Each Day a New Thing

forkMy husband wakes up early every morning to make coffee and chat with his new girlfriend.

When I came to bed last night, I felt I needed a hug. We are sleeping separately now and I went to his bedroom, hoping to get in and just stop it all for a moment. He was chatting on his phone with this woman. He usually lies when caught outright. This time he said he was chatting to a friend about a musician, but I know this is not true. I can see his phone. He is laying on our bed, dressed as he does in women’s clothing. He says it makes him comfortable. I have never minded that.  But he is compelled to share it with men or women, along with other fetishes like wearing nylons, garters, and feederism.

To say it put a damper on my search for a hug is putting it mildly. I retreated and said, ‘Never mind, it’s not important’.  Ten minutes later he joined me in my bed for a short snuggle, as we used to call it. He rubs my back for a bit and it puts us both to sleep. Later, he got up and went to his own bed.  Small comfort, but a comfort nonetheless.

Last night after my post on this blog I emailed him. We always talked best via email, more honestly when we didn’t face each other. He preferred our correspondence when we were 3000 miles apart, but now, I am just a nuisance to him if I want to talk. I asked him outright if our marriage should end.  This morning he must be too busy with his girlfriend because he hasn’t answered me yet. I can smell the coffee from downstairs, so I know he is up. My email is not on his list of important things to do first.

This is the culmination of years of getting along, me finding out his secrets, fighting, reconciling, and starting the process all over again. I suppose the question I should ask is, do I want to end it? Part of me does. The other part is the practical aspect of having to pack everything again, spend thousands of pounds again (assuming I have that), move back to where I am familiar, but to no job, no car, no health care (i.e. insurance), and no place to live? Do I want to put my already fragile health at risk with that stress again? What holds me here? I have no close friends. Which is more stressful? Which can I deal with if I work actively to ignore the stressors?

It’s not a matter of which will make me happiest. That’s not an issue any more. At my age, happiness is nice to have but not something I’ll expect to find.  It’s a matter of trade-offs. What can I live with? I suppose this is another day to contemplate that.


What I'm Looking Forward to in 2011

What am I looking forward to this year?

Palace of Westminster – London, England

I'm looking forward to quitting my job and moving to England to be with my new husband this April. Big, big change! It's going to be fantastic however. New adventure, change of scene, getting to know my husband better after a long distance engagement, and yes, I know, lots of stresses: learning to drive on the left side of the road, making friends, feeling homesick, etc. But I look at it as an interesting time when so many people are stuck in ruts or bored, or whatever. I can't wait.

Powered by Plinky

“By Their Fruits” and the Public Political Debate

A female Quaker preaches at a meeting...

Image via Wikipedia

Hereby begins a long rambling post by someone with too much time on her hands. Having no standing in the political or religious arena, I feel free to think aloud about what’s running through my head lately.

For the last couple of weeks, I’ve settled down to married life without a spouse in the household, which makes it more difficult than I anticipated. My husband of two weeks had to return to the UK and get to work and before we could spend Christmas together. But the future bodes well with my moving there early next spring and transporting most of my worldly goods as well. In the meantime, I need to keep busy at work and keep my mind off missing him.

As I said before, the wedding ceremony was beautiful. We chose a scripture text because a) we were married in a church and b) it seemed a very practical passage. We used Matthew’s passage about salt and light. Salt should keep its flavor and light should not be hid. It probably seems a strange pick for a wedding scripture but it fit with both of our convictions that actions speak louder than words. For both of us, action is more important than all the talk in the world. Action proves one’s intent more than a thousand declarations. My husband is a newly minted Quaker and The Religious Society of Friends values action more than speech. Even the quiet waiting of the Lord in meeting is an action of surrender, far more powerful than a liturgy or mumbling of words in a ritual. Willingness, reception, humility… far more important than stubbornly proclaiming and correcting. I, on the other hand, take the bible with a huge grain of salt (pun intended). 😀

I was reading many blog posts on the internet this morning. It’s Christmas after all and I was looking for inspiration of some kind. Any kind really. I always tell myself I will go to church or do this or that. And I never do it. I think my IDEA of Christianity is a fond nostalgic moment in my mind, but one which never lives up to that nostalgia in practice. My idea of Christianity is just that; ideal. From my readings I sensed a theme though. Some Christians like to use particular passages to prove  what they consider to be wrong in God’s eyes. This provides the basis for most evangelical sermons heard round the world on most Sundays.  I kept coming to articles quoting another section from Matthew; one that some use as a moral compass:

15″Watch out for false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are voracious wolves.  16 You will recognize them by their fruit. Grapes are not gathered from thorns or figs from thistles, are they? 17 In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.  18 A good tree is not able to bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree to bear good fruit.  19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.  20 So then, you will recognize them by their fruit. (Mt. 7:15-20)

It’s a great passage because it describes the predicament of men very well.  It’s a wonderful metaphor for a principle that probably precedes any biblical inclusion. Let’s assume for a moment that the bible contains an absolute set of ethics which is prescriptive of our behavior.  How is this passage prescriptive? Well in the churches in which I was a member, I heard from the pulpit that you could pretty easily recognize the wrongness of a thing by what it produced. Romans 1:24-32 was often used as a companion text to illustrate this point. Never mind the fact that sometimes “fruit” is not instant. Sometimes we cannot see the good or evil of an action until many years down the road.

