I am an Independent. I am a religious person. I have my morals and my values, but I can't call myself a Republican anymore without throwing up in my mouth a little bit. I used to be a Republican. And a fervent one at that. But even as a Rebpublican, I knew that therer were people out there who couldn't afford insurance and were not getting the healthcare they needed due to costs. But, I'm finding more and more people who truly seem to believe that that doesn't happen. People who believe that everyone could get insurance or at least save up money for future health expences if they really wanted to and prioritzed. When I became a Republican, I was all for smaller federal govt, lower taxes and giving local govt the ability to handle things internally. However, I'm seeing more and more Republicans out there who don't seem to understand that the trade off to a smaller federal govt and lower taxes is that it becomes the responsibility of local govt and private citizens to take care of their shit. That means, if you don't want the federal govt. taking money out of your paycheck to feed the poor, THEN YOU FEED THE POOR. If you don't want the govt. taking money out of your paycheck to heal the sick, THEN YOU HEAL THE SICK. That's the trade off- Big Brother won't take your money and give it to the poor, but you, in turn must take care of the poor yourself.
I guarantee if all of a sudden Republicans nationwide started dumping money into free clinics, state hospitals and charities, they started dropping truckloads of food at homeless shelters and soup kitchens, and in droves began applying to be foster parents, advocates and mentors, the political climate as we know it would change. And that's how it should be. Republicans sohould be the most giving people on the planet- particularly when their people are in office. When the taxes are low, we should be seeing Republicans taking their former tax dollars and pumping it into their local charities. If you want the right to handle the poor on your own, then take it and do a good job.
I know so many Repubicans who not only DON'T help the poor, don't give a rat's ass about the poor, but they also use being a Repubican as some sort of pass to judge, discrimiate and look down on the poor. Passing around letters blaming the poor for sucking up federal aid, looking down their noses as if because they can pay their bills every month, those who can't must be lazy, wasteful leeches. And even more offensive, they drag their religious beliefs into it as well, citing Bible verses warning of the heathen govt. and responding with "Amen" to classist slurs and hatemail.
I've been spending a fair amount of time studying thie new healthcare law and how it will effect my family. I've also been reading the pros and cons as given by people in both parties to see what people are liking and disliking about the reform. What I'm finding are a lot of positive changes that will help a lot of people and actually DECREASE the deficit in the long run. However, I keep reading on the Republican side that it is too expensive and will decrease the quality of care. And when I try to read thru the law to find out where the Republicans are getting the idea that it will create substandadrd care, I can't find anything to support that. On top of that, it seems clear from everything I've read that this plan will save money, so why do I keep hearing the whining about overspending?
Furthermore, when the Republicans handed in their proposal for healthcare reform there were ZERO compromises made on their part to make it a workable plan for both parties. They leave 52 million people without insurance, don't even chide insurance companies for refusing people with existing conditions or anything! And with the minor changes made, we still have a tax increase anyways!
On top of that, the latest poll I read said that while most Americans oppose the new law, the majority of them don't know what the law says. Amazing. Most of them think it will cost more in the long run. False. Mot of them think it will lower the quality of care. How? Show me. Tell me where this idea comes from, because I truly don't see how that will happen. Many believe the govt will be in charge of everyone's healthcare. I'm sorry, but have you read the bill? You shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on something when you don't even know what the thing is.
My problem here is that I'm all for Republican principle, but what I'm seeing in our modern Republicans would make the GOP forefathers throw up. Being a Republican is not a license to be hateful, arrogant, uncaring, miserly and apathetic to the plight of the poor. On the contrary, the original intent of small govt was to facilitate the ability to give freely to our local brethern and to use our oen charity to take care of situations internally. The Republican model should produce the most giving, caring people in the nation because they would be there in the trenches with the poor, feeding, clothing and caring for them face to face. And, the the model works, there would eventually be less and less poor because they would have been connected to their community, assisted and be able to move and to become productive members of the society.
Where is that? Is there some Republican utopia where this is happening? If Republicans would actually take on the responsibilities obligated by their own political model, I would rejoin in a heartbeat. But what can I say; if individuals and communities want to keep their tax money and leave the poor to fend for themselves, am I supposed to sit by and be okay with that? While the GOP sits around tossing coins at various charities there are Americans dying every day because they don't have access to affordable medical care. Until the GOP steps up and does something about it, the poor have nowhere else to turn but to the Democratic Party. When the "Religious Right" won't feed them, they will turn to the "Godless Liberals" who will.
