Andalusia

by Rain Trueax

I am a fan of documentaries. There are times when a movie just does not appeal to me. Almost always a good documentary will. On Amazon Prime New Year's Day night, we enjoyed 'When the Moors Ruled in Europe.' 

 

 

It's by a British historian looking at the architectural evidence for the Moorish presence in Spain from about 700-1500 AD. It presents a very different look at Muslims of that time and even today with the different ways Islam is seen. Beautifully filmed and quite interesting. This is the blurb for it:

'This program contends that the popular perception of the Muslim occupation of Spain toward the end of the first millennium is largely wrong. The eighth century Muslim invasion of the Iberian Pennisula was largely welcomed by the locals and rejuvenated the area with advanced technology, agriculture and a construction boom. This program describes these innovations. All this changed in the eleventh century when the regional government fragmented. That set the stage for the Christian invasion and the Islamic fundamentalist resistance leading to more of a civil war than a holy war that decimated the region with corruption, destruction and exile.'

mystery

by Rain Trueax 

The reason why I write paranormals, despite not having a clear genre where my work fits, is my curiosity as to what might be, a belief that we don't know all we think we do, and my own experiences-- along with the challenge of exploring mystery with characters where it's imaginary ...or is it? 

Mythologies, the stories through which each culture determines the meaning of life and often rules for behavior, don't necessarily have to be imaginary. They could be a remembered history and are part of human life on this planet. In human cultures, some mythologies are more accepted than others; but if it isn't in history or happening now, it is mythology and fits into the world of the paranormal-- that which (despite arguments to the contrary) we cannot test and prove by something currently out there. It is a fascinating realm for those open to wonder and open to going where questions take them.

and beyond here

by Rain Trueax

We've been watching more documentaries, as my interest in movies has waned. Watching the news, which I do anyway, is depressing. There clearly is an agenda and one side cannot listen to another. It is heartbreaking to realize our communication system is breaking down. Can this be fixed? One side blames the other. Neither really listens. Sad.

Then there is my personal life where more friends are facing catastrophic illnesses in loved ones, and several longtime friends have died. This is depressing, and I remember when my in-laws discussed how hard it got as they reached their 80s and then 90s, with all those who had been part of their lives and were now gone on to whatever comes next.

I admit that I envy those with faith in a religious system. I remember the years where I did or was that wanted to. Act on it and you will believe kind of thinking. When I look back now, I am not sure which it was.

It is consoling to believe everything happens for a reason. If I believed in any firm system, including reincarnation, I would have that comfort. I don't really, but I don't not (I don't care if that's a double negative). I am one of those who admits I don't know. So whether those who have passed on are having a party in heaven or roasting in hell, whether they met up with their spirit guides (I write books where that is true) and are mulling over how they did in the life they left and what comes next, or whether it's dust to dust, I don't know. I have decided, and believe me I tried, that I can't figure it out and will have to wait and see when it's my turn.

Ghosts are an interesting consideration to me as they are the wildcards in life or is that non-life. In my paranormal books, I have ghosts-- defined as those who could not accept going on. They are possibly troublesome or not but either way, they are outside the organized system of reincarnation or any spiritual order to things. I would not want to find myself in that position and have believed we need to have a connection to others in this life but also to the other side; so we don't end up being unable to accept our death. 

Although I have never seen a ghost, I have friends, who have, and I don't disbelieve them. It seems a ghost needs to come to terms with reality and accept what has happened. There are several shows on cable where ghost hunters try to find the ghosts and prove their existence using equipment to capture what shouldn't be there. I have watched a few but can't say they have convinced me. Things do happen though that cannot be explained by logic.

There is a hotel in Goldfield, Nevada, which we drive past on our way to Arizona. It has several times been attempted to be remodeled, but it never works. Some say that's because of its ghosts. I have photographed it many times but get no vibes. Jerome, Arizona supposedly has ghosts and though I have been in many of its buildings, I never felt a thing-- which didn't stop me from putting it into my paranormal, To Speak of Things Unseen, with a heroine who did see them.

Some fear exploring the possibilities in life or is that death? I don't but my explorations have never yielded firm answers-- yet. That doesn't stop me from writing fantasy/paranormal stories. I am cautious though in what I say in them and how I present the unseen as being seen. That comes down to my not knowing for sure what is out there.

This is the cover for what will be my third in the Hemstreet Witches series, which will be out the end *fingers crossed* of this month. It has the witches, of course, but a monster, spirit guides, demons, and a ghost-- not to mention humans who dabble in the occult to get power. The couple are in front of a Zodiac circle with the implication that astrology can tell us more than we might want to know at times-- including our time and method of death-- or can it?

seasonal rituals

Celtic or Gaelic festivals can be taken on many levels. There is looking at them as a recognition of seasonal changes. This year Imbolc is February 1; Beltane May 1; Lammas August 1; and Samhain October 31. They relate to spring, summer, fall, and winter with each also potentially having a spiritual meaning.

Imbolc has many suggested pronunciations but most do leave off the B. It comes midway between the winter Solstice and spring equinox. It actually is more like spring than the equinox in the lands from which this festival developed. By its celebration in places like Ireland or my part of Oregon, spring is in the air. The trees are budding out, the lambs are bouncing around the fields, the grass is growing, and thoughts turn to planting gardens. Even if more snow falls or more freezing nights come, spring is already in the people's hearts. 

