by analyzing and exploring what changes (everything), and how often (all the time), etc. before delving into how to handle it.

Now I'm just waiting to see what it will come up with next.

They must often change, who would be constant in happiness or wisdom.
Confucius

Like my Facebook Page

Sunday Muse #9

2013-05-12T20:37:00.001-04:00

No black and white
Excepting lines between grays
Sentient fools seeking the truth
It isn't there until you see it
'Til you label it.

Yin and yang
Ambition through greed
Indifference in contentment
We are beasts pursuing the good in blood
And it is there.

Chains of hearts
One longing for others
Disregarding beats that drum for each
It is paradise that disconnects the dots
We are monsters.

We are children.

-Jonah Griffith

Like my Facebook Page

Train Up a Child in the Way He Should Go

2013-05-07T15:03:00.000-04:00

Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it.-Proverbs 22:6

Such an interesting promise. One of those that puts the blame on a religious parent if their child grows up to be wayward.

However, I can appreciate this collection of words from a different perspective. I don't have a positive belief in a deity, so I think this promise was made by a man. This man had some imperfect insight into raising children. In my own family I was raised as a conservative Christian to believe the Bible in its entirety. I was also raised and trained to be skeptical, to think independently, and to be open-minded. Of course the second set has become a contradiction with and beat out the first since then. Nevertheless, I remain in the way I was trained.

I am so grateful for it.

My parents gave me the greatest gift: Encouragement to think. Last Sunday I attended church for the first time in who knows how long. I'll give you a moment to gasp before I continue. Ok. So it was a Unitarian Universalist church in Dallas. Had never been to one before, but had been encouraged to try it by some of my more open-minded friends.

It was overall a great experience. Although I disagreed with some of the verbal assumptions by the pastor that there is a God and that faith is valuable, I really appreciated the encouragement to think, question, doubt, and search for truth. A common misconception I had when I was younger was that Universalists believe that all truth claims are of equal value. This may be the case for other Universalists but he did put to rest that he did not believe all beliefs had equal truth values. Just that everyone should be encouraged to think for themselves and consider their own beliefs.

The service was the church's "Coming of Age" service. Really one of the most touching things I have seen in any community. Each of the up-and-coming teenagers had been tasked with writing a credo or statement of personal beliefs. They were introduced by their parents who also listed three gifts (from an off-beat sense of humor to a skeptical mind) the young person brought to the congregation. The ceremony was very affirming and nurturing. After the service pamphlets were handed out which included 10-15 credos from the young people. It was amazing how deep and insightful these kids are. Some said they believed in a god, goddess, or deity. Some were atheist. Some believed in an afterlife, some did not. But all were accepted and praised for having thought it through and for seeking the truth. Could not help but think that I would want that for my children some day if I have any.

There was one credo that was written in poem form that really stuck out to me. It contained some insights that I had thought of, but only recently as an adult. She phrased the thoughts very well and I would like to share it with you.

Like my Facebook Page

My Credo
Helena Ruth Abernethy
Daughter of Amy Lou and Sandy Mason Abernethy

I tried to write a poem; perhaps this is it
Or maybe it is just words strung on a line of thought
A macaroni necklace of meaning
A child's craft of my mentality

I am a cannibal
I have eaten my past to become the present
Every second that passes I become prey for my future
I am consuming myself to fuel new thoughts
And the moments before I typed these words I was a creature so close to what I now am
It is hard to tell the difference
But in the next year I will evolve so greatly
It will be hard not to look at this with shame
Or perhaps I will have changed for the better
And be proud of the child others will think that I was

I am looking for love
Though in many ways I've found it
I will wait for years more before I am satisfied

I am hoping for permanence
A place to rely on reliable things
A spot of safety from what seems to be the world's constant degradation

I am wishing for recollection
For my mind is a permeable vessel
And many slides of life seem to slip through my seams
I haven't always spent well the time I will forget

These thoughts will not always bind me
And I may never answer all the questions that keep me from rest
But the end will be my end.