Ironically, it was the Democratic Party that has historically been the home of the religious American. They were seen as the party who cared for the poor and fought for the underpriveliged in society. Christians, in particular felt peace in aligning themselves with a party who spent money improving life for those suffering. The tide shnged after Roe v. Wade, when the Democrats took up the pro-choice stance. And what conservative holdouts still remained jumped ship when the gay-rights agenda was adopted in the 90s. But the erradication of Christian compassion when it came to the poor took a little longer to happen. At first, many former Democrats tried to walk the fence, but peer pressure and the blatant difference in values made it difficult. After awhile though, Republicans- even poor ones- became comfortable not caring and not doing anything to remedy the poverty in our backyards. And here we are today. Not only are Republicans frothing at the mouth over gay-rights and abortion, but they are actually attacking the Dems for a healthcare reform that would save lives and help the poor- something that their Democratic ancestors would've jumped at the change to support.
Are you moved? Are you angry? Are you embarrassed and ashamed that another religious person has dared to call you out of your greed and apathy? Good. This is not a political ad. I am not a Democrat, nor do I wish to convert anyone to the Democratic side. This is not a personal attack. I don't hate Republicans, as I said, I was one and I still agree with their system in principle. This is not about party affiliation- it is about personal responsibility. Take it, or shut up and let the Democrats heal the world for you. If the GOP doesn't like it, let them put their money where their mouth is.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
Circumcision- Read it and weep.
I'm an oddball. I get that. But I'm nothing if not studious. But here's the truth about religious, biblical circumcision.
When I was pregnant with Ziva I began to become concerned about circumcision. I believe that it goes against G-d's will to prevent our bodies from functioning. For this reason I do not believe in chemical or surgical birth control. So the more I read about circumcision destroying the foreskin, the more conflicted I became. How could a G-d who made us perfect comand us to destroy something on our bodies? Sure, there are biblical references to piercing ears and noses, clipping nails and shaving heads, but these things didn't destroy the body's ability to function. Brit Periah did.
My very wise online friend Zipporah led me to the truth about ancient circumcision. Here it is: Original, biblical circumcision did NOT destroy the foreskin. It didn't. It was meant to be an identifying marker- a sign of the covenant and never a destructive tool. On the 8th day, which we now know is the time at which the baby's blood develops the ability to clot, the mother would haold the boy as the father (or later the mohel) would gently pinch up the foreskin and whatever rose above the very tip of the penis would be quickly cut with a razor sharp blade. It was quick and no more painful than piercing the ears. The recovery time was rapid, the pain subsided quickly and most importantly, the foreskin was still functional.
As a quasi- gentle, attachment parenting type I get to listen to and read tons of uneducated, pontificating and melodramatic hate-speech involving circumcision. Particularly offensive, are the people who are acually bigoted enough to tell Jews and other circumcising religious people to "get a new religion." As expected, none of these people have bothered to educate themselves about circumcision. Do they know the history? Do they know about the different methods? Do they have any understanding of the practice at all other than the dogmatic haters proclaiming it as "barbaric" and calling for illegalization of the practice? Generally, no. And the case could certainly be made that many of these rabidly anti-circumcision parents do equal or greater damage to their children with their dismissal of absolute truth, morality and a god of some sort. Studies show that children who grow up with ANY KIND of religious community are less likely to commit crimes. And the evidence of long-term damage done by circumcison? We're still waiting on that. Some studies indicate the sex is better with a foreskin (an issue resolved if we return to the ancient method) but do we see deep, psychological trauma? No. So while I do not believe that full-circumcision (Brit Periah) is the biblical method, or a kind thing to do, I certainly am not willing to vilify those parents for doing it.
And if you weren't tired of reading yet, here is a historically supported statement (not even coming from a pro-circ stance, by the way) regarding ancient circumcision and the medical version we see today.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
KEY POINT: The original Jewish ritual left most of the foreskin on thepenis.
The late Edward Wallerstein won an American Medical Writers Award forgathering much of the historical evidence in "Circumcision: An AmericanHealth Fallacy" [NY: Springer 1980]
Later, Wallerstein wrote of the minimal ancient practice in a 1983 article:
"Originally, the surgery involved only cutting the tip of the foreskin.This was changed in the Hellenic Period to prevent [Jews from]elongat[ing] the foreskin stump in order to appear uncircumcised."[Wallerstein E. Humanistic Judaism 1983;11(4):46]
Wallerstein's research is supported by The Jewish Encyclopedia whichindicates that a Jewish "rage for athletics" occurred around 175 BCEwhen the Seleucid king Antiochus IV offered citizenship to those whoadopted the athletic Greek way of life.