The interesting part about festivals like Imbolc are how many different cultures have found the time important in human life. Something that was more obvious to peoples who lived a more agrarian life than most do today.

Imbolc 

If someone wants to find ways to celebrate it that involve ritual, there are many possibilities especially in Wiccan books. Here's a link with some suggestions.

Wheel of the Year

My interest in Wicca goes way back. I have quite a few books on the festivals and rituals. I am not a witch, nor do I have an interest in becoming one. As someone might know who reads me regularly here, I am kind of off religions of any sort. There are though many misconceptions about witchcraft with those who believe it's connected to Satanism. It's not. It is an old faith with rituals, which relate to the seasonal cycles, to healing, and strengthening people through often communal celebrations. I think knowing when they are, giving thought to them, can be beneficial whether we do the rituals or not. To me, when rituals come from natural, earthy sources, they are apt to have more benefit to our lives. We need to be connected to the earth and it's too easy to lose that in today's world.

In the early 90s, I wrote my first book that involved the paranormal. That was Sky Daughter and as with most of my writing, the story evolved very organically as I wrote. For those of you, who have considered being a writer but haven't gotten started, start. Writing begets writing. You begin a story with characters. As happens in all friendships, you get to know their personalities through their activities and your interactions with them. 

In Sky Daughter, the heroine is not a believer in the mystical, when she returns to her family's ancestral home, where her grandfather still lives. From then on, what happens teaches her more about who she is as well as who her family had been. The hero is Jewish but not practicing. Each of them come from a place of disbelief to facing the unknown and finding ritual sometimes is needed even if the person does not know why it works. Sky Daughter takes place before and during Lammas.

I've since written more stories that involve the mystical, may write more in the future, but Sky Daughter is special to me for its combining of nature, the mystical, and human needs. It's a theme I do return to often even if the mystical is less dominant.

One land-- or many fiefdoms?

 shared from Facebook

Oregonians have been facing an issue that maybe isn't of as much interest to those in other states, but it should be because it has deeper repercussions than some might realize. When the Malheur Wildlife Refuge was occupied by militia members from mostly other states, it started a debate over public lands and whether there is a right for such to exist. The debate goes beyond that to whether each state/county should make their own laws and the federal concept of one nation (except to fight foreign wars) should be eliminated. It's not a new battle for this country but rather shocking that it's being fought again in 2016.

If those, willing to use guns and make their argument with their willingness to fire bullets, can win this, what will they claim next? Most of these militia types do not believe the government, which in our country means the people, should own anything. It should all be in private ownership which means under the control of the local rancher or the richest people. 

When ranchers can cut off access to wilderness areas, which were often long-used by the public, they do so with fences and locks. If those using outlaw methodology can win that way in Harney county, it won't stop there. Never forget, they are not claiming it for the people but for a few people-- some of whom graze it now for pennies in comparison to what other ranchers pay for leasing private land for their stock. What we are seeing in Oregon is what amounts to an attempted land grab with guns.

What they are attempting would be called theft if they arrived on my land and decided they'd live in my house and change my fences and roads to suit themselves. But for some reason, this has been allowed to go on and on and on. There have been a lot of articles on it for those who have not heard about it.

And the seige goes on as the occupier leader talks to FBI at Burns airport 

 

here, the author, Ursla Le Guin nails what this is about

Some claim innocent ranchers were put in prison as terrorists when they were not. Before defending the ones who gave the Bundys the excuse to do this, check out who these two guys were. This doesn't even address accusations earlier that the younger Hamilton abused his nephew as part of 'disciplining' him. 

What is ironic is why didn't all of this come out months ago as the Hamilton case has been a story in the farm papers for months. If the government is responsible for any of this happening, I'd say their lack of putting out the information regarding this family contributed certainly-- although militia groups have just been looking for excuses and a place to do what they want which is take over. If the meanest and most brutal take over, what will happen? Well, read about the Hamiltons for a good idea.

Who are the Hamiltons and what did they do?

The claim is made by these militants that they are returning the land to the people. Strange talk indeed because it is owned by the people now, managed for their use. IF these yahoos got their way, the only ones able to use it would be the ranchers who could graze it to dust if they wished. 

This is a land grab attempt and if the US government doesn't recognize that, worse will come. There are those who do not want national parks, refuges or wilderness areas, those who only value $$$, and then only when in their own hands.

Stealing our National Heritage-- the militia versus the American public 

This refuge was begun in 1908 by Teddy Roosevelt as a way to protect habitat needed for migrating birds. 

I've often thought, when hiking on BLM or National Forest land, or when visiting state or federal parks, how wonderful it is that earlier generations set aside land for the people of the future. I thought how wildernesses are disappearing and without the foresight of those like Roosevelt, there'd be no Yellowstone or Grand Canyon as we know it. Always the rich wanted to set those places aside for themselves to charge anyone else or even prevent their entering. It's not a new story we are seeing. What is new is now it's our generation's time to step up to bat. Or do we let oligarchs and the ones who believe might comes through weapons to take over.

Writing my new book, one of the places I had to research was San Francisco and got a surprise when I learned that Golden Gate Park was created over the objections of the local oligarchs of that time, who wanted a race track or some other use that would suit their exclusivity desires.

