'Cause I gotta have faith?

The most insidious thing about hate speech is that it often contains just enough superficial truth for the audience to buy into it. I recently received a forwarded e-mail that I found particularly worrisome because it uses numbers and facts and twists their relevance to make it sound conspiratorial. The numbers, I might add, are wrong and the facts (though not scientific, they are certainly commonsensical) are true of any cultural presence in a community.

The email starts as follows...

"Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components."

Mistake #1: Islam is a religion. However, it tends to become a wider social force for the more strictly faithful. And this is true of any fundamental religious sect. We have seen the ideological differences between Judaism and Islam spawn a centuries old conflict over land (which has become little more than indoctrinated racism). By the way, Hasidic Jews share the facial hair social moré with fundamentalist Islam. And what about the Christian Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition? Selective memory often excludes balanced, unbiased facts.

You have to understand that groups like the Taliban use the fundamentals of the faith to take advantage of the under-educated faithful. This is why we see the coalition forces trying to build schools and housing which will support greater education for the youth in both urban and rural communities. Suicide bombers are often the children of impoverished families from outlying areas who are told that if they commit to the jihad (or holy war) and carry a bomb in God's name (can they ever verify that this is what God really wants before committing to the act?) then they will go to heaven with dozens of virgins and their families will be financially secure for decades. What then happens is the family gets a little bit of money (which is quickly spent, in part because they are promised more that never comes) and someone who doesn't vote and can't read (or otherwise contribute to the advancement of the Taliban regime) is wiped from their future responsibility while also achieving their goals without loss of their own lives. And then the family asks the same of another child in hopes of additional support for the rest of the family. And what dutiful child would deny their family's well-being?

Now, if you take the origins of the Big 3 (Judaism, Christianity, & Islam) back to their roots they are the same religion born of the same roots in the same part of the world. The only difference is the first people to carry it to their communities. One guy believes that women should be covered from head to toe so he adds that personal belief to the shared philosophies and tells his friends who share that opinion. Over time it is indoctrinated into the religion and, thus, society. The tenets of Islam are born. Another guy thinks that the guy who told him about these philosophies assumes the message could only have been delivered by God - made flesh by some miracle. Christianity comes to pass. And the same is true of Judaism. Maybe the bush burned, and a man sitting in the overheated desert heard a voice. Mirage or miracle? A few fundamental differences grow over time into a variety of ideological differences based on human, and society's, evolution over the centuries. I am reading a book called A History of God that explains it in much greater detail. Suffice it to say, religion has been used by different leaders to sustain authority and power since humanity began to walk upright.

RELIGION is why we are seeing increasing warfare in the middle east and less obvious conflict (look at the Vatican's latest propaganda - we believe in aliens, we're sorry for letting priests molest kids, lower attendance in church is a sign of the antichrist, etc, etc, etc.). Those people too afraid to take responsibility for their actions in life externalize that responsibility. "I'm poor because I'm a sinner." "If I kill others, God will ensure my place in heaven." But it is also people using those who have no access to education as pawns in their political will to rule the world. The Vatican has, quite literally, billions of dollars in cash and artwork and yet each parish (community of church attendees) has to pay for the priest that the Vatican moves to a new community after they were caught diddling the altar boys.

It is all about power. They spend money on their own needs (promote the Church in places that have no access to international media - tribal Africa, rural Central and South America - and limited access to education) and ignore the needs of the faithful. One can believe in God without clinging to someone else's definition of what God may or may not want us to do in our lives. We are on this earth to do one thing - leave it better than we received it. That's it, that's all. Life is designed to evolve. Fundamental religion is contrary to that because it refuses to evolve with our understanding of the very being that is humanity. The tirade about Islam (briefly quoted above) is one person's paranoia that their religion (you see this by their quantification of Islam in comparison to other world religions) may be losing its place in the world. Islam won't take over the world, although it may be one of the last ones to leave it.

We're seeing it kicking and screaming as we speak.

It's all in the delivery

   As an educator, I find myself increasingly concerned with the messages I convey to my students. Communication is more than speeches or lectures. It is engagement. It is posture, eye contact, and gestures. And it is a passion for the subject matter we are discussing. One thing that can make all the difference in engaging students is in how we, as educators, present our lessons. Every moment is a potential lesson. And every student - EVERY student - is a potential leader of our future world. 

