One of these days...

I will get back to rambling here...but until then...

Congrats to Barack Obama!

And shame upon a bit over half of California, Florida, Arizona, and Arkansas. Shame.

Things You Should be Reading

Terrance at the Republic of T. has a series of posts on hate crimes that have occurred recently in Memphis. Part One, Part Two, and Part Three. I'm ashamed to say that I was only aware of one out of the three incidents.

"Transphobic Words and Deeds" at Questioning Transphobia is one of the most enlightening and thought-provoking posts I've read in a while.

As usual, Fox News Should Be Ashamed

The story is that Mary Winkler has been awarded full custody of her daughters, who will continue to have visits with their paternal grandparents.

Unfortunately, the media vilification of Ms. Winkler continues with Fox News in the lead. Their headline for the balanced AP article: "Killer Mom Gets Kids" with a blurb that only identifies Matthew Winkler as a preacher and Mary Winkler as the convicted killer. (The screencap below is of Fox's home page, which I frankly don't care to link to.





I've previously ranted about similar treatment of Ms. Winkler by the Memphis Commercial Appeal and CNN, but that biased coverage pales in comparison to this travesty of journalism.

Fair and balanced, Fox News? Yeah. Better word is hypocritical.

h/t to Fran

Continuing Commentary on Mary Winkler

...from your friendly neighborhood Restoration Movement feminist guerrilla.

In latest news, the custody battle for the girls continues. I've said before that I'm not certain what would be best for the girls. There needs to be substantial proof that Ms. Winkler's mental health has stabilized before full custody for her should be considered, and I haven't heard anything that isn't a rumor to suggest that the girls aren't being well cared for by their grandparents. (I do think that visitation rights for Ms. Winkler are in order at this time and am delighted to here that she's been visiting with her daughters.) In any case, my sympathy is first and foremost with the girls.

That's not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about how Ms. Winkler has been subtly condemned by the media. Case in point, today's article from the Commercial Appeal.

The first paragraph identifies Ms. Winkler as "the woman convicted of killing her preacher husband" (emphasis mine). Now, in the area in which the CA circulates, identifying Matthew Winkler as a preacher is automatically going to build up sympathy for him. The fact that Ms. Winkler was only convicted of voluntary manslaughter because she was able provide sufficient evidence to back her witness that Matthew Winkler was abusive is not mentioned until the third paragraph. The order in which the information is presented is a subtle sign that the media has condemned Ms. Winkler and privileges the image of the "preacher husband" over her testimony.

Yes. I find it a bit problematic.

Theologizing in Exile

Deryn Guest discusses the concept of being in exile from one's spiritual home in When Deborah Met Jael. It's a good concept, and one that I think fits my experience with Christianity better than some of the metaphors I've thrown around.

I'm an exile from CofCdom. I could not remain a part of the CofC out of fear for my soul, yet I find if difficult act like the rest of America and ignore the CofC's existence, find some other spiritual home, and get on with life.

I feel pressured at times to simply be silent about the degree of hurt I feel from the CofC. I feel as though I am supposed to just get out and stay out, and never speak to the damage done by their exclusionary practices -- of being shown each Sunday that I was unworthy of distributing the Eucharist (okay, they didn't use the word Eucharist), unworthy of speaking to God publicly, unworthy of sharing my thoughts with the congregation. I have been sexualized in unwelcome ways by being told that if, as a girl, I was allowed to formally debate the boys, then I "might dress provocatively in order to distract them." (Ha!) My right to existence has been constructed as entirely contingent on entering into a patriarchal marriage, and my sanity and the existence of a heart have been questioned because I had no interest in doing so. I have mocked by peers and teachers for being nothing more than young, immature, and anger -- all of which might be true, but none of which should result in open disregard and mockery. CofCdom -- at least, the Tennessee version -- is hostile to my sense of myself and not above using spiritual violence to try to break down and reform my sense of self. I have felt abandoned by God, created only to be an anathema and scapegoat. And yet, I'm supposed to not take it personally, get over it, and move on. Forget, forget, forget -- and definitely don't talk about.