The although fictional, this thinking was in my historical, Love Waits-- the desire to set up a militia, who will make things better than government. Nothing new with it as there are always those willing to take what they didn't work to earn. In Love Waits, the leader manipulated those he deemed weaker than himself. It fed his desire for power. Such people can make all sorts of excuses but in reality, it's always about them and not for the benefit of anyone else.

Historically, what we are seeing in the Malheur is not new. It is just new people leading it, some of whom are religious extremists of the Mormon type. When Bundy claimed he's following God's will in this and the example of the angel Moroni, who was in their Book of Mormon, he pretty well shows where this is heading. Once again, we are seeing religious extremism threaten the lives of others and once again it does not come from the religion it claims. The Mormon Church does not condone what he's doing but there is a history there and he's claiming it as have so many other religions extremists from many religions.

It has been very disappointing that we think we have these issues settled, that Americans see the value of large swaths of land available for multiple purposes, that parks have values, that migrating birds need to be protected, that environmental issues matter to city folk even if they don't know it. We think we settled the value of having parks, places for the public to use, but it seems it's never really settled and each generation has to go through it again.

Below are photos of what it is like to be in places that have been set aside for not only the birds and animals, but for humans to re-create themselves. Think long and hard before allowing such to be taken away for one man's profit over the value of such places to benefit all men.

I guarantee you if the United States federal government lets Bundy and his ilk get away with this, such places will not be there for future generations. This is not a good time to be distracted by minutia. It is a time to pay attention to terms like sagebrush rebellion and Posse Comitatus because where this is going is beyond one refuge.

separating a cult from a religion... or not

We know the rules for polite conversation-- not supposed to discuss religion or politics.

What about writing a book about religions?

Risky business—never know who you might offend.

What a pity, as religions are where an attempt is made to offer reason and rules for life.

 Except, religions don’t teach the same things for what those would be.

This issue of religions and cults came to my mind because of watching Scientology-- Going Clear on HBO. The program did a good job on getting into not only for what members are looking but also who begins such groups. Scientology used coercive methods to get themselves declared a religion-- a benefit for tax and profit purposes. The documentary is well worth the time not just for understanding it but the appeal such 'religions' offer.

It was the 1980s when Oregon had a cult experience. I guess you can call it an experience although for most of us, it was just through the newspapers. The Rajneesh, who was respected by many as a spiritual leader, arrived in Eastern Oregon after his 'group' purchased the Big Muddy Ranch. This was an area with which I was familiar due to camping and fishing trips. Rugged hills, interesting rock formations, juniper, sage and cattle country pretty well explains the appeal of high desert. For this commune, Rajneeshpuram, there was probably one more appeal-- fairly isolated from large populations but not too far for followers to fly into Portland and easily drive out.

Rajneeshpuram built buildings to house large meetings, held retreats with some moving to be there all the time. The information we were told was that followers were mostly professional people. Most did not live there although some did and began a commune.

The nearby ranching community of Antelope was purchased enough to be renamed Rajneesh. Businesses were turned to new purposes to suit the population at the commune. Some locals sold their property due to fear, some to make money, but the remaining residents became fearful as to what was going on. The publicity for the cult made it to newspapers the other side of the Cascades. The Rajneesh was different for his beliefs as it included buying a lot of limos and being driven around in them. 

photo of the faithful and his limo attributed "Osho Drive By" by Samvado Gunnar Kossatz. Licensed under Attribution via Wikimedia Commons

The whole thing grew more fraught with enemies and friends until the ones in charge of the cult went too far. Ma Anand Sheela used criminal methods to change the political atmosphere. She faced criminal charges and the days of that cult, in Oregon, were over.

Shortly after the Rajneesh left, the ranch was purchased by a Montana rancher for a youth retreat but that didn't work out. From what I know, the buildings are still  a problem as to what to do with them. 

Chandra Mohan Jain, also known as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh went back to India and formed another group, which is still functioning there after his death. After Sheela was freed from prison, she went to Switzerland, remarried and and established new work.

This month, what interested me, about the cult world enough to watch the program on Scientology, was that I had written a romance based on a fictional cult. I wanted to explore two questions-- what leads people to become fervent followers of such groups-- and who are those who lead them? Why are some, like the followers of Jim Jones, willing to die for those reasons?

The book had the title Hidden Pearl because of the scripture where Jesus said how a hidden pearl is what a man will give up his life to possess. My book is not a religious look at cults. It explores one fictional one, its members, and what is the danger when such a group goes too far.

S.T. Taggert receives a call from his Navajo mother asking him to find his missing sister. S.T. has been estranged from his family, but he can’t refuse the request even from a mother, who had left her white husband and two children to return to the land that was so critical to who she was-- her beloved redrock country of Arizona. 

Besides the trail to his missing sister leading to this cult, S.T.'s mixed heritage gave me a chance to explore something else of interest to me-- how important, to who we are, might be our ancestors and our ethnic history? This is something S.T. has to work out for his own peace of mind.

My heroine, who becomes entwined in this, is a photojournalist whose assignment had been to photograph up and coming young leaders, which included the cult leader as well as S.T. (a successful architect builder in Portland). Her taking of photographs, her friendships in the Portland area added to my enjoyment in writing the story. My own love of photography helped me understand this woman.

