Recently, the Mormon church had acknowledged that past prophets have not been completely infallible, and have indeed made mistakes.
Joseph Smith married other men's wives when it is expressly forbidden by god, Brigham Young was a racist, and the church leader's murdered men, women and children in the Mountain Meadow's massacre, among many other mistakes.
As I've pondered these and many other mistakes, I've come to wonder why does God, who people say is perfect, needs fallible men to communicate with us humans here on earth? If he is go grand and glorious and great, and full of power, then can't he figure out a better way to communicate with us than through fallible men?
I mean, really, scientists have been able to communicate around the world with people through televisions, telephones, and computers, you'd think god could be as clever and creative, if not more so!
People have been able to put up an electronic billboard in times square, for heaven's sake!
What? God can't think to build an electronic billboard in the sky and talk to us through it?
Wouldn't that be more effective than telling us women through an old man to only wear one pair of earrings?
How about a billboard in the sky telling us to stop killing each other over religion? How about telling us to stop hating each other because of how we dress, or look, or who we have sex with?
How about a billboard in the sky telling us that the most important things are to just love and accept each other and tolerate differences? Wouldn't that be better than discriminating and hating on each other?
How about that, god?
Friday, January 30, 2015
Infallible?
Labels:
belief,
communication,
fallacy,
fallibility,
god,
infallible,
respect,
tolerance
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Remember the turnaround....
It's all well and good until...
This last week the Mormon church came out with what they are calling a 'balanced approach' to marriage equality and recent laws being passed across the nation that will refuse public places to discriminate against the LGBT community. conditional support
The Mormon church wants other laws to be passed to also protect religious rights. Well, I have news for them, there are already laws in place, its called the first amendment. Any laws written will only give equal protection to the LGBT community that is already afforded the religious community.
There are no *special* rights being given to anyone, just the same rights that everyone else, including religions, already enjoy. The same day the Mormon church held their press conference, the Utah legislature also introduced HB66 that would allow public officials who have a strong religious objection to marriage equality to refuse to issue marriage licenses. This is what the Mormon church calls a *balanced approach*.
This simply doesn't work. Why not? Because by giving public officials the privilege of claiming strongly held religious objections, then religion will trump law every time, every day....it will put religion ABOVE the law.
Can a person discriminate against a person by denying them housing? No. Oh, wait, unless they have strong religious objections.
Can a person discriminate against a person by denying them the ability to marry? No. Oh, wait, unless they have strong religious objections.
Can a person discriminate against a person by denying them medical help? No. Oh, wait, unless they have strong religious objections.
This always sounds all fine and well, that is until it is turned around. I wonder how these Mormons are going to feel then these *balanced approaches* are turned around on them?
How are the Mormons going to feel when their missionaries are refused haircuts because they aren't considered Christians?
How are the Catholics going to feel when they are denied the privilege of banking at the banks owned by the Jews?
How are the Evangelists going to feel when they are denied access to Indian or Chinese restaurants?
It's all well and good until what you wish for is turned around on you.
Be careful what you wish for, Mormons.
This last week the Mormon church came out with what they are calling a 'balanced approach' to marriage equality and recent laws being passed across the nation that will refuse public places to discriminate against the LGBT community. conditional support
The Mormon church wants other laws to be passed to also protect religious rights. Well, I have news for them, there are already laws in place, its called the first amendment. Any laws written will only give equal protection to the LGBT community that is already afforded the religious community.
There are no *special* rights being given to anyone, just the same rights that everyone else, including religions, already enjoy. The same day the Mormon church held their press conference, the Utah legislature also introduced HB66 that would allow public officials who have a strong religious objection to marriage equality to refuse to issue marriage licenses. This is what the Mormon church calls a *balanced approach*.
This simply doesn't work. Why not? Because by giving public officials the privilege of claiming strongly held religious objections, then religion will trump law every time, every day....it will put religion ABOVE the law.
Can a person discriminate against a person by denying them housing? No. Oh, wait, unless they have strong religious objections.
Can a person discriminate against a person by denying them the ability to marry? No. Oh, wait, unless they have strong religious objections.
Can a person discriminate against a person by denying them medical help? No. Oh, wait, unless they have strong religious objections.
This always sounds all fine and well, that is until it is turned around. I wonder how these Mormons are going to feel then these *balanced approaches* are turned around on them?
How are the Mormons going to feel when their missionaries are refused haircuts because they aren't considered Christians?
How are the Catholics going to feel when they are denied the privilege of banking at the banks owned by the Jews?
How are the Evangelists going to feel when they are denied access to Indian or Chinese restaurants?
It's all well and good until what you wish for is turned around on you.
Be careful what you wish for, Mormons.
Labels:
civil rights,
equality,
LGBT,
marriage,
marriage equality,
privilege,
rights
Thursday, January 1, 2015
Emotional Abuse and Autonomy
Emotional Abuse
and Autonomy
“You need to have more kids, especially with how beautiful
all your girls are.” My mother-in-law tells me for the hundredth time. Inside
I’m seething, as I have to wonder why it is anybody’s business how many kids I
have, especially my mother-in-laws when she knows how difficult my pregnancies
are as well as the deliveries. She only has three kids, so who is she to tell
me to have more kids, anyway? Why is it anybody’s business? I hate it when
people tell me how many kids to have. I’m overwhelmed as it is, and this only
makes me feel more overwhelmed.