I do not mean to suggest that my injuries are cases of extreme spiritual violence. They is far worse done on a daily basis. I acknowledge that the majority of the people who have hurt me and attacked my person never intended to do so, and yet, this doesn't change the fact that violence was done. Violence of a more systematic than individual nature, but violence did happen. If I repress that, how am I supposed to move past it in any real way? And if I remain silent, how many more of my siblings will be injured by the unjust structures that govern CofCdom?

Despite all this, I have a sense of loyalty to CofCdom. I have been shaped by indelible ways by Restoration Movement thought. I'm an exile, an expat. I left my home behind, and I despair of ever being able to return, but still something in me continues to hope. To hope that the regimes and structures of CofCdom will change, and it will be a space that doesn't do violence to my person.

Pipe dreams of the Kingdom of the God

Check out this article from Alternet on the New Atheists.

I've only read a few pages of Sam Harris, but something struck me -- just within those few pages as he denigrated the idea of nonviolence and the work of Gandhi -- that something was very wrong with his argument. The more I heard arguments borrowed from Harris and company, the more it appeared that something was very wrong. Something was very wrong in the way the authors were defining religion, and something else was wrong there, but I couldn't put my finger on it.

I think this article gets at a lot of what I was feeling to be wrong with Harris's arguments. And has some good points on its own. My one caveat is that I'm not certain the degree to which I want to endorse the rejection of the idea of progressing towards a better future. There's plenty of reason to be skeptical about the idea (as any Russian Studies major can tell you). I'm more inclined to caution against thinking that progress as a society is inevitable -- it must be worked for and carefully guarded through vigilance -- and to firmly reject any utopian ideas that deny the value (and the rights) of the individual. Further, it is an imperative to understand that movement (forwards, backwards, or sideways) creates a shift in perspective, which changes the very vision of the end, the utopia, the kingdom of God. One can have a sense of what utopia should be -- a construction, if you will -- which allows one to analyze and critique the present, but one must not confuse that construction with reality.

Nothing New Under the Sun

It always frustrated me when I was little that their weren't character with my name, or anything akin to it, in stories. My little sister had a picture book -- Bread and Jam for Frances. Andrew is a very common name -- and in my house, if you had a name from a Biblical narrative you were set. Try finding Demetria in a children's story book. (Or on name bracelets.) I remember being very excited when the movie Anastasia came out. Dmitri is close enough. And yes, in a class discussing The Brothers Karamazov, I did jump every time the name Dmitri was mentioned.

The point being -- I feel like I've always had some trouble finding myself in the narratives I was handed. Trouble that extended beyond just having a strange name. Tomboyish, hard-headed Laura Ingalls (of the books, I've never seen the TV show) was close between second and fifth grade. But the narratives that I was supposed to be using for models (i.e. Bible narratives), I was having a bit of trouble with those. I loved the story of David and Goliath, but I wasn't supposed to identify with David, or Peter (I have soft spots for characters who continually open their mouths and see just how far they can jam their feet down their throat). Frankly, I'm not sure who I was supposed to be identifying with -- let's face it, you've got to do a bit of looking to find strong female characters, and they were emphasizing that Mary of Bethany repented, not that she was blatantly transgressing gender roles by sitting with the men instead of helping in the kitchen -- oh, and this chick has an attitude and didn't seem shy of taking J.C. to task over letting Lazarus die. (Let's not count how many Marys I just conflated into one.) There is a reason why Martha has a place in the patriarchy described in The Handmaid's Tale, while sister Mary has been forgotten.


I've been thinking on narrative, folklore, and story-telling for some time now. Early Christian hagiography has become my pet subject. "Weirdos", of course, transvestite and transgendered saints last round -- holy fools this time around. (Incidentally, it's easier to dig up English translations of the lives of holy transvestites than it is to dig up english translations of lives of holy fools.)


It's hardly an original point, but storytelling really is inseparable from how we construct, or make some sense out of, ourselves. And without a narrative -- a metaphor for yourself, a name that other people recognize -- it's difficult to feel confident and solid in who you are. Reading the life of Mary of Egypt, and hearing her praised as worthy and good, was like a license to just be who I am. Rereading the material surrounding Mary of Bethany and finding her transgression and her contrary attitude accepted, and even lauded -- where was this when I was little?