I have come to believe that a person is not a person in continuity
Not a single living thing that shifts
But rather a million stationary objects in line
An animation of change

Sunday Muse #8

2013-05-05T09:58:00.002-04:00

¹²So I turned to consider wisdom, madness and folly; for what will the man do who will come after the kingexcept what has already been done? ¹³And I saw that wisdom excels folly as light excels darkness. ¹⁴The wise man’s eyes are in his head, but the fool walks in darkness. And yet I know that one fate befalls them both. ¹⁵Then I said ^[j]to myself, “As is the fate of the fool, it will also befall me. Why then have I been extremely wise?” So ^[k]I said to myself, “This too is vanity.” ¹⁶For there is no ^[l]lasting remembrance of the wise man as with the fool, inasmuch as in the coming days all will be forgotten. And how the wise man and the fool alike die! ¹⁷So I hated life, for the work which had been done under the sun was ^[m]grievous to me; because everything is futility and striving after wind.
-Ecclesiastes 2:12-17

Like my Facebook Page

Ink Has Always Been A Scary Thing

2013-05-01T13:10:00.002-04:00

The suppression of ink has a long history. The Roman Catholic Church attempted to keep the Bible inaccessible to the public for centuries. Hitler loved a good book burning. This sort of censorship seems like an affront to the educated, modern mind which values a free market of ideas. Most people in America (even non-intellectuals) would find these situations barbaric and frightening at some level.

But write something on yourself... and we're gunna have a problem.

Tattoos. What comes to mind? For me, I see beauty, creativity, independence, individuality, and an admirable attempt to improve one's self (whether or not I personally would judge that attempt to be successful depending on the case). It seems not everyone perceives them that way though. I hear they are offensive. Which is kind of hard for me to wrap my mind around. How do you have the right to be offended by how a person looks or how they present themselves? What does the world revolve around again? I am starting to forget.

A "stigma" associated with tats is rebellion. Which, of course, is perceived typically as a negative. I would say, however, that rebellion is often a wonderful thing. What are people with tattoos rebelling against? Control. Control by whom? People who think they have a right to have a say in how other people look.

Oh.

I do not currently have any tattoos. I really want some in the future when I have the cash, time, and mental fortitude to withstand the needle. I know when I get them I could potentially suffer discrimination. Apparently employers still have a right to discriminate against people with ink.

Ok, so if you have not gathered yet, I am very individualistic. I think someone even telling me what to wear on a given day is a little invasive. This is where a consumer based economy turns employees of corporations into slaves who give up certain rights to turn a buck. I should never have to give up my freedoms of speech, religion, expression, etc. I am what I think and what I express. No one should have to give that up.

Ink Discrimination in Business

Why do companies discriminate against tattooed people? The issue of branding makes sense. The company wants to express a finite set of things in order to sell a product. It wants to control this expression so that it will encourage people to buy in the manner executives and shareholders see as best. An employee with a neck tattoo that reads "Mommy" could be a little distracting from the message. I get that. But should they be able to control the expressions, actions, and appearance of their employees to the extent they would like? No. Freedom should be granted in unlimited amounts up to the point that it infringes on the freedoms of others. In this case, the freedoms of employees to be who they are.

And the fact a "Mommy" neck tattoo (no, I would not get one, myself) would cause some customers to not buy from a company due to being offended just points to a larger problem with society as a whole. That's a whole other story that I will spare you for now.

Like my Facebook Page

Sunday Muse #7

2013-04-28T12:18:00.000-04:00

Have you ever looked at a fish in an aquarium and wondered what was going on in its head?

That's what I did yesterday as I was waiting for my Chinese take-out.

I don't know if I can understand understanding less.

Maybe aliens, matrix super-computers, or god do the same thing with us?

In reverse, I cannot imagine understanding everything they would understand.

Maybe this happens even within our own species?

I can't seem to squeeze (or expand; LOL) my mind into what a fundamentalist Muslim or right-wing conservative understands.