“I’m going to take you to Africa and swing you from the
trees.” Joe, an acquaintance tells me in a flirting manner. I feel so uncomfortable, I don’t know what to
say, what kind of come-on is that anyway? How completely inappropriate. I never
know how to handle this, so I answer with a soft no, “I’ll just build a tree
house and hide from you in its safety.” My soft no doesn’t work, as it often
doesn’t, as he persists; “I’ll just build a ladder and come into your tree
house.” I walk away at this point
because I’m so disgusted. My guy friends tell me it’s my fault for not giving
him a strong no by just telling him to fuck off. I contend that a soft no would
be respected by any person who respects boundaries.
“Your behavior is so juvenile, you need to stop acting so
silly.” I’m told this on the internet by
someone who doesn’t like my sense of humor.
Why do I need to stop acting silly, I ask myself, I’m not hurting
anyone, if it bothers them, why don’t they go somewhere else where it isn’t
bothering them? If my behavior isn’t harming them, why do they feel compelled
to tell me I must act according to what they want?
I’m tired, I want to go to bed.” John then tells me it would offend him if I
didn’t stay up and watch a movie with him.
The next day, I could hardly make it through my work day, I was so tired
and then I resented him for making me too tired to make it through the day.
“I think this is funny!”
“That’s not funny, that’s stupid, and anyone who thinks
that’s funny is stupid.” Says my friend. Well, now I just feel ashamed.
“I’m so angry at Randy!”
“How dare you…anger
is of the devil, you need to repent.”
“I’m sorry, was just expressing how upset I was that Randy
raped me. Now what do I do with all these conflicting emotions?”
“Stop texting and listen to the speaker!”
“But it’s boring.”
“I don’t care.”
Now I’m bored and
frustrated.
As I left a controlling church, I realized how much I was
told how to think: your thoughts will
condemn you, your bad thoughts lead to sinful actions, sexual thoughts are
evil, etc. I was told what to feel:
anger is wrong, jealousy is wrong, sadness is wrong, be happy all the time. I
was told how to behave: wear modest clothing, attend church every Sunday, do
your church calling, listen to uplifting music, etc. As I look back on this, I
realize that very little of these things had to do with harming others, but more
with controlling me.
I began to learn to set clear boundaries and take control
over my own emotions, thoughts and behavior. This has been a big learning curve
for me. I have had to learn from others how to do a lot of this. I have been
taught that my thoughts, feelings and behaviors aren’t really mine, but in the
control of patriarchy as well as authority.
I have had to learn assertive communication skills in order to take back
my personal power.
I remember listening to some women who were going through
marriage counseling and how they were being told they could not control the
behavior of their spouse, they could tell their spouse what bothered them, but
their spouse was in complete control of their own behavior and could then
choose to change their own behavior or choose to not change it. This was very
difficult for me to understand at first. What if that behavior was damaging to
the relationship? Wasn’t the spouse obligated to change? Could they be
compelled to change? I have come to understand that we cannot compel others to
change, not if we want a healthy relationship with them. We can assertively ask
for what we need in a relationship, then after that, we have a choice; we can
accept, compromise or walk away. This
has been the hardest lesson for me to learn.
Sulking, giving the silent treatment, yelling, or name
calling are not healthy ways of communicating our wants and needs. We can ask
for what we need, but the other person can choose to accept, reject or
compromise. We become manipulative and lose ground if we use passive aggressive
or aggressive tactics.
There are behaviors that are harmful, such as abuse, name
calling, withholding money to control, etc. that should not be tolerated and if
the person does not change, walking away is the best option. But I’ve often
wondered about lots of other behaviors that are annoying but not harmful. How
do we deal with the annoying behaviors of others? I have learned we do the same. We can ask
people to change, but they are still in charge of themselves and if they choose
to not change, we choose to ignore or walk away.
Walking away can look like a lot of things. We can go into
the another room, we can leave a party where someone is being obnoxious, put on
head phones so we don’t have to listen to annoying sounds, etc.
As the years wane, I began to ponder why people think it is
their right to tell other people how to act when it isn’t harming them. I
wonder why people think they must tell others how to dress (mostly modestly)
how to think (it isn’t okay to think about sex) or how to feel (it isn’t okay
to feel anger, jealousy or sadness).
I run a support group and this is always a point of
contention within the group, as people attempt to control others by telling
them what behavior and feelings are acceptable and which ones are not. This
causes the most contention within the group than anything else. I have learned
a lot over the years as I had to moderate the group. I have learned this; that
people have a right to their own self-determination over their own thoughts,
feelings and behavior as long as they are not harming others.
It is when others attempt to control our thoughts, behavior
or emotions that causes the greatest amount of friction in relationships. We seek autonomy. I see other’s attempt to control us through
passive words, behavior, ideas as well as through aggressive words, behavior
and ideas. People are not separate from their behavior, and to say their
behavior is bad, wrong or in error, but they are not is the same as calling
them bad, wrong or in error.
Such things as sulking, the silent treatment, yelling, or name
calling are just a few ways people use to attempt to control other people’s
behavior, emotions or thoughts. Why is
it so difficult to allow other people the autonomy to self-determination?
The definition of emotional abuse includes this: verbal assault, humiliation,
intimidation, infantilization, or any other treatment which may diminish the
sense of identity, dignity, and self-worth."
So, when a person attempts to assert control over others, it
is a form of emotional abuse. Each person needs to be able to determine for
themselves, from the very small things, to the very large things. We can choose
our sexual partners, when we are tired and need to rest. We get to choose how
many children we are capable of having (or none at all), as well as which
emotions we are feeling, from sadness to frustration to anxiety to anger to
happiness. We get to choose our clothes, and even our laugh and sense of
humor. We choose our thoughts and ideas
as well.
Labels:
aggressive,
assertive,
autonomy,
behavior,
boundaries,
communication,
control,
emotional abuse,
emotions,
passive,
passive-aggressive,
thoughts
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)