Hiding underneath the dominant narrative. The narrative that said if you have a uterus, shut up and save thyself through childbearing and submission to your husband. The idea that there is one script. Or two scripts, rather. Take the one we assigned you, and that'll be that.

But somehow, and I feel that this is the miracle of miracles, the dominant narratives never quite manage to completely crush and completely hide the other narratives. They're there, waiting for someone who needs them enough to go and to look for them and to befriend them and if necessary to fight for them.

Ooo...can I be a part of this agenda too?

Given my last paper was titled originally Origen and the Angry Inch, and then retitled Breaking Both the Vessels: Narrating the GenderQueer Kingdom of God, I think I'm already there.

Via Peterson Toscano (who will be in Memphis this month!), Christianity Today's take on the "Transgender Movement."

This article demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of gender identity, overlooks transgendered persons who do not feel the need for SRS, as well as genderqueer persons, gender outlaws, and any other persons floating about in the gender spectrum.

Further, anyone who is paying any attention at all when they read the Bible should be able to pick a cue here and there that gender is constructed in different ways in different times and places. Elements of gender queering remain in the New Testament -- eunuchs for the kingdom of God anyone -- even if J.C. didn't mean that statement literally, the implication of saying that in a society which considered eunuchs to be walking the line in between women and men, is certainly a striking idea. Mary of Bethany is praised for ignoring her traditional womanly gender role and taking up a studious masculine gender identity. Early church hagiography is rift with gender bending saints. The early church didn't seem to have much of a problem with "glorifying wierdos." And this is only what made it past the canon redactors.

Do a bit of digging and a lot of other stuff pops up! Joseph's "technicolor dream coat" -- yeah, the only other time that Hebrew word is used in the Bible -- it refers to the garment worn by the virgin daughters of King David.

Suggested Reading:

She's Not the Man I Married, Helen Boyd, of (en)gender -- I'm only about halfway through, but this is both clear and nuanced introduction transgenderness.
Homoerotic Narrative in Hebrew Bible, Theodore W. Jennings, Jr.
The Manly Eunuch, Matthew Kuefler
Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism, Bernadette Brooten

There's no such thing as a bad decision...

...there's only research.

I make bad decisions. I tend to make them most often when I'm sleep-deprived, and so far, I've avoided making any bad decisions that have had truly tragic, irreversible outcomes.

So, is it the government's job to protect people from making decisions that they will later regret? Specifically, protect people by restricting their right to make that decision.

I hadn't realized how much that question was a part of anti-abortion advocacy -- at least, not the legal part. I had seen reports of post-abortion depression, trauma, etc., on anti-abortion sites -- particularly those geared toward dissuading individual women from choosing to go through with an abortion. I had not realized that claims that women might regret having an abortion would actually effect judicial rulings on the legality of abortion. (Why, yes. I suppose I am naive like that.) Flashback to Roman Empire much -- all women are perpetual children in need of a guardian to prevent them from hurting their sweet little heads?

Yeah. Sorry, if this is your reason for opposing legalized abortion, you are sexist and anti-woman. No ifs, ands, or buts, about it. Prohibiting an individual from making a choice because she might potentially regret it -- that demeans that individuals personhood and agency and is throughly despicable. Bringing that into legal advocacy designed to overturn previous court rulings and restrict the ability of women to choose whether or not they have an abortion simply reveals the sexist presumptions of the majority (if not all) of anti-abortion groups.

And, of course, women need better options than abortion, but those must to begin a hell of a long time before whenever human life may or may not begin. We need comprehensive sex education in our school systems. We need unrestricted access to birth control, both the traditional and emergency versions there of. A legal system that does a bit better at holding fathers responsible could be nice. Maybe even public school systems that actually educate EVERYONE and not just the little darlings in rich suburbs. Oh, this is a crazy idea -- a living wage! So that women have the option to feed the kid once it's been birthed. Madness.

And I'm not claiming that there aren't people who are opposed to legalized abortion and also recognize that there needs to be far greater changes to the structures of society and a simple ban just won't cut it. I don't find people who oppose abortion because they genuinely believe human life starts at conception despicable, or even necessarily sexist.