There are so many factors that go into what a person can understand: biology, environment, values, etc.

Makes me wonder what I'm doing.

Guess I'm contributing to that long list of factors. That'll work.

Like my Facebook Page

I'm not crying on Sundays.

Experiencing God Conclusion (Part 4)

2013-04-23T13:25:00.001-04:00

I felt it would be good to revisit my Experiencing God series to share what perspectives it gave me. In my initial writing, I attempted to share the stories factually with no attempt to direct a specific reaction from my readers. I am sure this was not fully accomplished as unbiased writing is very difficult under any circumstance, let alone that of your own personal experiences. Either way, I am not even going to try to be unbiased this time.

I will give myself credit- the posts were unbiased enough to receive a wide gamut of interpretations from my readers. The emails and comments I received included apologies on the behalf of Christianity, advice to see through the obvious facade of wolves in sheep's clothing, cautions to not misunderstand that I was actually "experiencing God," poorly spelled condescensions that assumed I was oblivious to the real culprit in my stories (legalism) and that I was only versed in Southern Baptist theology, and more. Some of the funniest reactions were those that misunderstood that I was supportive of anything in my stories that included hate speech, racism, burning of innocent children or churchgoers, or any number of other things in my posts. Let me just clear up the first issue right now. The racist statements and attitudes reported in my first post are horrific. To this day it still stupefies me that anyone could feel or act that way.

Regarding my second post, I cannot blame God for any of it. I have no reason (read: good reason) to think that there is a God. I cannot be angry at someone I do not think exists. What happened then, to make these people dream such horrific things and in some way be hopeful that they came true? Probably not just one thing. My optimism regarding the human state inclines me to first consider and hope that a certain degree of insanity was involved. This is really the best I could hope for. There must have been some disconnect between the people in the "remnant" and reality. Surely a mentally healthy individual's sense of human sympathy would compel them to be repulsed by such visions and any entity that would communicate them. Altogether, it was likely one part insanity, one part elitism, and a dash of "righteous" intention. I in no way support any of it. It frightens me.

Reminiscing about those events reminds me of the Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgram Experiment. Information on both social experiments are linked. The application I see is that all of these scenarios have good people (I optimistically assume), an authority figure (real or imagined), and an ideology from the authority that legitimizes otherwise horrific things. Another parallel situation is that of any of the numerous debates I have had with Christians (ranging from lay people to apologists to pastors) who try to rationalize the Canaanite genocide. Religion can create an environment with a fake authority figure through which we can project our own subconscious desires. It ends up being very circular with the human agent doing both the thought initiation and thought legitimization.

Finally, I would like to emphasize (as I stated before) that I am not angry at God. With the Jesus tape incident, God didn't make the head deacon a racist. He also didn't leave any bullet holes at the Halloween party. God didn't set the church on fire. I don't believe God even gave those people their visions. The title of my series, "Experiencing God," was an intentional and playful misnomer. I did not experience God. However, I will say, I have experienced God in these events to the same extent that you or any Christian ever has. One may see God in a flitting butterfly, A+ on a final exam, Mother Teresa, or insurance claim going through smoothly. I see "God" in religion. I see no difference. Both God and any following manifestations appear to be made up. Who decided that made up connections between a made up God and reality can only be drawn to pleasant things in reality?

These experiences do not prove to me that there is no God. But do they do help me answer one question: Do I wish there was a God? The answer is an emphatic, "No." It would be only be fair, if there were one, to attribute God's manifestation to both butterflies and the operations of his church. The operations of the church actually seem to have a much stronger link. And the church is a very scary place. So, no thanks.

Like my Facebook Page

Sunday Muse #6

2013-04-21T17:11:00.003-04:00

Why did people stop wearing hats?

Sure, some people do still. Baseball players, subway employees, and...

See? Not enough people wear them anymore. I can't think of anybody else.

The president used to wear a hat. That's right. The PRESIDENT.