Jason, high priest of Jerusalem, offered to increase his tribute toAntiochus IV if he wouldbuild a Greek-style gymnasium in Jerusalem. The gymnasium was built.
As Jews began participating in the nude games, "devout Jews" (a minorityof Jews) found to their horror that a partially exposed glans (i.e., a"mini"-circumcised penis) was considered vulgar. Compounding the horror(of this minority of "devout Jews") was the fact that many Jews -including perhaps Jewish priests - were stretching their "mini"circumcisized foreskins so as not to appear circumcised.
According to the Jewish Encyclopedia:
"[D]evout Jews began to look upon the exercises with horror, especiallybecause most of them were practised "in puris naturilibus" and theCovenant of Abraham had become an object of derision. Nevertheless, fora time at least, the rage for Athletics spread even to the priests...[See Athletics in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.) The JewishEncyclopedia. New York: Ktav 1901.]
"...[T]he consequence was [the] attempt to appear like the Greeks byepispasm ('making themselves foreskins')... [See Circumcision in SingerI (and 400 others, eds.), 1901]
Forty years later (134 BCE), the high priest of Jerusalem, JohnHyrcanus, forcibly circumcised the Idumeans, "leading them to think theywere Jews." [Gribetz J, Greenstein EL, Stein RS. The Timetables ofJewish History. New York: Simon and Schuster 1993. Judah Gribetz ispresident of the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York.]
It was during this period that Jewish priests apparently decided thatstretching the foreskin was wrong and threatened the extermination ofthose Jews who stretched their foreskins:
"The Book of Jubilee (xv. 26-27), written in the time of John Hyrcanus,has the following: '...God's anger will be kindled against the childrenof the covenant if they make the members of their body appear like thoseof the Gentiles, and they will be expelled and exterminated from theearth.'" [Charles, The Book of Jubilees iv.-ix. iii. 190-192, underCircumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.) The Jewish Encyclopedia.New York: Ktav 1901.]
But Jews of this period apparently construed the "no stretching" decreeto mean that it was all right not to circumcise; for when the son ofJohn Hyrcanus took power in 104 BCE (by imprisoning his mother andkilling his brother), he forced circumcision on the residents of Galilee- "many of them Jews." [Gribetz 1993]
The shift to total foreskin amputation is believed to have occurred onehundred years later, after the unsuccessful Bar Kokba uprising againstthe Roman Emperor Hadrian (who had completely outlawed circumcision):
"In order to prevent the obliteration of the "seal of thecovenant"...the Rabbis, probably after the war of Bar Kokba (see Yeb.l.c.; Gen. R. xivi.), instituted the 'peri'ah' (the laying bare of theglans), without which circumcision was declared to be of no value (Shab.xxx. 6)." [See Circumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.), 1901]
"Thenceforward [total foreskin amputation - the laying bare of theglans] was the mark of Jewish loyalty." [See Circumcision in Singer I(and 400 others, eds.), 1901]
It seems insane - but it's true: God originally/allegedly toldJews to leave most of the foreskin on the penis - and rabbis are ignoring Him..
http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/alternative/4233/Ancient-nude-wrestling-also-Surgeon-Peter-circumcision-best
When I was pregnant with Ziva I began to become concerned about circumcision. I believe that it goes against G-d's will to prevent our bodies from functioning. For this reason I do not believe in chemical or surgical birth control. So the more I read about circumcision destroying the foreskin, the more conflicted I became. How could a G-d who made us perfect comand us to destroy something on our bodies? Sure, there are biblical references to piercing ears and noses, clipping nails and shaving heads, but these things didn't destroy the body's ability to function. Brit Periah did.
My very wise online friend Zipporah led me to the truth about ancient circumcision. Here it is: Original, biblical circumcision did NOT destroy the foreskin. It didn't. It was meant to be an identifying marker- a sign of the covenant and never a destructive tool. On the 8th day, which we now know is the time at which the baby's blood develops the ability to clot, the mother would haold the boy as the father (or later the mohel) would gently pinch up the foreskin and whatever rose above the very tip of the penis would be quickly cut with a razor sharp blade. It was quick and no more painful than piercing the ears. The recovery time was rapid, the pain subsided quickly and most importantly, the foreskin was still functional.