But all the organizations really seem to be more concerned with maintaining that women are inferior beings who can't be allowed to make choices, because they might regret it. Or worse, because the male involved might regret it.

For you, my heart bleeds...

No, not really.

OMG! Suburban schools have different grading standards and don't all give students the same amount of credit for AP and IB hurting little Johnny and Susie's chances at merit scholarships at prestigious universities. That's like, totally unfair.

Give me a break. The real disparity and unfairness is between filthy rich suburban schools who can actually offer AP and IB classes, and poor schools in the inner cities where you're lucky if they actually manage to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic, and the poor schools in rural areas, where maybe they teach reading, writing, and arithmetic very well, but there's no resources available for advanced classes.

Yeah, it's really a tradegy that Johnny or Susie didn't get extra GPA points for their AP classes. It's not like a county or two over, or in the inner city, there are kids who aren't being taught to read, or graduating without being able to make change for a dollar. Oh, wait, nevermind, it is.

Thank god, I'm from a family of inveterate geeks!

I saw a Baptist Church of Christ in NYC...

So, the Church of Christ discussion boards I've been following have dissolved into utter chaos. I feel kinda bad for the several very thoughtful people who were trying to get actual discussions/debates going. I actually deleted my membership a week or two ago, because I decided I was getting nowhere very fast, and didn't feel up for another round of defending myself against accusations that I have never read the Bible. I nearly replied with something along the lines of "I've been spiritually beaten black and blue with the Bible, and placed in the top ten of regional Bible Bowl competitions six years in a row, I happen to know my stuff, thank you very much." Instead, I explained that it was somewhat difficult to analyze the usage of a single euphemism in two different narratives without actually reading said narratives a time or two, and later that I thought ad hominem attacks were cheap. Granted, I'm still watching from the sidelines, but I'm just not in the mood to play. But all of that is beside the point, and just more ramblings in the category of Metra likes to poke bugs with sticks.

Several people have expressed concerns that there's too much focus on intra-church practice and not enough on what the church can do in the world. A new topic was started explaining the poster's frustration with the emphasis on correct theology and asking people to respond with what God has done lately in their lives. I thought about rejoining to say something like: God smacked me upside the head and said, "These nutters don't speak for me -- I'm bigger than you or they will ever comprehend." Then, I decided that wouldn't be a productive use of my time, and I was better off reflecting on why theology matters.

Now, I don't think having 100% correct theology saves a person, or is even possible. I have a sort of Animal Farm outlook on theology (and philosophy): All theologies are wrong, but some are more wrong than others. And of course, my standards by which I evaluate theologies are subjective, but one has to work from somewhere. I'm interested in not reducing the Divine into a book and not excluding persons because they don't fit into some mold or another.

My grandfather is always telling me that I just have to be patient and let things change over time. I can't expect the CofC start letting women preach overnight. But, preaching isn't the real issue -- preaching is only symbolic. What is actually at stake is personhood. Not having the pulpit does relatively little damage to me in and of itself -- the accompanying message that I was defective because of something entirely out of my control -- my sex -- was incredibly damaging, even with the mitigating circumstances of a spinster great-aunt who was convinced that there was nothing a man could do that a woman in sensible shoes couldn't manage and a father who commented that maybe one day we'll go to a church were they let women lead songs (the actual incident was song-leading, not preaching). No, no, I was a impure, dirty, weaker vessel, who could not be suffered to speak -- and all the more dirty because I let it be known that I thought something was wrong with that idea. So, yes, the praxis in the mainstream CofC and a number of other forms of Christianity (and other religions) of restricting the ability of female-bodied individuals from fully participating within the life of the community is wrong. The theology behind it is worse and dehumanizing. Maybe not the most dehumanizing ever -- but it is an affront to personhood of roughly fifty percent of humans. Especially among groups claiming a "priesthood of all believers."

However, theoretically (and I'm quite sure in practice, as well) a church could practice good works while restricting women to the most marginal of roles within the community. And, it could be argued that the nutters like me demanding that we have the right to full participation distracts the church and it's resources from carrying out certain good works. Or that we are somehow causing discord where they should be unity. But if a church's mission is unity in Christ, how can they claim any sort of unity when persons are excluded based on genitalia or sexual preference or listening to music.