Some ask what separates a cult from a religion? Religions can take on cult like qualities if they use ostracism, threats, imprisonment, and violence to maintain their power. In a religion, members can question or even leave. Cults attempt to limit such freedoms. Cults are willing to poison others to maintain their power. Religions might believe someone else is wrong, but they don't resort to murder to enforce it-- when they do, they crossed a line.

For the writer, the cult is where a story can get interesting—but where there is also the risk of offending those who have a religion they value and may think the story is a threat against it. But can a writer please everyone and still tell their story? My experience is I have not found that I can-- but it's why writing is so rewarding where I can explore the human need for answers and security-- while I also tell the story of two people falling in love-- with its own perils.

Does evil exist?

Once in awhile I feel I should repeat what should be obvious all the time with this blog-- it's about my opinion.  Regarding this particular issue, I am not a doctor, seminary graduate, or trained professional in the mental health field. I am also very open to others posting opinions that differ. 

Real discussions, when politely done, come out of such open discussions and differences as issues are explored from various angles. I mention this here because the following is one of the issues that can excite passion as it looks at religion as well as human behavior.

Does evil exist? If it does, how can we explain it?

You can find dictionary definitions to evil but they don't really explain the primal feeling that we experience at hearing the word. Maybe we cannot explain and because we cannot, many people want to say evil does not exist. They do not like to hear the word used. Some of that is because of how it has been misused in the past. Religions have jumped on the word as a way to attack anybody who is against their religion. Evil has justified more evil.

The thing is, for me, even knowing some would say I am being judgmental to use the word, there is no other way to explain certain actions. It's not hard to see how early man came up with mythical demons and why religions created a Satanic type figure. If we cannot understand how men can do evil things, then we have to make there be a reason. The Devil cuts it when looking at our fellow man does not.

Evil is there; and if we don't name it that, we call it something else. The thing is what explains it or can we? When something seems so bad, so feckless, so inhuman, so mean, so horrible, the usual words simply don't cut it.

Religions provided what mankind needed-- a personification of evil. Man needed it because frankly evil is out there and can be seen. What we see, we would like to understand and control. Christianity named it Satan and gave control of it to Jesus whose protection man could then utilize through prayer and proper living.

Because of religious misuse of the word evil for witch burnings and wars, many rebel at even hearing it. If something is defined as evil, what comes next?

Most recently we had an example of something I would call evil with the shootings in Colorado. It's not the first time I've seen such a tragic happening and won't be the last no matter what we do (if anything) about this one. Each time it is beyond understanding. Evil describes it, but doesn't fix it or even necessarily help us figure out why it happened as there can be many ingredients.

We see personifications of evil with serial killers also. It's when something is so bad that we simply cannot grasp how anyone could do it. The Holocaust certainly qualified to anyone willing to use the word.

So what happened in Colorado was simply evil in my mind. Plain out evil. But it's not that simple and never has been with evil as I don't think its source is always the same.

I think there is evil done by perfectly sane people. They are those who are sociopaths with no sense or rules nor compassion for others. It is all about what pleases them.

I also think sometimes it comes out of something else especially when it's a horrible act carried out by a young person, who is at the perfect age for the onset of schizophrenia, a little understood disease and one that often is hidden by those with it. Does it being named a disease mean there should be no consequences for the deed? Not in my mind.

[He's the Joker]
[shooter's life in Aurora]
[behavior spurs speculation] 

If you have had much experience with people who have schizophrenia, you know one thing, most don't want treatment. They hear voices. They see visions. They don't see the reality everybody else does, and as long as possible, they hide their own reality. If they are found out, they hate the medicines that can control it because of their side effects.

Some of them have a god complex and feel those visions (evil or benign) are a sign they are special. For many of the schizophrenics, who are not dangerous, it is difficult for family and friends, but it doesn't endanger anyone except maybe themselves. Those voices, those visions can be benign in a sense, but they can also make a normal life nearly impossible as the disease takes more and more control over their ability to function.

Do we, as a society, have to force them to take the medicines that will allow them to conform to our standards if they hurt nobody else? But what about when they have the potential to do just that? What about the 10% of schizophrenics where it can turn violent?  Is there a way to find the potentially dangerous ones, and then do something about it? When they do turn to bad, there is only one word that I can think of for what comes next-- evil.

We are already hearing from those who want to understand what happened using religious justifications. [Shooting result of ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs]  So no church goer ever has schizophrenia or does something evil? Surely he knows better but he's counting on votes from those who don't, I guess.  We also heard from the ones who say they were protected from the carnage by their god. Guess that means the ones who died were meant to die?

The guy who killed Trayvon Martin has now gone on an interview program to declare it was all god's plan. I am not sure how he meant that other than it would sound good to those who think like the paragraph above. I won't say that shooter in Florida was evil. He was certainly misguided and ruined his own life along with taking that of another's. I also believe serial killers and mass murderers can be not only evil but sane. They aren't all schizophrenic.

And whether the Colorado killer is schizophrenic, only experts can probably identify and with someone who knows a lot about the illness, faking it wouldn't be impossible. To me a dangerous schizophrenic, who has committed such an act, should never be out of prison regardless of the diagnosis. He could have gone to a doctor and been taking medicines to control the symptoms-- if he had chosen to do so.

So mentally ill or not, what do we do about evil? One thing is face up to the word. Another is be more proactive where it comes to mental illness. We don't deal with it. It's not evil to be mentally ill. It's evil what some might do without treatment. Certain religious sects would still call it possession by the devil.