   One of the challenges we face is ensuring that our curriculum is meeting the needs or tomorrow's leaders. Today we find our society changing ever more quickly with an increasingly globalized technocracy. Students are so tech-savvy that they have come to see the world through the rose-colored glasses of instant gratification. We reheat food in the microwave in less than a minute. We send and receive messages across the globe just as quickly. Technology that used to take up a room now fits on a desktop in our home office. And yet, the basics of education are essentially the same. So is this a problem, or an opportunity to evolve?

   As educators, we are left to wonder how we will impart a world's worth of information to students who don't want to have to sit still and read a book. Even if the information is presented in an online format, academia has become the bane of youth rather than the opportunity to improve oneself and progress toward a successful future. So the problem becomes finding a way to engage the online student. Teachers have to be well-versed in today's technology-driven multimedia tools. As educators, it is our responsibility to share in our students' capabilities as well as the social networking tools that drive much of their extra-curricular lives. Relating to students has to reach beyond knowing the popular magazines and television series. It is great if a teacher has read the latest fad-fiction - from Harry Potter to Twilight - but we must also be aware of how these fads are shaped and changed by worldwide online activities.

   We can read a novel. But that novel may be produced as a film. Our students will be passionately connected to the actors who portray the characters with whom they have made personal connections. A video game may extend or alter the existing storyline. In the case of Twilight, the novel may be rewritten from the perspective of another character and published as an online work. And what of the YouTube generation who share and exchange opinions through the video blogosphere? Although we see a great deal of subjectivity projected through the medium, there is also an increasing level of theoretical data being converted into something more media savvy for public consumption - a process that began with Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time.

   The point is that we, rather than our students, must learn to embrace the evolution of information from the printed text to more dynamic deliveries. Our students are growing up in a digital world. Teachers must become more than discussion leaders. We must become entertainers to a certain extent. There are teachers who will stand at the front of the class and talk at their students. And while it is a student's responsible to be engaged in the educational process, it is a teacher's responsibility to make that process engaging.

That's So Gay

I want to point out that I have not received official or professional advice. There has never been a representative who has suggested I should work from the closet. The advice has come from peers who have been left with the impression from others that being "out" can delay career aspirations. The reasons are irrational, but logical. The suggestions make sense, in a completely irrational and irresponsible way, but it makes me feel marginalized. And it makes me wonder, what are we teaching youth by being closeted?


I was reminded this evening about the internal struggles of teens and their sexual orientations. Both men and women, during adolescence, spend a great deal of time and energy trying to figure out where they lay on Kinsey's scale.

Am I heterosexual? bisexual? homosexual? omnisexual?

The reminder came in the form of an intelligent, mature, young man working his way through about a half-dozen permutations of that very struggle before my eyes. He asked questions. I offered insights. He made statements, all of which were painstakingly phrased to ensure nothing was revealed and very little commitment was made. He wanted answers that I could not - or, rather, would not - give.

Now, I could offer some grandiose rationale for not giving him the answers he was crying out for - in his own silent way. I could suggest that we must all live through our own trials. That we cannot become fully actualized adults without enduring the challenges inherent to high school or, more broadly, adolescence. I could say that by giving him my answers, I might change his own natural reactions to any number of stimuli. I might unintentionally alter the choices he would make without my interference. I might have a hand in changing the very direction of his life by making him reconsider his own inclinations in favour of the voice of experience. Unfortunately, that wasn't what happened. It isn't what seems to keep happening...

You see, it has been suggested that I should keep my mouth shut where my sexual orientation is concerned. I should pass because I can. But, the way it effects me is something I am willing to endure. It is the way it effects those who are looking for a role model - the kind of thing their peers take for granted - that I find most troubling.

Adolescents who are struggling with their sexual identities need to know that there are adults who have shared their strife and have excelled. It isn't enough to read success stories or to see media representations of the ideal outcomes. People need to see real life examples - people they meet and know - in their real lives. Of course, I know that it is not my place to lead someone to a conclusion or decision, implying one way is the way things are or should be (that's the job of organized religion). And I am at a loss. I don't know what I am supposed to be feeling.