See the point is not that women can't preach, and the point is not that many churches won't marry same-sex couples; however, the point is that these practices reveal that the many churches have placed themselves in the business of determining who is and is not a full person and thus eligible for all the rights and responsibilities of membership within the community.

I'm not sure if any of that made any sense at all.

Continuing Education -- Now for M.R.S. Majors!

It's not an M.R.S. degree; it's a post-M.R.S. degree. The Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary is now offering a home ec. concentration for the wives of ministry students.

Not so much to knock the actual skills needed to do most of things this concentration would be teaching (clothing construction isn't easy). My observation is that to run a house well one needs talent, hard work, and skill -- whether or not one is male or female and working outside or inside the home. But, the SBC is not placing value upon the work traditionally done by women -- they are admittedly doing this to put women back in there supposedly Biblical place.

Cause, in Fundie land Jesus didn't praise Mary and scold Martha. Of course, Jesus would have never praised a woman for sitting at his feet to learn. He would have sent her back into the kitchen where she belongs. Isn't that right, duckies? Pay no attention to what your Bible actually says.

Tipped off by Religious Left Online.

Think About the Women? Are You Mad?

Why would we think about the women?

There's a video of anti-abortion demonstrators currently in the 'net spotlight. It considered of several women at a protest being asked, if abortion were made illegal, what they think the penalty should should for a woman who obtains an abortion.



I have mixed responses after watching it. First, I disagree with the comment made at Dark Christianity that for the women in the video the debate surrounding abortion "boils down to: sluts get abortions." The protesters interviewed do not display any real malice to the women who are having abortions. They express that they believe it is a sinful act and murder, but that's not actually malice. (Pre-emptively: I'm sure many a video wherein anti-abortion protesters display actual malice could be found on YouTube. This one, however, does not.) These women, and I would venture to say the average person of the anti-abortion persuasion, do not see themselves as doing damage to women. They see themselves as trying to help babies. The women hardly register in their minds at all. They see a potential baby -- not the pregnant woman. There are problems with that -- I'll get there, give me a minute -- but it's far different from painting all anti-abortion advocates as malicious individuals out to make the lives of women everywhere miserable. Besides, seeing them as malicious gets us nowhere as far as figuring out how to respond is concerned.

Anna Quindlen has an excellent editorial on the matter. She points out that sustaining the calls to outlaw abortion require "ignoring or infantilizing women, turning them into "victims" of their own free will." While the women interviewed don't display malice towards other women, they do display disregard for or an unawareness of women as full human beings. The exclusive focus on the potential child and the repeated mantra of: we're here for the babies reveals that their viewpoint simply ignores the potential effects on the women involved. Of course, they don't see that anyone could suffer from outlawing abortion -- in that world view there just aren't any female-bodied persons to suffer. (Ironic, isn't it, how many women espouse that view.)

This video does display a vast amount of ignorance on the part anti-abortion advocates interviewed. One young woman apparently thinks that if abortion were made illegal very few women would seek to obtain illegal abortions. This is a belief based in fantasy. Abortions will continue underground as it did prior to being legalized. More women will die from botched abortions. More lives and potential lives both will be lost. Such a belief can only be sustained by serious gaps in one's knowledge of history. So I suggest that the debate be taught. Let's talk about the number of women who died, or who were rendered sterile, by a botched back alley abortion. Sure, legal abortions aren't perfectly safe -- it's still either a medical or surgical procedure with risks -- but legal abortions are eons ahead of back alley methods and the suggests of old wives tales. Stop only framing the debate in terms of choice. Should abortion be legal, women will still choose to have abortions, and more people will suffer. Frame it in terms of the human sufferings. Give voice to the stories of women who have suffered because abortion was illegal. Insist that the living, breathing, independent woman (and not the potential human life) be the subject of the debate.

And perhaps, the non-malicious anti-abortion advocates will be forced to stop ignoring the women and see the suffering they would cause. Maybe, I can always be optimistic every now and then . . . right? Maybe?

Torture, ethics, and hijacking

It's alright for the CIA to torture detainees for information, and there's no need to give them any real guidelines.