But some Christians would like us to believe that this can be a test of some kind, right now.  They tell us that certain acts will automatically produce a certain consequence.  It is true that one can generally tell the worth of a thing by the fruits produced. The problem comes when Christians use this passage as a prescription to tell others what is “good” or “bad” in particular, according to their interpretation of the scriptures. They also get to decide which consequences are good or evil.  For them sexuality is the chief illustration of a tree and its fruits. AIDS is a consequence of homosexuality therefore it is bad. Abortion is a consequence of  preventable choices therefore it is bad. Depression is a consequence of abortions therefore it is preventable and bad. Failed third marriages are the consequence of divorce therefore divorce is bad. Laziness and freeloading is a consequence of welfare therefore welfare is bad.  Communism is a consequence of basic health care for all therefore not only is communism bad, basic health care for free is bad. For these kinds of folk, B is always a result of A, no matter what.

But, let’s continue the metaphor and take it further. But what if a tree produces good fruit one year and bad fruit the next? What if part of it’s fruit is bad but the rest is good? What happens if the fruit looks really good and healthy but tastes bitter? What if the fruit that ripens and “rots” the most is the juiciest and the best? Isn’t this parable more a generalization rather than a sure fire way of telling what’s good and bad? You’ll know an action is generally unworthy if it generally and consistently produces bad things. Conversely, and more importantly, you’ll know an action is generally worthy if it generally and consistently produces good things.  Generally then, we can look at the bible as another set of ethics that needs to be scrutinized alongside all systems of ethics, using the same criteria: Does it work? Unfortunately some Christians do not ask that question often enough mainly because they don’t care if it works. God said it, that settles it.

This brings me to philosophy as it relates to the public debate about politics and whose politics are “better,” (as most of what I read always does). Setting aside biblical philosophy, I am always interested in John Stuart Mill and his theory of utilitarianism, which seems important right now in the public debate over whose politics are true, especially in this country. Utilitarianism posits that the “moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome.”  This seems to be exactly what Matthew is saying.  You cannot really judge anything as an idea. Ideas have no worth in and of themselves. An idea of a perfect society has no worth if its not enacted in the culture and proven in the public arena. Politics is merely one group arguing for their idea of a society over another group’s idea. Each tries to prevent the other from enacting the principles behind their idea.

Political utilitarianism in general terms is the idea that the most good to the most number of people is helpful to society as a whole. To work for the good of society is a morally worthy goal. The problem is when groups of individuals disagree about what’s good for society.  But that jumps the gun. Mill wrote that

To do the right thing…we do not need to be constantly motivated by concern for the general happiness. The large majority of actions intend the good of individuals (including ourselves) rather than the good of the world. Yet the world’s good is made up of the good of the individuals that constitute it and unless we are in the position of, say, a legislator, we act properly by looking to private rather than to public good. Our attention to the public well-being usually needs to extend only so far as is required to know that we aren’t violating the rights of others.

How this dovetails with scripture depends on how one views scripture. For me, having once taken it so literally, I can say that the bible exists for me now only as a record of other peoples’ experiences of their ideas about God. There is nothing systematic about it. There is no consistent ethic. It provides no absolute foundation for anything. It is literature of the past that contains myth. Like most myth, it it meant to explain after the fact rather than be a presentation of fact. Myth is written by men for other men to try and explain how the world works for them (see my Master’s thesis introduction). The fact that no woman wrote scripture, or if she did, no woman was allowed a presence in its collection, convinces me that the bible is not meant for a woman’s consumption and indeed probably has nothing of any value to say to modern women. There are some worthy statements in the bible, just as there are in another philosphers’ writings, but to stand the test of time a philosophy has to be workable and representative of most people; women included! If it does not stand that test, then it can be discarded as an idea; a pretty idea perhaps, but not workable in any real sense.

All this is a long treatise on the simple idea of mine that we will never get anywhere in political debate until we are allowed to test the theories posited. This is what makes the United States unique in that there are individual states making legislation amid the larger idea of a cohesive Federal government. The states are little microcosms whereby the people can enact what they believe are good ideas and see if they work. If they do work then legislators and the public should try to convince other states and eventually the Federal government to enact them. But progress is extremely slow and we have to realize that. We cannot assume that something doesn’t work even after many years. But we can assume that something works if it’s proven to have worked. Who will say that Brown vs. the Board of Education didn’t accomplish much? Yet it was vociferously protested at the time. We’ve already seen how theocracy works in part by looking at history (the Crusades, Salem Witch trials, etc.) and by looking at how individual churches run themselves. We know that we trample on individual rights when we keep out all the undesirable people these churches cannot stand. No one wants a government that exhibits such exclusivity and punishment espoused by such doctrines. A society based on such exclusivity does not work. We have seen that slavery doesn’t work by watching our Southern states and realizing the devastating path that racism takes. Our western states have shown us in the past that women’s rights were successful long before the Eastern part of the country got wind of it or realized that women were intelligent beings.