Evil has been in mankind all along. It was feared in cultures like the Native Americans where they often banished or killed someone who was deranged. It is feared for good reason. But when we don't face it, we are not only dooming many innocents to face its wrath with no protection but also the one suffering from it when today there are drugs that can help control it before it goes "postal".

I know there is much fear of over-diagnosing, of looking over everyone's shoulders for some reason to lock them up. That concern has been with good reason too. But we are supposed to be a more advanced society and yet it looks as though we wait for it to strike and then it's too late for the victims.

Most of these mass murderers, not all, have been shown to be worrisome before the slaughter. In the case of this young man, he left his home zone. He kept to himself. He was hiding something because he didn't want to be found out. He was capable of plotting his massacre. Does he not have accountability even if he's proven to have that disease-- especially when he did know what it was.

Ronald Reagan, the prince of the right wing, had a lot to do with how we treat mental illness when he put so many out on the street. Our culture has put rules in place that even families can't react until something violent has happened. Religion also has accountability when it named it possession by the devil. Science has some answers but more could be done if we faced it as we do an illness like diabetes without judgment unless/until it commits an act that goes beyond the pale. When that happens, we lost. That doesn't mean we should quit trying to fix it before disaster strikes.

Before we can do something about a problem, we need to define it, try to understand it, name it. Being willing to call out evil when we see it is a start. If that word doesn't work for you, what does?

Pre-publish update: After I had written this, I came across an excellent piece on mental illness and why don't we do something before the shooting (or bombs or knives or...) starts. That's the question I am asking and frustratedly heard Chris Matthews try to justify not looking at people for this kind of problem as it would infringe on their freedoms. Seriously doesn't he get it that another life was lost that night in the theater and all the other times-- the killer's. We have to get more proactive on this in a positive and effective way.  Will we? I wish I believed we would. It's commonsense but frankly that's in short supply these days.

We stop the next Aurora with better mental health treatment

stay at home moms

1981 Betatakin in Arizona

In the nature of full disclosure regarding stay-at-home moms, an issue that arose in this campaign, I was one of those. I did it during an era when it was not much respected by the rising feminist movement, where they felt that only women with a career could use their full range of skills, be independent and have power.

I did it because I had a choice-- not because someone told me to do it. I had had a stay-at-home mom and liked the idea of being there for my kids. I did it because Farm Boss made a living such that my income was not required. Now I won't say it would not have bought extra luxuries for the family, but he and I talked about it that we had a good piece of the pie with the money he made. If I had taken a paying job, it'd have meant someone else wouldn't have it. Plus we both knew  I liked the freedom no job meant which is that I could be there always for the kids, I could pursue my own interests, and I always had plenty of them.

When I decided not to go to work when the kids left the home, I again had a choice. At that point I wrote (much as I do now) pretty much whole days. I was developing my skills as a writer and creating plots. I also sculpted and painted. I had the time to do research on anything that interested me-- leading to the fact that today, with Farm Boss all but retired from outside work (unlikely he'll ever totally be retired), my day isn't different than it ever was-- him around the farm or not.

Now I had no hired help during the years of child rearing. Babysitters only happened once in a great while. When we took a vacation, we all went. Once when our daughter was small, I hired a woman to do our ironing (remember the days when everything had to be ironed). It was quite a luxury, but I never did it again. Never have had professionals clean our home nor wash our windows nor do the gardening.

I stayed home by choice. No religion dictated it. No husband demanded-- or demanded the opposite way. It's not the case with many women. Some want the challenges of the career and nothing wrong with that. If someone doesn't feel fulfilled, they won't be happy. An unhappy person won't make anybody else happy either. Some women work because they are the only ones with a job, or both partners are underpaid or have jobs that aren't always steady.

There is a big difference in why a woman would decide to not work outside the home. There is a big difference in how she can use that time when she is freed from outside restraints. Staying at home doesn't mean lack of intelligence nor ambition. It might not mean a person is more capable of being self-motivated. Likely there are stay-at-home moms who sit in front of a TV all day. I just haven't known any. She or he (these days there are stay-at-home dads too) can be informed, stay productive and basically make from that freedom whatever she/he chooses.

I speak of my own history in the matter because it was another of those issues last week, you know the ones that don't matter compared to health care, tax rates, income inequality, legal system inequality, racism, gun laws, gas prices, abortion rights, contraceptive availability, equal pay for equal work, equality of marriage, and so forth. The dignity or not, of stay-at-home moms, of making a choice to stay home, became the topic of the week.

The party, which does not believe women have the emotional intelligence to decide on an abortion, should be protected from contraceptives, the ones they do not think deserve equal pay as a legal right, yes, that party got very sanctimonious as it jumped on Hilary Rosen's statement that Ann Romney had no right to talk about economic issues for women as she had never worked a day in her life.

Romney himself, of course, could not resist jumping on it, setting himself up once again as this holier than thou figure as he got up on the podium with that look on his face and said all moms work. He had a great time-- while forgetting in January he had said mothers on welfare need the dignity of outside work and should not be permitted to stay at home and care for two-year olds. That man needs a better memory or possibly should stick to the canned speeches his handlers write for him to avoid these things.

Oh how the words flowed as the pundits latched on as though finally something deep they could cover-- do Democrats disdain women who do not hold down outside jobs?