Oh yeah, the Shrub has so much moral superiority over Mr. Putin. And torture has such a good track record for producing reliable information. I mean, heck, it got all those confessions during the inquisition, didn't it? Man, just think what we could do if we could burn folks at the stake!

How does he sleep at night? Does he just not comprehend what he's doing? That must be it, cause I really don't believe the Shrub is evil incarnate (although, things like this make me reconsider) -- he just has the approximate intelligence of a rock. Or maybe he is evil incarnate, I don't know anymore.

I mean there's the obviously questionable ethics of the US condoning the torture of people, but there is the small practical matter that if we're torturing enemy combatants and mocking international treaties, how in God's name can we expect any other country to not do the same should they capture American soldiers? And back to that first bit -- how it is ethical to do that?

Weren't you sucking up to the moral majority, Mr. Shrub? Oh wait, I forgot, the moral majority is only concerned with the "traditional family." They only care about keeping women in the house and making sure that gays are treated as subhuman in the economic and legal systems. (More moral that way, I suppose.) Justice isn't a part of morality -- just ignore the prophets behind the curtain.

Shoot, I'm not worried about hijacked airplanes -- I'm a little more concerned with the hijacked constitution and morality.

The Recommended Reading of the Day

Fearlessvk has a thought provoking post on state policies regarding racial discrimination in light of the recent Supreme Court decision. A breakdown of the "colorblind constitution" attitude and how it just doesn't reflect the reality of the situation and how simply calling an end to racism and segregation by the state is inadequate to addressing the problems.

Using this logic to examine school integration specifically, the problem with Justice Roberts' dictum becomes especially clear. Why is it that, 53 years after Brown, many school systems are still heavily segregated by race? Legal segregation has been dismantled; no states any longer require separate schools by race. Yet separate schools by race endure, not as a result of state policy but instead as a result of demographic changes. As the move outward into suburbs has been at first overwhelmingly and then predominantly white, the racial composition of school districts has reflected the resulting residential patterns of segregation, and we have seen urban schools effectively become black schools while suburban schools have effectively become white schools. The "whiteness" of suburban schools has declined in some (but not all) areas due to increasing numbers of blacks and other minorities moving to the suburbs, but even in such areas the schools left behind in the cities often hover around 98% black student populations. Because of the state action doctrine, this resegregation poses no constitutional problems - it has not been mandated by the state, but rather driven by private decisions about where to live.

The rest is also worthwhile reading.

Silence and All Submission

Inspired by Renegade Evolution's question: "Does ones documentation of their lives, experiences, and mistreatment at the hands of others lead to silencing?" But deviating more or less substantially, because I was pleasantly tipsy whilst composing this.

I think I've mentioned I've only had one formal "women's studies" class before. And that some of the readings/discussions made me feel like clawing my eyes out. The lockstep, "you will believe this or you aren't one of us" vibe wasn't ringing true in Metra's ear. The tone of "how dare you think something different, that makes you a threat, and quite possibly a helper in the oppression, especially if you claim we are ignoring/inadvertently damaging you" -- yeah, I wasn't buying. Anyone who thinks that simply because a person disagrees with one, that person is attempting (or somehow magically managing) to silence one -- BS! (By the way, I think the same thing about the Creationists whining that they are being censored by the academic community.)

Not that there isn't such a thing as being silenced. It happens frequently. But it seems to me at least, that to be silenced requires that who have considerably more physical or perhaps social force directed against one.

I don't know fully what it means to be silenced because I was born into a family of oddballs who just live in the marginal of 'Shire society and do their own thing and have been doing so for more than a hundred years. So while I learned that the church would treat me differently from the boys and not let me led songs or speak, I was also reassured by virtually everyone within my family that while the Cathey's Creek CofC elders might think that, it wasn't actually true -- just play along and then think what you want to think anyway. And, I spent much/most of my formative years with my spinster great aunt who was known for wearing pants to church and removing snakes that had crawled into the building when the menfolk were too scared or too slow to do it, so maybe I didn't even have to play along all that much. But I am still trying to explain to my family that there are massive differences between the experience my father (who remained within the CofC) had and the experience I have. The most salient one -- he was actually permitted formal and public speech. And when one congregation stripped him of that right, he could in fact find another congregation that continued to recognize that. Conversely, I was forbidden to speak (or really act independently) in the public forum of worship even after I had well passed the age at which my male peers were invited (or in some cases dragged) into it. And, I bet that there are a number of people who would justifiably laugh out loud at my declaration of knowing something about being silenced. Because this is a silencing extremely limited in scope.

