 | | |
| | |
|
Spaces home  Breakup ShoesPhotosProfileFriendsMore |  Tools   |
|
Breakup ShoesReflections on society, and quirky coping methods, like buying breakup shoes
Hey fellow internet crawlers, show yourselves! I'd love to see who's viewing the site. Thanks for visiting!
May 16 Evolution? Creation? What to Make of Genesis 1On Sunday, I'll be organizing and leading an interpretation of Genesis 1-2:4 in movement, fabric, kites, and other props during worship. I enjoyed my discussion with the pastor of the church (Japanese Baptist Church) about what this text is, and is not. We agree it is: poetic, joyful, full of existential meaning, about a benevolent universe We agree it is not: scientifically accurate, meant to be scientifically accurate (i.e. science is not the point of the text), therefore not against evolution per se Here's the analogy I thought of a couple days ago, on my way to work. When a child asks, "Where do babies come from?" and by implication, they are asking where she/he came from, an adult can choose between two possible answers. One answer is about sperm, eggs, fertilization, and gestation. The other answer is about love, nurture in the womb, anticipating the child with joy, and welcome into a family and community. One answer is scientifically accurate, the other is relationally accurate (for lack of a better term.) So both are accurate and have their places. Savvy parents and teachers know which answer the child is really seeking, and is really ready to hear. The first Creation Story of Genesis is the story of a loving deity who loves the world and the people, animals, and plants in it. It's the Judeo-Christian version of, "You were made from love and joy, and you and the world are inherently good" for all humanity to know. Evolution is the scientific version of, "You started as a miniscule cell, activated by another miniscule cell, and grew in the mother's uterus a more and more complicated and sophisticated being, born about 9 months later" for all humanity to know. Both answer the question, "Where did human beings come from?" And just like scientists continue to learn more about genetics and gestational development, scientists continue to learn more about human origins, evolution, and migration. Just because there are still questions in the theory of evolution, doesn't mean it's inaccurate. Heavens knows, there are still lots and lots of questions about the nature of love, psychological development in utero, and parent-child bonding, but that doesn't mean these experiences and concepts aren't real! Philosophers, theologians, and psychologists ponder and study these concepts. I believe humans need both explanations, to make a society of strong and competent individuals, able to move forward in life positively in community. So, can't we all, Creationists/Intelligent Design people and Evolutionists, all get along? May 14 I'm Just Not ImpressedSo friggin what Bush gave up golf! Compared to the loss of limbs and lives in the Iraq War, giving up golf is no great sacrifice. I can't see that gesture as showing solidarity with American families who've lost daughters and sons in Iraq. And he quit playing golf really only because of appearances--it "sent the wrong signal." It doesn't give him any flavor of the worry, grief, and true sacrifice these families have experienced. I'm not cruel enough to say he should know firsthand that kind of grief of losing a child to war. But instead of golf, couldn't he give up something more substantive, like the lies that got us into the conflict in the first place, or the cocksure, stubborn insistence that he's always right? The fact that our troops are staying in dilapidated army barracks, and veterans are getting care in a hospital that is falling apart (Walter Reed Army Medical Center, right in the backyard of the White House and Congress) better indicate this administration's solidarity with veterans and their families. There is none.
The president gave up golf? Whoopee. I'm just not impressed. I wish instead that he'd quit playing with other people's lives.
May 09 Tears for Our Lady of the LakeOn my recent trip to San Antonio for Fiesta, I drove west on Commerce Street, where the landmark-laden, increasingly polished downtown faded away, replaced by the weathered and beaten down barrio. Here, there would be monuments to nothing but poverty: hastily built and poorly maintained signs marking a tiny taqueria here, a ramshackle auto parts store there. And way too many dollar stores and pawn shops for any single neighborhood. Contrary to the depressed quality of the neighborhood around me, I smiled and bopped to the music on the radio like a mega millions winner. I love the Westside of San Antonio. I love the unique sense of community, the persevering ethnic character. I love the lack of pretention, even the defiance against gentrification. Downtown, the King William district, the sprawling suburbs—everywhere else was moving up in the world with giddy affluence and chain-restaurant madness, but not the Westside. Even Wal-Mart seems to have forgotten this place. (And I’m right—later I see on the internet there are 22 Wal-Mart stores in the San Antonio metro area. None are on the Westside.)