Ann Romney and other first ladies

Democrats tried to distance themselves from the kerfuffle. Rosen apologized. But Republicans all but rubbed their hands in glee as they found a possible way to divert from the accusations that they are engaging in a war on women.  If they aren't into an assault on women, I don't know what you'd call it. It really does seem to be that they want to take us back to the 1950s if not the 1450s.

This was handy for Romney who knows he has a gender gap problem. He's been trying to prove he'd be good to women because after all a rising tide carries all boats-- except of course, it doesn't as the Bush administration proved conclusively to all but strident Republicans.

On the stump, Romney began using a statistic that shows women lost the most jobs during Obama's time in office. He had his 'facts' and was jumping on them. The fact that he has said he loved firing people, did a lot of it when he took over companies, that won't be noted by the right wing but it should. Also that his statistic is meaningless as you have to look at the whole recession but hey numbers don't lie-- except when they do. [Geithner weighs in]

Republicans can say what they want, but for anybody who cares to note what they have actually done, it's pretty obvious that they are not the friend of women-- including those in the work place. They do not favor any laws to help women be sure they get equal pay. Their governors have immediately gone after abortion rights and even contraceptive availability. Their attacks on unions will injure all working people. If workers can't go as a group, as a single person, they have little bargaining power for working conditions or salaries. When you add in the Republican assault on public education, men and women will have a harder time breaking through class barriers.

Romney pretends to care about women's issues but when reporters asked, at one his campaign's own planned events on women's issues, his spokespeople didn't even know what he thought about the Lilly Ledbetter Act even though this was supposed to be a meeting about economics and women. When Romney himself weighed in, he said he would not try to repeal it. That pretty well says he would not have signed it. What is complicated about equal pay for equal work???

Republican Pete Hoekstra labels Ledbetter Act a nuisance -- Sure he does. He doesn't want women getting equal pay or when they discover they are not, being able to sue to receive compensation (the threat of that helping to discourage it even happening). Only if corporations are held accountable (by their own ethics or our collective power i.e. unions and government) will women get equal pay for the same job. This is complicated?

 Romney is a man who clearly says whatever the times require.  Here's what he said in January on mothers staying home to care for children if they are poor [Get to work and government pay for childcare to do it].

Mitt obviously has no moral compunction about lying because he thinks it's all about him and his higher goals. Listen to anything he says and you hear the same thing. Right now he pretends to care about women. His own history and that his policies would make job loss even more entrenched, says otherwise. His concern for the poor (which disproportionately are women and children) he himself stated was negligible as we already had programs for poverty (which he then says in speeches that he would eliminate if he gets the power to do so).

But the reason Hilary Rosen's statement took wings isn't just because of Republicans. Early feminists, generally Democrats, did show disdain for women who stayed home to raise children. However she meant it, Rosen said something a lot of them (excepting Betty Friedan) have said at one time or another. They frequently implied women who didn't work outside the home were leeches and not developing their full powers. They saw a woman working out of the home as the only way she could attain security.

Rosen wasn't so much saying it's not work to raise five boys (even with a multimillionaire as a husband), but instead that if a woman stays home, she won't have had the experiences of women who are trying to squeeze multitasking in a hundred ways into a set of hours every day.

Now there are reasons to question Ann Romney's ability to understand economic issues and how women are impacted by them. The first would be her privileged life in so far as money can make for privilege. Ann Romney had the choice to stay home (assuming her husband would have let her work outside). She didn't witness her children not having what others did because she was there.

She has not though led a totally protected life as in she has suffered big health issues with MS and breast cancer, but she has had the best care possible for fighting those-- something Mitt would deny poor or really any other women.

Interestingly Ann Romney did donate to Planned Parenthood at one time; so whether she's like Laura Bush with a mind of her own, I don't know. She might have her own ideas on a lot; but if so, they aren't drifting through the ether to her husband (unless he likewise has other ideas but is lying to the Republican party). To add to the questions about Mitt's positions, there are those among his advisers who say his own personal opinions differ from what he is saying to get elected evidently on pretty much everything-- hence the etch-a-sketch president.

Mitt Romney really is a pig in a poke as to what people will get if he attains the presidency. Is he trying to fool the right wing or the independents? I think his lying is one of the aspects that scares me most about his gaining the power of the presidency. Lots of presidents cannot do what they promised when they were candidates but some have a deliberate swindle in mind -- think compassionate conservative.

We aren't supposed to mention religion in considering who Ann Romney is, what her knowledge might be about economics, but she lives in a Mormon household, became Mormon to marry Mitt, and frankly Mormons are not exactly noted for their equality toward women. A Mormon man can rise to the level of a god. A Mormon woman could become a god's wife but that's about it. Only men can lead their religion or, as I understand it, even lead the wards or stakes. Their infallible-on-such-matters President did end polygamy but because of politics in the United States which was the same reason they ended the belief that blacks were the descendents of Cain and hence not eligible for godhood either.  Does Ann believe all a true-believing Mormon woman would, if so, she's got a male fixation on leadership (true of fundamentalists also, of course).

She is a wealthy woman with the ability to hire whatever help her husband permits or wishes. She doesn't experience what it's like for single moms or poor women and for her to imply or him to say that she can advise him on women's issues, is basically a good example of his cluelessness.