What has happened to us?
a) Aliens
b) Communism
c) People caring more about getting laid than actually looking good
d) Other

Like my Facebook Page

Your face on drugs:
"0:41"

What is a Man?

2013-04-17T11:30:00.000-04:00

This week we have a guest post from Kit Maier. Written as a speech for Toastmasters, Mr. Maier, in my opinion, had some very profound points regarding the issue of same-sex marriage. He expands the issue beyond the scope of a gay rights issue to major implications on women's rights and gender equality.

Thank you (Mr/Madame) Toastmaster.

The topic I have chosen for this week is "Same-Sex Marriage". I understand that this is a divisive issue, so I would like to start by saying that it is not my goal today to decide whether same-sex marriage is good or bad, or whether it should be legal or illegal. I would like to focus instead on a bigger-picture perspective on the issue, which I have not heard articulated in any public debate on the subject. I have come to the opinion that the issue of gay marriage is not exclusively, or even primarily, an issue of gay rights, but rather one of women's rights, and gender equality. I would like to describe why I think it makes sense to look at the gay marriage debate from this perspective[, starting with discussion of the very different ideal visions of gender the two sides of the debate advertise.]

Opponents of gay marriage frequently say that it undermines traditional marriages, as well as marriage as a cultural institution. It is reiterated that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman, and that any other definition or interpretation of marriage is not in fact describing marriage. This brings up an important question, often skipped in public debates on the subject, where time is scarce and it is assumed the audience would already know the answer. The question is, "What is a man? What is a woman? And what is being undermined?" Based on private conversation, and familiarity with public debates on the topic, I believe I can answer this fairly easily. A man, a real man, is someone who is the head of a household, works hard to support his family, raises his children to share his values, and comes home primarily to relax. A woman, a real woman, is someone who is mother to a family, works hard to maintain the household, raises her children to share her values, and helps her husband to relax when he is home. A man is naturally a leader, especially within his family unit, and a woman will naturally follow his lead. I believe that these definitions will be found unobjectionable by the majority of opponents of gay marriage, as well as many people who support it. It is with these definitions as background, that we define marriage as the union of a particular man with a particular woman, where the man has found the woman who will obey him and bear his children, and the woman has found the man who will protect and take care of her.

On the other hand, supporters of gay marriage frequently say that marriage is a union between two people, not necessarily of opposite gender, who love one another and wish to share their lives together. This definition specifically avoids describing the living arrangements of the couple in question, and their individual personalities. It does not mention who should work outside the house to earn an income, or who should work in the house to cook and clean. It does not mention who will lead, and who will follow, or who will spend the most time with the children, if the union produces children. It leaves these details to the discretion of the individual couple. All that is said by this definition is that these two people are in love, and will continue to be in love, and wish to live together and share their lives, whatever form those lives might take.

As an example of the significant difference between these perspectives, I would like to consider the slippery slope argument. It is said by opponents of gay marriage that if we allow this, we will soon be pushed to allow more than two people to marry, or to allow people to marry animals, or children. For those who find this argument strange, I would like to recall the first definition of marriage. It makes sense only between a man and a woman. Any other relationship is so different, abandons so many of the assumptions lying at the heart of marriage as an institution, that it is nonsensical to talk about it as a form of marriage.

Supporters of gay marriage, on the other hand, say that there is a clear boundary between gay marriage and these other strange unions. Gay marriage would be between two consenting adult humans, that is to say, two people. Pairs of people get married to one another all the time, but people are never married to non-people such as dogs, and only pairs of people are united in this way, not crowds of people. To anyone who finds this argument weak, keep in mind the perspective of those making it, which starts from different assumptions about gender, which see much less of a division between men and women than between people and non-people.

What is at stake here, and what lies behind many of the arguments made about gay marriage, is two very different visions for our ideal gender roles. If gay marriage is successful as a cultural experiment, it would demonstrate that this traditional model of marriage is not necessary, is not obvious, is not uniquely right. It would demonstrate that a marriage where neither party is clearly dominant, and where neither party is necessarily housebound, makes sense. What undermines traditional marriage, then, is not specifically gay marriage, but equality, or symmetry, in marriage.

