Reality Check

Every once in awhile when I post something on G+ or Facebook and express outrage over something someone said or did and how ignorant or profoundly oppressive/hateful/etc. it was, I, on occassion will get a reply back to the effect of, "calm down, this person is the exception. Nobody really believes that way," or something to that effect (like I said pre-quote :)). This immediately gives me pause. On one hand, am I going overboard when I share something outrageous and expect people to learn from it? Am I being "had" on the theory that all the back-and-forth between politicians, all the attention-getting quotes that sound so ridiculous - all of that is just for show? Is the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and the Colbert Report with Steven Colbert two money making, grammy winning shows for nothing? What of this theory? What is the point? It is either to divide the country or something else that I am not seeing. I understand that on some level a politician is a politician. I also understand that after the great liberal movements between 1960 and 1990, liberalism in America has gone from a popular caludron of boiling water to a small flask of tepid water. In that perspective, politicians likely won't get elected if they lean too far to the left. As a matter of fact, the POTUSs have leaned right ever since I was born in 1980 (I don't care to go further back, but I would venture to guess it reaches to a couple presidents more). I imagine it is similar regarding Sentors and Representatives, maybe not 100% though. So why do I post my outrage? Maybe because I experience ignorance almost daily. Maybe because I have encountered people embracing these extreme ideas and embracing those that boldly pronounce them as truth. Maybe I have a shot at helping one or two people realize that intolerance and hate has no place in our world. Poverty and class warfare is unneeded and unnecessary. Keep in mind one other thought. Because liberalism has been relegated to an unpopular corner in America with extremely little limelight, the "left" in the media is in all actuality the "middle." What is known today as a leftist politician and policymaker is actually not left at all, and what is known as a politician on the right is one who is pretty far right. What used to be known as the political spectrum has been narrowed down to the right side of the political spectrum and even the bottom of the right side has been largely silenced or deemed unpopular. We are dealing with an idealogically upper-right country with a world that is leaning more and more to that same quadrant. So when I post my angst/outrage over what I deem ridiculous, it's not just because I deem it unworthy of consideration. It is also due to the fact that the world is more and more leaning dangerously off balance and I don't think that is a good idea. We give these morons a microphone and a stage, see what crazy stuff they say, and then talk about it. Fine. Give morons from all 4 extremes from the full political spectrum a microphone so we can discuss how ridiculous they ALL are and realize that dead center, or at least aiming for the 9/10 radial bullseye is what we should all be aiming for.

Wha?

        This month I took a step back from an institution I grew up with.  The last few years have been rough as they haven't been able to keep the "fine print" at the bottom of the contract hidden, so to speak.  Its hard when that fine print is merely a bunch of vague references that don't even adhere to an academic reference system of any sort.  What's even worse is that the contract and the references are contradictory in nature.  While the contract is years and years long, it may reference something in one chapter, only to have in contradicted in another.  Now before you jump at the chance of thinking you know what I am talking about, let me stop you.
        Corporative and bureaucratic in nature, this institution waves a flag of righteous superiority at the top, while allowing any number of different colors to wave below on their chain, claiming no endorsement to any such differing culture and washing their hands as they refer you to their more "official" flag.  Yet, what goes on behind the scenes is anyone's guess.  The finances, decision-making, corporate restructuring, elections of officials, policy changes and elitism is determined behind closed doors.  As with all of their flag waving, they preach that any "policy changes" given to the top tier is available to every person in the corporation who is willing to receive them.
        What is equally appalling is that the members of this corporation rarely look at the fine print, even though the reference system is quickly deciphered.  One reason for this is the nature of the contract.  This corporations contract is like that trust account set up in your name at your birth by a relative only to have it handed over to you when you are off to college or about to get married.

"Surprise! Here is a wonderful gift of $63.00! I invested $50.00 twenty years ago in a savings account, and now you have $13.00 more, isn't it great?!"

        All kidding aside, the gift is sweet, but you are nonetheless caught off guard that you had a bank account in your name set up years ago and you now have three years of accounting experience that make your knuckles white upon hearing this "good news."  Yeah, this contract is similar to that.  One way the contract differs from a bank account with three or so lost years is that it is life-long and unchangeable.  If you want to break the contract you can, through a lot of red tape (it is a bureaucracy after all), heartache and ostracism, as it is elitist and therefore, breaking contract is turning your back on your once elite status and on the elitists that once embraced you.