I guess all of this is my way of realizing that action and the consequences of it is the only proof of a good idea. People and mere existence comes first, not institutions or foundations. We aren’t born into rules. Rules are born from us and the good of society as a whole is a direct result of the happiness and freedom of individuals IN COOPERATION with the happiness and freedom of our neighbor. There are some “trees” that deserve to be cut down. Al Qaida is a bad tree. Theocracy is a bad tree. Slavery is a bad tree. The subjugation of women is a bad tree. Unregulated capitalism is a bad tree. War that is not just is a bad tree. People dying because they cannot afford health care is a bad tree. Sexual stereotyping is a bad tree. What else is a bad tree? You get the picture.

Meat Lover or Meatless: My Stance on Vegetarianism

Have I ever considered vegetarianism?

PETA – Flesh

I have actually considered it, mainly because I do not like to think of how our poor animals are brutalized for meat. I have nothing against hunting for eating. Hunting for pleasure or sport, however, is cruel. Humans are omnivores and I don't believe we are meant to avoid anything as food. But I do object to the industrialization of animals for food and hormone injections to make them grow abnormally. I'm sure that's where our cancer comes from mostly. So I would give up meat if I thought it would stop that practice. Unfortunately, I don't believe that humans can stop the profit incentive in other humans unless EVERYONE got on board with it.

Powered by Plinky

My Favorite Childhood Movie

Childhood movies

My favorite childhood movie, well my kids' childhood anyway. this is the most inventive and interesting combination of kid and adult fantasy with a generous helping of claymation and more information on Mark Twain than we've ever realized. The Diary of Adam and Eve is worth the price of the movie alone.

Powered by Plinky

Quote of the Day

Cover of "Call to Create : Celebrating Ac...

Cover via Amazon

A major obstacle to creativity is wanting to be in the peak season of growth and generation at all times . . . but if we see the soul’s journey as cyclical, like the seasons. . . then we can accept the reality that periods of despair or fallowness are like winter – a resting time that offers us a period of creative hibernation, purification, and regeneration that prepare us for the births of spring.

-Linda Leonard, from Call to Create : Celebrating Acts of Imagination

A New Life


Image by failing_angel via Flickr

Changes are afoot! In three days, Reg will come here to the States and marry me. It’s been a long, convoluted, emotional, and very draining journey, but I honestly, honestly believe it’s been all worth it. People were hurt, us included, but we always fight for what we know is true and right don’t we?  My background and my experiences would now tell me that god, in “his” infinite smiteness will strike me or my loved ones with some dread accident or disease to ensure no happiness comes to us, but how ann-centric is that kind of thinking? Why would god even care what I think or do? Not enough to make me learn some kind of lesson I’m sure! Divine Love teaches no lesson we aren’t ready for nor task us with something without impunity. No, what motivates me in this life is the true love of another human being, who believes in me and pushes me to be a better person; who loves me no matter what; who fights for our relationship; that’s what moves me to act my very best. I am not motivated by a Divine Being who offers punishment or even a Divine Being who offers “love” for the simple reason that there is no love in this world but what humans give each other. There’s no greater force. I’m not discounting Divine Love, but I am questioning the hands-on application of it via human beings. Divine love without human hands means nothing.

I’ve found that belief means nothing without action behind it. Love in action proves truth, not what one believes about a god or about a dogma or doctrine. Right belief does not make us act rightly in any real sense. The same is true of a marriage really. I can believe in the institution of marriage and do all the things I’m told a marriage should do or have and if love and compromise and forgiveness are missing, I will have nothing at all. Similarly, if I believe that God is a trinity or that Jesus literally rose from the dead, yet don’t act lovingly toward my husband, brother, or sister, then I am as Paul says, “a resounding gong.” It doesn’t matter one whit at all what we believe about marriage, what matters is the care and concern we have for each other regardless of all else.

This is the greatest lesson I’ve learned from Reg and I hope that if we can practice humility and remember always to ask forgiveness, we will do all right. December 4 is the day where we will each attempt yet again to make a union after previously failing separately; a union not just of legalities or partnerships or households, but of souls.  With Divine love as the glue, it can happen.

Human Love ~ Dostoevsky

“At some ideas you stand perplexed, especially at the sight of human sins, uncertain whether to combat it by force or by human love. Always decide, “I will combat it with human love.” If you make up your mind about that once and for all, you can conquer the whole world. Loving humility is a terrible force; it is the strongest of all things and there is nothing like it.”