As a quasi- gentle, attachment parenting type I get to listen to and read tons of uneducated, pontificating and melodramatic hate-speech involving circumcision. Particularly offensive, are the people who are acually bigoted enough to tell Jews and other circumcising religious people to "get a new religion." As expected, none of these people have bothered to educate themselves about circumcision. Do they know the history? Do they know about the different methods? Do they have any understanding of the practice at all other than the dogmatic haters proclaiming it as "barbaric" and calling for illegalization of the practice? Generally, no. And the case could certainly be made that many of these rabidly anti-circumcision parents do equal or greater damage to their children with their dismissal of absolute truth, morality and a god of some sort. Studies show that children who grow up with ANY KIND of religious community are less likely to commit crimes. And the evidence of long-term damage done by circumcison? We're still waiting on that. Some studies indicate the sex is better with a foreskin (an issue resolved if we return to the ancient method) but do we see deep, psychological trauma? No. So while I do not believe that full-circumcision (Brit Periah) is the biblical method, or a kind thing to do, I certainly am not willing to vilify those parents for doing it.
And if you weren't tired of reading yet, here is a historically supported statement (not even coming from a pro-circ stance, by the way) regarding ancient circumcision and the medical version we see today.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
KEY POINT: The original Jewish ritual left most of the foreskin on thepenis.
The late Edward Wallerstein won an American Medical Writers Award forgathering much of the historical evidence in "Circumcision: An AmericanHealth Fallacy" [NY: Springer 1980]
Later, Wallerstein wrote of the minimal ancient practice in a 1983 article:
"Originally, the surgery involved only cutting the tip of the foreskin.This was changed in the Hellenic Period to prevent [Jews from]elongat[ing] the foreskin stump in order to appear uncircumcised."[Wallerstein E. Humanistic Judaism 1983;11(4):46]
Wallerstein's research is supported by The Jewish Encyclopedia whichindicates that a Jewish "rage for athletics" occurred around 175 BCEwhen the Seleucid king Antiochus IV offered citizenship to those whoadopted the athletic Greek way of life.
Jason, high priest of Jerusalem, offered to increase his tribute toAntiochus IV if he wouldbuild a Greek-style gymnasium in Jerusalem. The gymnasium was built.
As Jews began participating in the nude games, "devout Jews" (a minorityof Jews) found to their horror that a partially exposed glans (i.e., a"mini"-circumcised penis) was considered vulgar. Compounding the horror(of this minority of "devout Jews") was the fact that many Jews -including perhaps Jewish priests - were stretching their "mini"circumcisized foreskins so as not to appear circumcised.
According to the Jewish Encyclopedia:
"[D]evout Jews began to look upon the exercises with horror, especiallybecause most of them were practised "in puris naturilibus" and theCovenant of Abraham had become an object of derision. Nevertheless, fora time at least, the rage for Athletics spread even to the priests...[See Athletics in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.) The JewishEncyclopedia. New York: Ktav 1901.]
"...[T]he consequence was [the] attempt to appear like the Greeks byepispasm ('making themselves foreskins')... [See Circumcision in SingerI (and 400 others, eds.), 1901]
Forty years later (134 BCE), the high priest of Jerusalem, JohnHyrcanus, forcibly circumcised the Idumeans, "leading them to think theywere Jews." [Gribetz J, Greenstein EL, Stein RS. The Timetables ofJewish History. New York: Simon and Schuster 1993. Judah Gribetz ispresident of the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York.]
It was during this period that Jewish priests apparently decided thatstretching the foreskin was wrong and threatened the extermination ofthose Jews who stretched their foreskins:
"The Book of Jubilee (xv. 26-27), written in the time of John Hyrcanus,has the following: '...God's anger will be kindled against the childrenof the covenant if they make the members of their body appear like thoseof the Gentiles, and they will be expelled and exterminated from theearth.'" [Charles, The Book of Jubilees iv.-ix. iii. 190-192, underCircumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.) The Jewish Encyclopedia.New York: Ktav 1901.]