       So from this perspective alone, one can maybe see why it is such a big deal.  Looking at my analogy now, I see that I misspoke.  The contract has parts.  As you show your loyalty and willingness on the corporate ladder, as with any institution, one is able to climb that ladder.  Every rung, so to speak, brings an appendix to your existing contract and a smaller, more elite group of individuals.  So each rungs' contract is unchangeable and life-long, implying that, as a whole, the contract is unchangeable. It is a little easier to renege on an appendix rather than the entire contract.  Clear as mud?  Also let's be clear about something: I am making all this stuff up on the fly.

I want my daddy.

Why do humans long for the smiling face and happy memory of those close to us that are gone? Why do I dream of my father, where we are as we used to be, living out a familiar scene, set in our familiar ways, going about our familiar business?  My emotional state spits in my "secular" face, telling me that it refuses to lay to to rest my daddy who ceased to be my daddy back in 2008...long before November.  Yet, why do I long for his smiling, lucid, coherent consciousness?  Why do I not replace him with my ten-year old, or my newborn? Does his memory mean something more than nostalgia?  How do I reconcile Agnosticism with the religious culture I grew up with?  Where is that happy medium?  I want god to be a factor in my life - whether neutral, negative or positive - but as a human, being told to rely on strict obedience and the "Holy Ghost" among a dozen other organized religious factors, I cannot hope among all possible dreams, to be able to be worthy of what this mormon culture expects me to be, to be able to receive coherent communication from some supernatural source as to navigate this telestial realm god has placed me inside of.  So my question remains:  why do I long for the smiling, familiar embodiment of my father, who is over five years past?  Why can I not watch a movie where the theme of mortality exists and the memory of my father does not?  I remain a tortured soul, damned in mortality to live out these temporal days longing for temporal things.  Longing for long lost dreams, as if they would cure my present demons, when it reality, they would only side with those once familiar faces, now alienated by reason and logic.  How can one live in a world encouraged to embrace both the illogical and logical.  Both reason and irrational?  Ultimately, the loudest, yet most magnetizing voice wins the day and I sit here with the same question I started with: Why do I long for the memory of my smiling, lucid father?

A thought on the "sanctity" of life.

Equality is important.  The haves and the have nots are real and the divide between them is real.  One's morality can change depending on how much they have monetarily.  Real crises happen worldwide without people knowing about it all the time.  One problem that is becoming a bigger and bigger issue is the population.  We allow ourselves to be enraged when we learn of companies that abuse animals to mass produce their product to sell, such as chicken, or grain or beef, where the demand is through the roof.  We are part of the problem.  When I say we, I mean everyone, but I think there is something else there.  We are still being encouraged to have big families biologically.  I asked my wife not too long ago how she felt about adopting a child and she frankly told me she didn't think she would love that child as much as loving her own.  I understood that feeling.   We have a skewed view of the "sanctity" of life I think.  We espouse a holier than thou attitude and secretly feel that we are superior because we happened to be born in 'Murica.  Well I am starting to hate myself for that fact.  Being a white male in the U.S.of A. is starting to be embarrassing.  I don't think volunteering downtown even once a day and serving by giving your time to the church is going to even make God flinch.  Our fellow human beings are starving to death around the world and dying because of a lack of simple, cheap immunizations and we quietly turn our heads so as not to see it and preach the sanctity of life to those at home who want to abort a life before it starts because they don't have their own life figured out, or they just don't want to deal with a baby right now, or whatever.  Why do we have that issue to address? Because sexuality among teenagers and young adults isn't healthy either.  At least, we often don't teach a healthy sexual lifestyle.  Don't get me wrong, I don't condone prudish behavior, I just think we can do better as a society and encourage more communication.  And yes, I think if we would put it to a vote, we should at least talk about adoption and smaller families.  Again, this is a very personal matter and I cannot and would not tell someone that they should have less babies.  Please don't think that.  I also don't look at current families and think they could do without a few kids.  I am not that person.  But I don't think we teach and encourage adoption like we should.  I think it should be a higher priority.  I think I would enjoy a communist state where all things are equal and agriculture was healthy and all were "rich" in "blessings" that were being poured upon all for treating our neighbors as ourselves and not wanting more and being full of love.  I don't think those windows are open, even for those who give a tithe to their church.  I think corporate churches have long forgotten what tithing is supposed to do.