It is laughable that people think homophobia is on the way out when their peers are openly encouraged to suppress their sensibilities. My comrades live their lives without regret or concern over the potential discomfort of others. They do not have to internalize the possibility of misunderstanding or try to pass off homophobic remarks as "a different generation" or "not knowing any better" all for the good of the hypothetical overreaction to openness and honesty.

So I am still at a loss. And I could use some advice. Any takers?

Do you see what I see?

So my Dad got Lasik done a couple of weeks ago. He used to have super thick glasses and now wears nothing at all. I mean, he owns some of those WalMart reading glasses but I've only seen him use them once. It's kind of bizarre but it has worked quite successfully for him. So far, I don't need glasses but since I am the only one left in the family without them, I suspect it's just a matter of time. So why am I telling you this? Well...anyone who happens by my blog knows what I look like so I want to gauge public opinion. Should I get glasses? Or Lasik?

Stahl Eye Center

The Catholic "Church"

   Is the entire Church guilty of pedophaelia? Of course not. But the reality is that when Church elders heard of priests committing acts of abuse they gave them a stern talking to, suggested they pray (prey?) and ask God's forgiveness, and then moved them to a new parish (at times even a new country) where the root issue isn't really addressed.

   Gays are villified in the Church - priest or not, even though the gay priests are as celibate as any other. Today, priests are subjected to rigorous psychological profiling just to determine their sexual orientation, and yet I've heard of nothing of the same battery of testing to determine their predilection toward atypical sexual deviances. The Church has addressed the disease without treating the symptoms. Unless something more than a financial payout is done, the Church is going to crumble. And that's a shame because there are so many good people who see their faith as a sign of strength and comfort, and yet are turning away because it has become a representation of much of what is wrong in this world.

   When you see how many priests and bishops have been incriminated for sexual abuses and kiddie porn charges you have to wonder how many criminals are able to hide within the Church. The Church says ALL gays are sinners and must live celibate lives to be considered "acceptable" children of God. Interesting that statistics show that the VAST majority of sexual predators are heterosexual. According to the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health (1988), the typical child sex offender molests an average of 117 children (most of whom do not report the offence). That's the average...which means it can be more (or less).

   So I should be celibate while priests will break their vows of chastity with innocent children - who are never the same. I've seen priests getting drunk at bars and yet they lead AA groups. I am sick and tired of the Church getting away with gross hypocrisy just to maintain an image that may never have truly existed. I can't sit back anymore and watch this kind of thing happen without speaking out. How the Church treats me is one thing, but when the most innocent of all people (children) are being manipulated and abused I refuse to be silent on the issue. You must understand that this is a commentary driven by frustration and anger at an institution that refuses to acknowledge a need for overwhelming reflection and change.

"For some sexually undeveloped priests, sexual abuse of a pubertal boy may have signified sexual merger with a male perceived to be a psychosexual peer of the abuser. In addition, it may have represented an unconscious act of hostility toward a boy who otherwise could look forward to a sexual life closed off to the priest. In other words, the abuser, who could have entered a minor seminary at age 14 or 15, may have unconsciously attacked his victim’s sexuality at the same age he was when he entered the minor seminary, symbolically castrating the victim as he himself was symbolically castrated. Finally, clinicians working with Catholic priests say some priests define celibacy as refraining from sexual relationships with women and thus could convince themselves that sex with minor males did not jeopardize their celibate status. Vatican officials, in their search to blame the sexual abuse scandal on someone or something external to institutional and doctrinal failings of the church itself, conflated sexual orientation with psychosexual maturation and with criminal behavior." (Frawley-O'Dea, Mary G. "Experts on sex offenders have news for Vatican: Abusers’ behavior does not stem from orientation, studies show" from National Catholic Reporter. Fall/Winter: 2005. 9.3.)

   Priests should be able to get married. That kind of change would encourage more men to take their vows because unrealistic expectations would not discourage them from following a path to God. And if priests take their vows for the right reasons, there might not be an opportunity for those who pursue it for the wrong reasons. Women should be able to lead a congregation. Many men have proven themselves incapable of doing it with honor or faith. Gays should be just as welcome within ALL of the precepts of the Church as any other Christian. Not just gays who deny much of what makes them human. God loves us all - male and female, gay and straight. He created us ALL in his image. An image of inclusion and love. And until the powers that be come to terms with that very fact, they will preside over the destruction of that which they allege to hold most dear.