I said I would explain why I believe that gay marriage is, in the big picture, a women's issue as much as it is a gay rights issue. If the question of gay marriage is resolved, there are consequences for our other beliefs and policies. If we affirm the right of couples to wed, regardless of gender, we must as part of that act deny the importance of traditional gender roles in maintaining our society. If we deny the right of same-sex couples to wed, we will as part of that act affirm the sanctity of traditional gender roles, and the importance of this clearly-defined asymmetry in marriage. The rippling consequences of these decisions will be real and difficult to reverse. I believe that that is the real reason that this fight has been so sudden and so energetic. If we, as a nation, choose a policy of gender-blindness, which renders gay-marriage bans nonsensical, we will give strength to fights in favor of other gender-equality and women's rights issues, such as abortion and divorce. If we, as a nation, choose traditional gender norms, which render gay marriage nonsensical, we will give strength to fights against other gender-equality and women's rights issues. These broader issues are at stake, and are very much in the public mind today.

The question being debated in the supreme court now, and throughout the nation, is whether we will affirm the right of individuals to define their own identity, or affirm the sanctity of traditional gender roles. This question could not possibly have wider cultural consequences.

If anyone would like to discuss this topic at greater length, I will be available at Post-Toasties. Thank you (Mr/Madame) Toastmaster.

Like My Facebook Page

When Religion Blows Your Mind #1

2013-04-15T14:45:00.002-04:00

William Lane Craig on same sex/gay marriage (from the Reasonable Faith app):

Dear Dr. Craig,

Thanks for the work you do. I greatly appreciate it.

My question concerns a commonly made argument for same-sex marriage. The argument essentially says that it was wrong to prohibit interracial marriages. Since prohibiting same-sex marriages is analogous to prohibiting interracial marriages, we ought to allow same-sex marriages.

Obviously this argument has great emotional and rhetorical appeal. But I was wondering if you could comment on the strength of such an argument. I recognize that if one could point out a relevant difference between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage, then the argument would fail. I've heard several suggestions for such differences, but I was hoping to get your perspective. Thanks.

Zachary

The lesson to be learned from the legality of interracial marriage is that just as the law must be blind with respect to the race of persons desiring to marry, so it must also be blind to the sexual orientation of persons desiring to marry. Just as persons desiring to marry cannot be discriminated against on the basis of their race, neither can they be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. When two persons ask the state for the right to marry, the state must ask no questions about their race or sexual orientation. Just as laws which would discriminate against persons’ marrying on the basis of their race are unconstitutional, so laws which would discriminate against persons’ marrying on the basis of their sexual orientation are unconstitutional.

That’s why the term “gay marriage” (which, I noticed, you were careful to avoid) is misconceived. Laws permitting gay marriage would be clearly unconstitutional, since they would not be blind to the sexual orientation of the persons involved. Such laws would sanction marriage for same-sex couples only if they were homosexuals, thereby taking cognizance of their sexual orientation and discriminating against heterosexuals who wanted to enter into marriage with someone of the same sex. To repeat: just as the law must be blind to the race of persons entering into marriage, so it must be blind to their sexual orientation. Laws sanctioning gay marriage would thus be unconstitutional (not to speak of unenforceable!).

So the laws governing marriage must have no reference to the sexual orientation of the persons involved. But that is precisely the situation of the status quo! Under the laws of the status quo no one is denied the right to enter into marriage because of his/her sexual orientation. Two heterosexuals, two homosexuals, or a heterosexual and a homosexual are free to marry, no questions asked, just as persons of different races are free to marry, no questions asked. What they are not free to do under federal law, whatever their race or orientation, is to enter into same sex marriage, simply because there is no such thing. Marriage is by its essence a relation between a man and a woman. But the sexual orientation of the persons involved, like their race, is a matter of complete indifference to the law.