But, because the scope was limited, I know the difference being being forbidden to speak and being allowed to speak but vehemently disagreed with. I had a few forums in the old CofC. Limited, yes, but I loved the preacher at the congregation we were at (and actually, the youth minister too) because I knew that I could speak with them in private and they would both take me seriously. They might not understand, and they probably wouldn't agree, but both would have allowed me to have my opinion. I could and would speak in some of the classes (they ain't worship after all). This, actually, was why I was ostracized by the my peers, accused of not having a heart, and interrogated on my sexuality at the tender age of fourteen (which considering I still don't really have one thanks to year upon years of repression, makes me giggle). Oh, and that whole, going to hell/oh, you'll just grow out of this thing. But the fact is, none of that was silencing even though the goal was to persuade me to change my mind or at the very least, to stop raising cain. Yes, it was discouraging but not silencing.

Silencing was the fact that I was forbidden to speak at any official service. Silencing was the fact that I suspect that if I have ever gathered up the courage to stand up in the middle of a service and explain why I was firmly convinced that points x, y, and z were very wrong, I would have from my little self escorted out by several burly deacons. In that forum, I was -- in fact -- coerced into silence. The threat of being physically prevented from speaking was there. I would be silent, and I would submit, or else I would be made to do so. And to tell the truth -- compared to the much greater forces exerted around the world on numerous people to keep their mouths shut -- that is such a watered down form of coercion that it is like unto nothing. No one would have broken my jaw or tried to kill me, and I could walk away.

While the other tactics used to instill or create cooperation amongst the youth or females (peer pressure, discounting opinions, the threat of going to hell for eternity, God's supposed phallus) were attempts to minimize disagreement/free thought, they were something very different. None of those had the power, ultimately, to prevent me from speaking. Even being accused of being an evil influence on my sister and being responsible for her not being saved isn't silencing. Annoying as everything, but the only way those tactics could actually shut me up was if I allowed them to get under my skin. And then the people who would listen to what my opinion was and then reply with the reasons why they thought differently -- well, I've never had a problem with them. Some disagreeing with my speech does nothing to silence me or even encourage silence on my part.

The badly made point is, it takes a heck of a lot more than someone disagreeing with your opinions or your actions -- or even outright mocking what you have said or done as sheer foolishness, stupidity, or bigotry -- before you have actually been silenced. A gun to the head, the possibility of being taken down physically, the threat of stoning, deprivation of liberty, physical violence, starvation in the streets, being thrown out of your community into the desert -- these can all legitimately be called silencing. Just being told you're a flaming idiot, whether rightly or wrongly, or that you have mistreated others -- nope, that is not being silenced.

Oh, yeah, Happy July 4

You know, I like these. Wouldn't it be nice if the government actually paid some attention to them? I know, dream on. From here.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

---

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

---

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

---

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

---

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

---

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

---

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

---

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

---

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

---

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Hate Crime versus Mundane Crime?

In the ridiculousness of the current nutter rallying cry that adding sexual orientation, gender, and disability to the list of "hate crimes" would somehow prevent Christians from categorizing homosexuality as a sin, an entirely separate debate over whether or not there should even be a category of "hate crimes" separate from mundane crimes has gotten swept under the rug.

It's an interesting argument, popular amongst many libertarians. Basically, the thought is that all crimes ( and criminals) should be treated equally by the law and not given special treatment because of the motivation for the crime. To some extent, I think, it's also rooted in the belief that most acts of violence against another individual are rooted in some sort of hate -- every crime is a hate crime. This article from Reason Magazine is just one of the first one's I pulled up. It's succint and sums up the formulations, I've heard.