She is, as was Laura Bush, a very appealing woman and an asset to his campaign in that sense, but her understanding of what it would mean to poor women to eliminate Planned Parenthood (which he has said he would do-- if we can believe what he says), if she has an understanding of that, she's not permitted to speak out on it.

So, Democrats got some of this on them because of their own history where it came to denigrating women who did not work outside the home as though they weren't fully developed.

I think, based on my own experience, that women can be informed as stay-at-home moms, they can be developing skills that would be marketable should they need them. BUT the important thing here to remember is that Ann Romney, as did I, had a choice. I would add that women who raise children with a full time job or even career, can be fully engaged in our culture, know what's going on politically, be there for their kids. It's just harder.

Birth Control

This might surprise a few readers of this blog who have not been with me long, but quite a few years ago, Farm Boss and I led a teen-age youth group from our rural church. We did this over a period of years and had their Sunday night meetings at our farmhouse.

The sessions were a Bible study and making it practical for issues they would face in their daily lives (sometimes there would be a pizza, movie and hot tub party). These were the years when we believed in a fundamental Christian view of the Bible; so don't panic that we were leading them into decadence. We did, however, discuss many touchy subjects and one of them was birth control.

Back then we taught that sex outside of marriage-- any sex outside of marriage-- was a sin biblically speaking. BUT birth control was not. We took the view that many unwanted pregnancies come out of young people who think they can let themselves be carried away by sex and somehow avoid feeling they sinned as greatly if they were not using birth control-- you know the old-- if it just happens, there is less blame than if it's planned. We taught that adding birth control onto sex didn't enhance the infraction.

The Catholic basis for their claim it is a mortal sin goes back to the story of Onan (Genesis 38:8-10) where I believe they totally missed the point of the story as many do with Sodom and Gomorrah. However, they don't care much about that fact as with their Pope getting orders directly from God, they can say it's a sin with no logical biblical basis.

For anybody without a Bible or who doesn't want to bother looking up the story of Onan, it's typical Old Testament. Fathers took wives for their sons. God smote whoever didn't do his will.

In this case, Judah got Tamar as a wife for his oldest son. Oldest son did evil in God's eyes (doesn't say what). God killed him. So Judah ordered his son Onan to have sex with his brother's widow, as her brother-in-law, and the child would be considered that it was his brother's.

Onan, not surprisingly didn't take well to this idea. The offspring would never be his. Sounds like he'd not even get to marry the widow. Frankly it's a weird story however you look at it. But Onan went to her and 'wasted his seed on the ground' which might mean withdrawal (Catholics also use this story to claim masturbation is a mortal sin). Anyway when God saw this, He killed Onan too. (Tamar has an interesting story if you want to pursue what happened next to her).

Most of us, using logic (not needed for those who base everything on faith), would say God was mad at Onan because he wouldn't do what his father and God wanted-- produce an heir illicitly for his brother-- the one who did something so bad that God had killed him for it.

So to rebel against God or your father could end up with a death sentence. But the story isn't about birth control as anybody can see. The Popes though began to use it as their justification for no birth control (except the rhythm method-- figure the logic on that one)-- and considering it to be a mortal sin if you do use it. And for any non-Catholics reading here, mortal sins are the biggies, the kind God smites you for (see above for what that could mean) versus venal sins which are the minor ones. (Wonder where they classify Bishops who hid the sexual molestation being done by their priests -- probably okay as it was protecting the Church which clearly always takes the priority).

Anyway now we have in our country some people, even those who are not Catholics, defending the Catholic right to dictate this logic onto every single person in the country under threat of law if enough voters agree with them.

Now I think the evangelical wing of the church (and mostly christianists whatever they call themselves as their practices sure don't follow Christ's teachings) want to block birth control access because they are convinced that everybody using it is out committing some kind of licentious act. If they block birth control availability, people won't be doing that... Told you logic isn't a factor in any of this.

You know, I don't really have a problem with people using twisted logic and considering themselves to be better than everybody who doesn't. It's their problem-- right up until they want to make everybody else also follow that logic. Then it's my problem.

When a pharmacist in a small town in the South said he would not fill a birth control prescription for a woman because it was a sin to use it, it was really the first volley in a new culture war. We are now being told it would be okay, this by a candidate running for the presidency of this nation, if a state voted to make all birth control illegal. It would be okay to make Catholic moral laws into American legal laws (based on believing that above story makes sense as well as that any Pope has a direct pipeline to God for being given instructions for what we should do under threat not just of death now but also hell). A lot of us are still in shock.

The argument that birth control allows for illicit sex is obviously proven wrong by statistics. Half of all pregnancies are unplanned according to statistics (maybe going back to the logic of if I didn't take birth control, the sin is lessened).

Any stupid argument that a couple should have all the children god naturally gives them makes me want to ask-- so no intervention regarding your nearly rupturing appendix since god gave you that too?

What is happening now is purely illogical. Not that logic is much praised these days from the far right where only blind faith is admired and as for facts-- what are those?

You know to believe in making sure birth control is easily available to women does not mean one is promoting a licentious lifestyle. Where it comes to sexuality, I don't have the religious view on it anymore but still believe living a life of sex with a rotating set of partners is not healthy. I believe in honesty and openness in sexual connections even if marriage isn't a factor or frankly even if it's polyamory. The thing is even for those doing the one-night stands, it doesn't make it more healthy to add with no birth control.