So the legality of interracial marriage actually goes to support the current laws, which are indifferent to both the race and the sexual orientation of the persons involved. Those who want to re-define marriage in such a way that it need no longer be between a man and a woman need to come up with some other argument in support of that redefinition than the appeal to interracial marriage.

The real question here, it seems to me, is whether marriage has an essence or is merely a social construct akin to driving on the right- versus left-hand side of the road. Those who espouse same-sex marriage want to deconstruct marriage so that what counts as marriage is just a matter of convention. Once we start down that route, anything goes: a man and two women, a man and a child, two men and a goat, etc. I see no reason at all to start down that road.

William Lane Craig

Sunday Muse #5

2013-04-14T23:03:00.002-04:00

Why do you get up in the morning?
For some it is not that easy. They don't want to. But they do.
When put under that broader scope and I realize I don't think twice about getting up-
How lucky am I?
This dawning alone gives me food for thought every day.
And I am that much happier for it every time I acknowledge a good thing in my life.
But do I savor enough?
There is enough good in my life I think I could squeeze a few more drops out if I tried.
Maybe even come up with enough good to share.

How would you feel about being dripped on?

Like my Facebook Page

Ray Dalton's voice gives me the warm fuzzies.
One of the sexiest things I have experienced.
Don't judge, just didn't want to take it for granted.
Refer to above musings and apply.
Thanks.

We Wish You Were A Fish

2013-04-10T12:12:00.001-04:00

Tolerance is a very dull virtue. It is boring. Unlike love, it has always had a bad press. It is negative. It merely means putting up with people, being able to stand things. - E. M. Forster

Mom, I'm a bird!
No you're not, you're a fish.
Look! See, wings?!
No! Fins meant for swimming.
Wings meant for flying!
Your father and I are dying.

Son, we want you to know,
Our love is ever here for you.
Our hearts ever long for you,
To be whom your mother and I raised you to be.
To be whom God created you to be.
Son, we wish you were a fish.

Maybe... Maybe if...

Maybe if I tear my feathers.
Maybe if I hold my breath.
Maybe I'll die.
Maybe that's best.
They'll never know, they'll be proud.
When they never knew, they never frowned.

No.
I will soar!
Please love me.
I will fly!
I need you to be proud.
I must fly.

Dad, I must fly!

Son,
We wish you were a fish.

-Jonah Griffith

Like my Facebook Page

Sunday Muse #4

2013-04-07T19:46:00.004-04:00

So I went to the Deep Ellum Arts Festival today. Went with some awesome people and saw some fantastic work.

There was one artist who really stood out to me though. I was caught by the movement and feeling in his art. Two things I strive for in my own amateur work. He mentioned that he tended to use both oil and acrylic in his paintings, which intrigued me because I had been taught that doing so could shorten the lifespan of your work. (Oil tends to move and can cause the acrylic to crack after a time.)

I asked him if he was worried about that.
Mr. Malekian, "How long do you expect to be looking at it? 100 years?"
Me, "Oh I don't know it would be awesome for it to last forever! And for lots of people to see it."
Mr. Malekian, "It's not going to last forever anyway. Other people don't care. And I'm only going to be able to see it for a few more years anyway. If oil and acrylic make the effect I like, then that's what I am going to use."
[Conversation paraphrased]

This was my favorite moment of the entire festival. I expected to go and see some interesting things. Hopefully some beautiful things. But I did not expect such insight into reality. What was I thinking? Why do I care if someone I never meet sees my work 1000 years from now?

Why do we care about things like this? Why do we desire fame and notoriety? Why do we desire to be remembered? Is this dependency on the opinions of future persons healthy? Is it possible to do things because we want to do them independently for the value we see in them in this moment?