On the evening of May 6th, the beautiful old gothic administration building of Our Lady of the Lake University burned down. I earned my MSW there. I recalled the wood flooring, the statues of saints, almost life-sized. Therese of Lisieux was my favorite. I was shocked to find myself crying when I saw the pictures of the charred remains, with the statue of the serene Virgin Mary still high above. It was as if she called us mortals to meditations on the impermanence of material life, and the grace of God in community. A bit of that lesson lives for me in the heart of the Westside, where weddings aren’t spectacular 5-digit productions, but community celebrations put together by your tia (aunt) enlisting friends to sponsor it. The lady at the store who sells you bagels really does want to know how you are, and in time you too will be called her 'hija' or 'hijo' (daughter or son). I love the Westside . I love Our Lady of the Lake University. I am proud of my OLLU education, and proud to call the historically Hispanic college my own. Slideshow of fire damage: See Jaime Castillo’s column about OLLU and the Westside of San Antonio: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/columnists/jcastillo/stories/MYSA050808.Castillo.EN.37ad008.html
April 13 Speaking Out Pt 2: A Smart Man Fails to ThinkAnother comment on another Seattle PI column. I'm disappointed in Anthony Robinson. The sloppiness of this argument is ridiculous. As a clergyperson, I can agree that niceness addiction is toxic to a church, but to equate that with the Dalai Lama's compassion message is an example of 'smart man, stupid thinking.' I can be quite the bitter ranter, but geez, what got into him yesterday with this column??
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/358732_faith12.html
1. I agree with all the previous posters who say that true compassion has nothing to do with 'niceness' or conflict avoidance. Compassion motivated nonviolent protests in the tradition of Gandhi and Dr. King; they espoused loving your enemy even while confronting their oppression. Confrontation can come from a compassionate place. 2. Dr. Robinson does not say that he actually attended any of the 'Seeds of Compassion' events. If he had attended the first day's talk at Key Arena, as I did, he would have heard the Dalai Lama say that all things--even warfare--can be conducted with a measure of compassion. That doesn't sound like the stance of a wide-eyed neophyte who would have us ignore the realities of power struggles and injustice. Robinson does mention his reading the website.
In the first day's event at the UW, one of the ingredients of compassion mentioned strongly was awareness of one's own emotional state. With all due respect, I have to call you out, Dr. Robinson. You had a deadline to meet, and a bad flashback from your days as a pastor. Seems like those two factors led to this under researched, reactive column. Speaking Out Pt 1: You Tell 'Em, Lady!My best friend Ann has patiently endured hearing my opinions. She’d punctuate my rantings with, “You tell ‘em, Lady!” I can get pretty worked up. Current events have me all worked up with nowhere to vent, because I gotta give Ann a rest sometimes. I haven’t changed, but I have expanded my forum. I’ve been commenting on Seattle Post-Intelligencer columns, and I’m surprised how good it feels to get things off my chest, even though I tone down my screeching for the general public. And even though brief, it’s writing that I’m doing, and as an aspiring writer, every word out there counts as practice and productivity. So, here's a recent comment and links to the article referenced.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=358154
Yes, experience counts for something, but more years in the Senate doesn't automatically translate into being the wisest choice for president. McCain has been a senator for 21 or 22 years. Is THAT why Ms. Frooman would choose him over Senator Obama, no matter that his stand on the issues would be contrary to hers as a long-standing Democrat? Betray her own values because her candidate is getting the expected rough time of it? I know that some of the reactions toward Clinton are sexist, but that was expected, too. Senator Clinton could not have been blindsided by that, nor should Ms. Frooman be.
And as for that tired phrase, "Obama doesn't talk enough about the issues," my response is, use your brain and the internet and look up his position on the issues, and look at his voting record. Why should we be spoon-fed when we can do our own research? I've done that with both Democratic candidates, and it took less time than it takes to watch half an episode of American Idol. It seems naive, and frankly, lazy, to expect to get all your info on candidates from their speeches. As all three major candidates are US Senators, I suggest their respective Senate websites are good starting points for comparison. How hard is that?
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Invite as friend