But Jews of this period apparently construed the "no stretching" decreeto mean that it was all right not to circumcise; for when the son ofJohn Hyrcanus took power in 104 BCE (by imprisoning his mother andkilling his brother), he forced circumcision on the residents of Galilee- "many of them Jews." [Gribetz 1993]
The shift to total foreskin amputation is believed to have occurred onehundred years later, after the unsuccessful Bar Kokba uprising againstthe Roman Emperor Hadrian (who had completely outlawed circumcision):
"In order to prevent the obliteration of the "seal of thecovenant"...the Rabbis, probably after the war of Bar Kokba (see Yeb.l.c.; Gen. R. xivi.), instituted the 'peri'ah' (the laying bare of theglans), without which circumcision was declared to be of no value (Shab.xxx. 6)." [See Circumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.), 1901]
"Thenceforward [total foreskin amputation - the laying bare of theglans] was the mark of Jewish loyalty." [See Circumcision in Singer I(and 400 others, eds.), 1901]
It seems insane - but it's true: God originally/allegedly toldJews to leave most of the foreskin on the penis - and rabbis are ignoring Him..
http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/alternative/4233/Ancient-nude-wrestling-also-Surgeon-Peter-circumcision-best
Monday, June 14, 2010
Messianic Mess
Why are there so many crazies in this damn movement? I kid you not- half of the people who come to this Way from Christianity only do it because they want to spout their loony tunes propaganda to unsuspecting searchers. The one benefit Christianity has over this movement is that they are established enough in their ways that if someone comes in with some supposedly newfound truth they won't give him the time of day. That is also, however their greatest weakness.
Let me give it to you metaphorically: There is a mountain. And the very top of this mountain is Truth. For those of us on the mountain, we all claim to want to reach the top. But for most people they will get a quarter of the way, a thrid of the way- maybe halfway up the mountain, and they'll set up camp and refuse to budge. They're comfortable and they can look down and see people who are lower than they are and feel good about themselves. And if someone comes along and points out the highest peak looming overhead, they'll run the guy out of the camp without hesitation. The problem is, for every guy pointing to the top of the mountain, there are 50 others pointing to another random peak. Most of us are just circling the mountain, going up and down and never actually getting anywhere near the top. There are so many distractions. Messianics get hung up on the Name, the identity of the lost tribes, prophesy and how much Christianty and Judaism they want to hang on to. It's riduculous. There are bigger issues. Not that these things aren't important, but important enough to kill each other over? I think not.
After all the crap that's gone on in this state, I will never be surprised by the arrogance, pride and inability of Messianics to be flexible. But I'll still be annoyed by it.
And Christianity isn't immune. The things they fight about are equally petty. Styles of worship music, translations of the Bible, women in ministry? Oh, come on. How about actually trying to be imitators of Messiah? That is what Messianics and Christians claim to be doing. I wonder then why instead we spend most of our time bickering and complaining about the state of the whole lot.
Ridiculous.
Let me give it to you metaphorically: There is a mountain. And the very top of this mountain is Truth. For those of us on the mountain, we all claim to want to reach the top. But for most people they will get a quarter of the way, a thrid of the way- maybe halfway up the mountain, and they'll set up camp and refuse to budge. They're comfortable and they can look down and see people who are lower than they are and feel good about themselves. And if someone comes along and points out the highest peak looming overhead, they'll run the guy out of the camp without hesitation. The problem is, for every guy pointing to the top of the mountain, there are 50 others pointing to another random peak. Most of us are just circling the mountain, going up and down and never actually getting anywhere near the top. There are so many distractions. Messianics get hung up on the Name, the identity of the lost tribes, prophesy and how much Christianty and Judaism they want to hang on to. It's riduculous. There are bigger issues. Not that these things aren't important, but important enough to kill each other over? I think not.
After all the crap that's gone on in this state, I will never be surprised by the arrogance, pride and inability of Messianics to be flexible. But I'll still be annoyed by it.
And Christianity isn't immune. The things they fight about are equally petty. Styles of worship music, translations of the Bible, women in ministry? Oh, come on. How about actually trying to be imitators of Messiah? That is what Messianics and Christians claim to be doing. I wonder then why instead we spend most of our time bickering and complaining about the state of the whole lot.
Ridiculous.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Me, The Moderate
I shy away from labeling myself, becauuse generally don't don't believe enough of any principle to call myself as adherant. Politically, religiously and in most of my beliefs about parenting, marriage and social issues I fall somewhere in the middle of the road. So I guess I could call myself a moderate... Sort of.
For the most part being a moderate has made me socially acceptable in many arenas. I am not dogmatically for or against most positions and because of this I can generally find some common ground with anybody.