See Armik Malekian's page here: http://www.armixart.com/

Like my Facebook Page

"The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." - John Maynard Keynes

Experiencing God (Part 3)

2013-04-03T13:45:00.001-04:00

We have come to my third and final post in my Experiencing God series. If you have not already, I encourage you to read Experiencing God (Part 1) and Experiencing God (Part 2) first to get some context. While this does conclude this set, I will likely do similar series in the future. There are quite a few interesting stories that immediately followed my family's departure from Georgia. For next week's post though, the current plan is to write about acceptance versus tolerance in families with LGBTQ members. So look out for that one!

My relief following the Fall Festival, when my father called my mother from the church to tell her the church was still standing, was muted and insecure. No one knew that the previous night, while my parents prayed protection over my brother and I, I was silently praying that nothing would happen to the people at the church. While I believed what the church was doing was a sin, I could not imagine seeing some of those faces go up in flames. But this thought almost seemed a betrayal of my family and of God at this point.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9

Now it came about at midnight that the Lord struck all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of cattle. Exodus 12:29

Four years earlier at my baptism, I entered a family of love and salvation. I was happy to spread this love and make the family bigger. Now, in the midst of impending judgement, was it also my duty to rejoice at God's justice?

The Exodus- That fall I also became old enough to enter the youth group. I was still only ten, but the youth group at First Baptist included middle school kids. Initially, I loved the more social aspects of the group, evening meetings, and open discussion. The youth pastor was a rare type in the community. A Canadian, he spoke of his college days where he hung out with druggies in their crack houses sharing God's love just like Jesus did with drunks and prostitutes. We talked about aliens, evangelism, and WWJD.

There were some theological differences that came up in our talks. I do not even remember what all they consisted of. Off the top of my head, I remember my mother (and I) being concerned about his interest and belief in aliens, indifference concerning Masons, appreciation for Christian rock music, and stance that "all things are permissible, but not all are beneficial." (1 Cor. 10:23) We decided as a family that it would be better for me to not be a part of the youth group any more. I started doing sound for the Wednesday night meetings.

But if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God? 1 Tim. 3:5

Sunday mornings became something that made me nervous. I felt everyone watching me. If hitting puberty was not making me awkward and overly self-conscious enough, worrying that I would cost my dad his job certainly did. I entered a shell, worried to let anyone see how I felt or thought. I was afraid to move, let alone smile. My family also became a bit aloof as a unit after the Fall Festival. The head deacon had said something very rude to my mother at some point, and she (within her rights) refused to shake hands with him during Sunday "meet-and-greets."

Mid-November, my family started the process of preparing a Christmas service. I remember looking through banners in some of the backrooms of the church. They were colorful- "King of Kings," "Prince of Peace," "Hosanna."
Purple, gold, silver, green, red.

My father started coming home with visible stress. I overheard a little about deacons' meetings he attended. The head deacon at one point told my father that if he did not like it there or the way they did things, he should leave. One Wednesday night, my brother and I did not go to church. This was the first time since we moved to Georgia that we were not in church during a service. We went over, instead, to the house of some friends who had been part of the "remnant."

My parents came back to pick us up, but stayed for hours to talk with the parents of the family. I stopped playing with my friends to come in the house and ask my parents how things went.

"We were voted out."

We were voted out of the family of God.

Like my Facebook Page

Experiencing God (Part 1)
Experiencing God (Part 2)

Sunday Muse #3

2013-03-31T13:01:00.000-04:00

"Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city Enoch, after the name of his son." Gen. 4:17

I'm going to not focus on the fact that this passage is hilarious considering this guy was trying to build a city when there would have only been four or so people on the planet supposedly (Adam, Eve, Cain, Cain's wife, + whatever daughters of Adam the Bible did not think important enough to include because women are just property). But growing up I always thought it was an interesting concept that a person would just go out and build a city.

If you could build a city from the ground up, what would it look like? What systems would be in place? What industry or business would be dominant? Would it be a large metropolis or a small town? What would the culture of the people look like and their language sound like?

Like my Facebook Page

"You never know just how you look through other people's eyes."