And, if you limit the system in which a crime occurs (can you tell I've been in a physics class for a month?) to only the attackers and the directly affected victim, that argument has a point. In isolation one murder, or one beating, is directly equivalent to any other murder or beating regardless of the motivations behind them. However, crime does not happen in isolation.

The distinct nature of a hate crime, at least from where I'm standing, is that the intended victim of the crime is not a single individual. The average murderer only intends to affect a single person, whoever his or her target is. The motivation might be revenge, curiosity, a simple dislike of the victim's face, whatever, but the muderer only intends to kill one person, and that's that. The intention of a hate crime is vastly different.

The intended victim of a hate crime is not an individual but a community of individuals. The intention is not to kill or hurt the specific victim, but to send a message to the community to which the victim is perceived to have belonged and of which the victim has become a representative to the perpretrators. The criminals intend to show victim's community (or perceived community) what they'd like to do every member. They're communicating a message of "this is what we do to blacks," or "this is what happens to sissy-boys," or "to dykes," or "to Jews," or "to Sikhs," or "to women who don't know their place," or to any other group. And, unfortunately, the expanded intention of the criminal is frequently acheived. The community of the directly affected individual is also affected. A crime such as this is a terrorist act, intended not just to harm a single individual but also to cause an entire community or group of people to live in fear. The designation of an act as a "hate crime" is intended to recognize the expanded scope of the victims of an act and respond accordingly. The increase in the harshness of punishment is related to the motivation of the crime only in that the motivation is linked to the fact that damage has been done to an entire community rather than to a single person.

Reckon, I'm pushing that Gay Agenda...

(Nah, I reckon I'm just pushing that "liberty and justice for ALL" agenda. But if you want to view me as a tool of the vast gay conspiracy, go right ahead, I don't much mind.)

dis·crim·i·na·tion: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

from Dictionary.com

So, would someone please explain to me how a certain portion of people within the United States can view scientific journals not publishing "creation science" as discrimination, but large companies refusing to cover the partners of gay and lesbian employees who have civil unions is not discrimination? Without having their brains cramp up from the mental gymnastics it would take to defend such a stance?

Civil Union Laws Don't Ensure Benefits

Why in America they haven't spoken it for years!

Inspired by this rather amusing piece over at the Washington Post.

English -- the national language or the common language of the United States? Apparently the Senate added amendments with both terms into the current version of the immigration reform bill. Anyone else with me and just not give a flying rat's behind? I mean, come on, languages change. Ask any high school kid trying to read Shakespeare. (Granted, I was the kid getting malicious pleasure out of explaining to the boys what they had just read aloud and watching them blush.) And let's not be too vain, I mean English has its good points (I guess, you know, beyond the insanely unsystematic grammar), but honestly, it's a bastard child of the linguistic family, birthed from the unblessed coupling of Old French and Old Germanic languages. I suspect that American English is going to continue morphing and mixing with Spanish and in a couple of hundred years will have produced another little baby language. Nothing wrong with that, folks. Languages must to adapt to the changing needs of the population as a whole. Not to the needs of the elite segments of the population. (Anyone wonder why we're not speaking Latin?)

But really, why are the politicians so bleeding concerned with protecting and affirming English? Aren't there more important language matters to worry about? Like the fact that due to the abject failure of the public school system in America, a sizable percentage of the American population can not read any languages at all. Isn't that more of a threat to English than Spanish is? But we're not actually going to fix that. (Face it, no child left behind was a joke, is a joke, and will be a joke.) Or even really pay attention to it. After all, the people making the laws and donating money to the people making the laws can either send their kids to a posh private school or at the very least to a posh suburban public school. And, oh yeah, it'll take more than just educational reform. Doing something to fix the system so the parents of these kids can make enough to feed, clothe, shelter, and generally take care of their families might help out a bit too. Parental involvement in education is all well and good, but it's difficult to expect that if parents have to work two jobs at once just to have any hope of making the rent.

But, no, no, pay no attention to the suffering and exploitation behind the curtain. Look over here, look, look quick -- someone is speaking Spanish. How dare they! Это кошмар! Говорите по-англиски! I move we make Russian the official language of the US. Because the Cyrillic alphabet is much pretty than the Roman alphabet. Or, if we really must be English, I want some bloody British slang. Add some colour to the language.