But internally? That's a different thing all together. My beliefs often times place me in the middle of two opposing views and rather than helping me blend in, I appear wishy washy or even- G-d forbid- like a poser. Seriously, a non-Republican Messianic? A "sort-of AP" mom? It's tough sometimes.
And what makes it worse is the amount of demonizing and hyperbole and assumptions that fly around so casually. Everyone has an image in their mind of the type of person who believes differently than they do. Maybe they're ignorant or stupid. Maybe they were raised wrong. Maybe they just need someone to point out the error of their ways. And everyone talks as if everyone in the room agrees with them. Like there is an unspoken rule that if you agree with me here, you must agree with me everywhere.
I've been run out of forums for preaching the moderate gospel. For trying to humanize the "other side." And I've sat in silence as my own beliefs were flamed and scorned by a roomful of "likeminded" people.
Here's a real doosey: Attachment Parenting + Mini-Circumcision + Judaism +Jesus = a complete clash of passions. In AP circles it's accepted practice to refer to circ as "barbaric," "inhumane" and as mutilation. No on thinks twice aboutproudly condemning the lot of ignorant parents who do it, regardless of their reasons or strategies. Likewise, within Judaism and Messianic Judaism (for the most part) there is little understanding or acceptance of mini or partial circumcision. It's seen as an all or nothing deal and people wonder why anyone would question the tradition. Not to mention adding Messianic to Judaism- that's a taboo all on it's own.
Even in the simpler things- I recently commented on a comic and attached blog metaphorically eye rolling formula samples saying, "Formula samples never helped anyone." The whole basis of the blog entry was to ridicule and shame those of us lazy and ignorant enough to feed our babies "poisonous" formula instead of breastfeeding. The assumption being that it's all simply a matter of priorities and not an issue of ability. And how many times has a friendly religious conversation suddenly hopped into politics with some happily verbal person casually and passionately prophesying the end of the world with the current president in the role of Anti-Christ. Really? Did I SAY I was a Republican? Did I not read the fine print when I became Messianic? Being that person in the middle of the road sometimes just get's you run over.
So what do we do? I guess nothing. Dodge traffic? Keep my mouth shut? Seethe in silence?
For the most part being a moderate has made me socially acceptable in many arenas. I am not dogmatically for or against most positions and because of this I can generally find some common ground with anybody.
But internally? That's a different thing all together. My beliefs often times place me in the middle of two opposing views and rather than helping me blend in, I appear wishy washy or even- G-d forbid- like a poser. Seriously, a non-Republican Messianic? A "sort-of AP" mom? It's tough sometimes.
And what makes it worse is the amount of demonizing and hyperbole and assumptions that fly around so casually. Everyone has an image in their mind of the type of person who believes differently than they do. Maybe they're ignorant or stupid. Maybe they were raised wrong. Maybe they just need someone to point out the error of their ways. And everyone talks as if everyone in the room agrees with them. Like there is an unspoken rule that if you agree with me here, you must agree with me everywhere.
I've been run out of forums for preaching the moderate gospel. For trying to humanize the "other side." And I've sat in silence as my own beliefs were flamed and scorned by a roomful of "likeminded" people.
Here's a real doosey: Attachment Parenting + Mini-Circumcision + Judaism +Jesus = a complete clash of passions. In AP circles it's accepted practice to refer to circ as "barbaric," "inhumane" and as mutilation. No on thinks twice aboutproudly condemning the lot of ignorant parents who do it, regardless of their reasons or strategies. Likewise, within Judaism and Messianic Judaism (for the most part) there is little understanding or acceptance of mini or partial circumcision. It's seen as an all or nothing deal and people wonder why anyone would question the tradition. Not to mention adding Messianic to Judaism- that's a taboo all on it's own.
Even in the simpler things- I recently commented on a comic and attached blog metaphorically eye rolling formula samples saying, "Formula samples never helped anyone." The whole basis of the blog entry was to ridicule and shame those of us lazy and ignorant enough to feed our babies "poisonous" formula instead of breastfeeding. The assumption being that it's all simply a matter of priorities and not an issue of ability. And how many times has a friendly religious conversation suddenly hopped into politics with some happily verbal person casually and passionately prophesying the end of the world with the current president in the role of Anti-Christ. Really? Did I SAY I was a Republican? Did I not read the fine print when I became Messianic? Being that person in the middle of the road sometimes just get's you run over.
So what do we do? I guess nothing. Dodge traffic? Keep my mouth shut? Seethe in silence?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)