My guess is most birth control is used within marriages or committed relationships. For those of us shaking our heads at this even being an issue again, we see this as not about morality but about responsibility for yourself, the children you might have and the ones you already have. This means not just as an individual but as a community-- which is why it matters that birth control is available and easy to get-- even if it's no longer an issue for us personally. It's about operating from logic not blind unthinking faith.

This is a good link and I hope you take a look at it.

What got lost in the debate about birth control

Religion questions

Warning: even though I don't write about partisan issues here, I do write about cultural ones. Religion is as negative for some to discuss as politics-- the two no-nos of polite conversation. Well you cannot discuss religion in this country today without it getting political. So a smattering of politics will follow. I want to add-- I don't like writing about this anymore than some of you will like reading it. I am concerned about our country and sometimes you can't ignore what you see. You have to take a stand and speak your piece... as the cowboys say :).

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."     Mahatma Gandhi

I don't know if any of my readers can help me with a couple of questions but they have been bothering me regarding the religion calling itself Christianity today.

The first is hard for me to even write about because it's filled with contradictions but I'm going to give it a shot. When I pass some churches, I almost always read the little signs they have outside, you know the ones that come out a book of such quotes (yes, when I used to go to Christian bookstores, I saw the books). The message of the average such sign is (like the one I saw driving home from town the other day) that God/church can solve their problems and more importantly if the reader has problems, it's because God isn't ruling their lives and they are.

It's about me is presented as a problem when you consider the meaning of that message. Down with ME.

And yet, the big push by the religious right today, which has become a political movement, is that government (which in the United States is all of us together) is the problem. Their big quote is-- you can manage your money better than the government (don't ask how you build bridges with that view as this is not about logic).

In short what they are saying is-- It's about me is the solution. Way to go ME power!

I get it why a secularist might say such a thing. I get it for someone who is into an independence movement or those who believe in the Western mythology of individualism. I get it how someone who followed a very conservative view of life that some people are profligate and if they worked harder, it'd have gone better.   

But a Christian? Isn't it kind of a contradiction to the Christian who is taught by Christ that we are all ONE in God and we owe not just our religious brothers but all brothers (check out story of the Good Samaritan in New Testament) whatever help we can give because when we do it for the least of us, we do it for God.

Confusing the issue, for me, is one of the political arms of the religious right where I see things like this: FAMiLY means the family takes precedent over the individual. This movement is pressuring politicians to sign away their future autonomy in voting in order to receive the support of the FAMiLY movement to get elected.

FAMiLY clearly is taking ME out of the picture... It's all about them and what they consider important.

How does that fit into the government the religious right wants? Or perhaps don't want and really just prefer that the church gains power and every other group loses it?

After I had been thinking about writing this, I saw the following article in a right wing newspaper column about how Democrats are inciting fear of people like Perry and Bachmann but that their fear is foolishness. So let me get this right. It's okay for candidates to emphasize their religious values to get votes but not okay for someone else to emphasize what those religious values mean practically speaking to block votes.

Left paints this as religious war

 It doesn't take any left wing group mandating feeling that we are in a religious conflict. It just takes listening to Richard Perry or Michelle Bachmann for awhile-- as you try to avoid having your head explode. It takes understanding that the only 'thinking' conservative running for the Republican nomination is Jon Hunstman and he's not religious or radical enough to suit this right wing movement.

So what is it for this bunch? Me is the problem or Me is the answer?

Here's the second question. Why do so many Christians feel they are being abused as though they have forgotten where they live and what their freedoms are in this country, forgotten that they are the dominant religion? If you criticize what is passing for Christianity* today, the righteous scream persecution.

Let's look at that concern. No candidate for the presidency could possibly win if they didn't proclaim themselves to be a Christian-- this is true right or left wing. In the Republican party of today, they have to be a fundamentalist Christian to boot. There are churches in every town and they all are tax free. The donations to the church all count as a tax deduction. And with all of that, they feel put upon. Does it go with the territory?

* What someone says they are, doesn't mean it's what they are. Words are cheap and actions not so much. I believe there is a movement in this country calling itself Christian; but if you look at the teachings, the actions, and know the Gospels, you shake your head. Gandhi would like Christians who followed Christ's teachings; so it's not about true Christianity that he was speaking but something that's been with us a long time where it comes to that religion. Andrew Sullivan calls this movement christianists and I think for good reason.

Third question doesn't really relate to Christianity specifically. Would people value human life more if they were agnostics or atheists? I mean let's consider how many wars are encouraged by religious leaders and their teaching of a reward in heaven and life after death-- not just the Crusades, not just the religious right permeating our military with requirements to attend religious meetings, not just the current Islamic terrorist movement--but all of them.

Does war end up happening mostly because people believe there is an afterlife or they will come back again? What if they thought-- this is it for all of us? Dust to dust. One precious chance for life. Would anyone believing that way be so quick to throw away lives-- those of others or their own?

The photos are of my blooming rose of sharon, a plant I love, which is symbolically taken to mean Christ in the Bible. I have three of them and always love the late summer when they bloom. It can also be called a hibiscus.  I used it for the title in one of my manuscripts because of the way pioneer women would bring the cutting with them to Oregon and from a narrow little stick would come this beautiful flowering bush. In symbolism, it's rich.