Just a small thought on sexuality, morality and organized religion

I would dare say that 99/100 bishops and stake presidents would say that they are not the third party in any bedroom (when talking to a couple in his ward/stake).  I don't know when it happened, but only a couple decades ago it seemed that they officially made that quiet transition, like sneaking out backwards after the couple was asleep and quietly shutting the door behind them, leaving their key inside.  They would instead suggest that a couple leaves God inside, treating each other with respect, keeping the lines of communication open, and ensuring you "feel the Spirit".  If your bishop/stake president wasn't on board before, they are now and it didn't seem like a revolutionary step in church policy.  With this guidance, a couple can presumably do whatever they wish to do, as long as both partners keep their relationship to each other a priority and ensure the other one is enjoying whatever you are both participating in.  Now I don't think it is necessary at this point to detail options a couple has.  I just want to point something out.  If the church has willingly left the bedroom to a heterosexual couple, why do they, and some political personalities think they can stay inside a homosexual bedroom?  I'm no sex expert, but judging from the last 11 1/2 years of marriage, I have found that sex isn't one or two dimensional.  I am also quite aware that there are many doors with opportunities behind them that I and my wife have not even cracked.  Many "opportunities" require specific body parts, and many opportunities do not.  Think about that for a minute.  Many sexual opportunities between a couple, behind closed doors, where a bishop has no say, do not require one partner is a man and one partner is a woman.  I just thought that was interesting when, at a couples party, exchanging white elephant gifts, a gift bag had some lingerie and handcuffs in it.  An eruption of joking came about and one of the last comments made was that there was nothing wrong with the handcuffs for an active, bishop-fearing Mormon.

What are we living for?

The more I read about politics and issues with Christianity, faith, science, our universe, greed, capitalism, ignorance and what drives people for either good or evil, one thing I am getting more and more fed up with: the power of money.  Money seems to trump all principles in the world.  I may be too cynical, but good ideas and and generally good people don't get far before either being snuffed out and silenced by someone/something with money, or becoming compromised by success (i.e., money).  I may have become so cynical that I am extremely wary about who I give my money to for charitable purposes.  If an organization is using way too much manpower with way too many offices with office furniture and standard pc's all to do a job that requires people on the ground moving food and supplies, and doctors administering a 20 cent immunization in Africa and volunteers at community locations spending time picking up supplies to deliver to a centralized location, is it any wonder why I am cynical?

Is there any hope anymore? When we even talk of hope, are we even on the same page? The disappearing middle class in America is a problem, but isn't it a reflection of what we accept in this nation as far as allowing the perfect capitalistic nature reach out and touch every single thing in our lives, infecting our worldview, how we live, act and conduct ourselves?

Current Thoughts

     Some things have been rambling about the old noggin and I wanted to write them down.

     In the big picture, President Obama is more right than left and more authoritarian than libertarian, just like the majority of elected officials in the U.S.of A.  When people gripe about what a commie the President is, I laugh because it is such an ignorant opinion.  I am not for that position, I am merely observing where people fall realistically on the political spectrum.

     In the big picture, I have yet to hear a compelling argument that taking scripture literally is a necessity.  This goes for any scripture.  Some may think this goes too far.  The idea among Christians that Christ only figuratively died for the world is quite unpopular.  I am well aware of that.  As far as the bigger focus of this: I also don't find compelling arguments that any reading of scripture (other than literal) conflicts with science.  When a person sets up dialogue with a preconceived notion that it does, they have already shut down the dialogue significantly.

     In the same vein of science vs. faith, I have to wonder about something.  I don't mean to be sacrilegious or blasphemous, but when one presume to know God well enough to make such statements pitting science against faith, I have to wonder how much one really knows about God.  In my meager 33 years on earth (at least this time around), I have come to find that the person who knows God the most is the one who knows God through personal, intimate and sacred knowledge.  Do you know what that means? It means a clear lack of theology or doctrine about God.  God is not to be known this way.  Sure, I can have my own theology or doctrine.  I just want to not be a guiding force for me or my family and I don't want it to be in any argument I use.  If I encounter it, I wish I could articulate this in such a way as to have it be effective.  "To each his own" should be a guideline in discussion.  I realize here that applying this guideline to any science/faith discussion can possibly effectively void 90% of the discussion.

     I have hope for the future of what I believe is a very corporate, bureaucratic, business-oriented church.   Structurally speaking, we are quite organized.  As far as human relations, I believe we are more than lacking.  On an individual level, there may very well be over 90% of our members going about doing good at every turn, being liberal in their giving and time, befriending those in need, breaking their backs to lift a stranger, etc.  Yet, it is quite apparent that at the organized, church level, translating what Christ really said while on earth isn't being done correctly.  I admit I am critical. I admit this will show my hand.  I admit I am part of the problem.

     Keeping in that same vein of liberal charity, I find myself in paradox.  I enjoy my American lifestyle, and continue my stingy ways primarily out of selfishness.  I want my money for me and my family.  Yet, more and more often, I think about dropping everything and dedicating my life to real, purposeful service: Helping though truly in need.  Giving my time and energy to lifting another.  Building real, personal, human relationships.

     That's all I can think of right now.  It's after 6 am and I have stayed up all night due to working the graveyard shift.