August 2009 Archives

This week, my sister and her family had a bit of a scare.  They're fifteen year old beagle mix, Tasslehoff Burrfoot (Tas for short), had a bit of a medical scare.  They took her to the vet, expecting the worst.  Fortunately, the vet gave Tas a happy diagnosis and a promising prognosis.  So everyone's relieved to know that we have at least a little longer to enjoy her company, at least when she's not too busy sleeping.

When Stephanie first gave everyone the initial news, I began to think about what I wanted to say about Tas.  I wanted to give her something of a tribute like I did with Saddle when I heard he had passed.  So having thought about it, I've decided that even though it looks like Tas is going to be with us for a while longer, I figured I'd go ahead and offer my tribute anyway.  After all, why wait until a loved one is gone before expressing how much we love and value them?

For those who may be wondering, Tas's comes from a character in the Dragonlance Chronicals by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman.  My brother-in-law, Bill, was a huge fan of the whole Dragonlance series at the time he and Stephanie took Tas into their homes as a little puppy.  Bill decided the name fit Tas as she was always friendly and high-spirited.  And of course, the day that Tas was sleeping on Bill's lap and he suddenly realized she had somehow managed to snake her front paw into the pocket of his jeans just cinched the whole deal.

When I thik of Tas, I most often think of her younger years, before she started facing the health issues of getting older.  I remember the highly energetic pup who loved to be chased through Bill and Stephanie's apartment in Rome, NY.  I still laugh when I think of how she would run up the couch at an angle, shift her body just enough to push off the wall behind the couch with her legs -- I always joked that her legs were longer than the average beagle's legs so they could fit the springs inside them -- and run back down the couch on a new trajectory.  I also remember the day that I had to stop in total amazement as I watched her leap from a total stopped position over the back of the couch (it had been moved so it was in the middle of the room rather than against a wall) and landed on the seat cushion.  I never understood how such a small dog could clear that height from a velocity of zero.

The other great thing about Tas was that as Bill and Stephanie began to have kids, she proved to be one of the best family dogs I've ever seen.  She was quite protective and nurturing of each as the kids when they were born, often expressing distress if the adults around allowed one of them to cry or fuss for to long.  (To Tas, thirty seconds often seemed to qualify as too long.)  And then there was the day my sister and I watched as Tas managed to retrieve her paw from my then-infant nephew's death-grip simply by licking his hand until he let go.

The years have worn on Tas.  She's not quite as energetic as she used to be, though the last time I saw her I still saw the occasional glimmer of that old fire in her eyes.  She's taken more to sleeping and her days of flying around the house or chasing rabbits in the yard are mostly to a close.  But she's still a sweet old girl and everyone who has known her can attest that she's probably one of the best furry family members anyone could ever ask for.  And I'm thankful we all have a little more time to spend with her.

For the past few weeks, I've been regularly hearing a new advertisement for Lipitor when I'm driving in my car.  This ad encouraging people to keep taking Lipitor rather than switching to a generic medication for their high cholesterol.  The ad makes a point of arguing that Lipitor is one of the most effective cholesterol medications out there and that there is no generic form of it.  They close the ad by asking in a concerned voice, "If you're taking Lipitor for high cholesterol and it's working, why switch?"

Every time I hear that question, I want to pull a Barney Frank and ask the narrator in the ad, "Just how stupid are you?  Or do you just think we're stupid?"  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the number one reason someone might choose to switch from Lipitor to a generic medication:  Generic medications cost significantly less money and not all of us are made of money.

I took Lipitor for a year or so when my blood sugar, blood pressure, and cholesterol were all in trouble.  Even with my insurance, a one month supply cost me $25.  According to one New York Times article,  The cost of a one month supply without insurance would range from $75 to $90.  That's a lot of money for a person to be paying out each month for a single health maintenance medication.  And bear in mind that most people on Lipitor are probably also on other medications for other long term conditions like high blood pressure.  That adds up.  So it's little wonder that people are looking at their shrinking wallets -- especially in our current economy -- and asking their doctor to give them a generic option that they can get for as little as $3 a month.

Now, if Pfizer was really concerned about people switching to less effective medicine, I would expect them to do something to make their more effective Lipitor a more viable option for most people.  The most obvious way to do that would be to lower the price.  And from a business standpoint (though I really have no tolerance for anyone who thinks of maintaining and improving human health as a business, to be quite frank), it also makes sense.  It's how the principle of supply and demand is supposed to work.

But no, instead of doing that, Pfizer instead decides to launch a propaganda -- I'm sorry, advertising -- campain.  Rather than making their product more affordable for those who really need it -- those they claim to be concerned about -- they instead decide to spend millions on advertisements telling how much better better Lipitor is than the inferior generics.  They pay people to do "research" showing how generic options are not as effective or safe as Lipitor.  In effect, rather than trying to help out the people they express concern over by lowering their prices, they try to scare those people into paying money they probably don't have in the first place.

Have I mentioned that I think pharmaceutical companies are evil?

Yesterday, I blogged about how the belief that we have no choices in situations is detrimental to our ability to live an ethical life.  Today, I want to discuss another reason why this belief is problematic for witches(1).  A belief that we have no choice in a given situation also destroys our personal power in a given situation as well.

We in the Pagan community talk about self-empowerment a lot.  It's a key reason a lot of us came to a Pagan path, at least in my experience.  However, sometimes we talk about it in rather vague terms, never really making it clear what it means to be self-empowered.  To that end, I would like to suggest my own definition:  Self-empowerment is the act of embracing the realization that no matter what situation we may find ourselves in, we always have the ability to choose how we will respond and act.

Note that self-empowerment doesn't mean we always get to control the situations we find ourselves in.  Nor does it mean that we can magically change everything in our environment to suit our needs.  Such a concept of self-empowerment would simply be out of step with and contrary to reality.  Hardships are going to befall us.  People are going to do things we don't like and that hurt us.  Circumstances are going to limit our options and even make us face some unpleasant choices.  Those who want to find a way to turn their lives into a fairy tale need to keep looking.  They will not find it here.(2)

But what the principle of self-empowerment tells us is that no matter what those situations are, our actions are our own to choose.  It tells us that even if our choices are limited to unpleasant ones, there are still choices to make.(3)  Self-empowerment teaches us that no matter what is beyond our control, who we choose to be and how we choose to act is still our personal domain.  And that is an incredible power to wield, in my opinion.

Saying we have no choice in a situation robs us of that power.  It turns us into victims of our circumstances rather than people who are working to not only make the best of our circumstances, but improve it insofar as we can.  And that is a great tragedy.

And again, this is a creeping problem.  The belief that we had no choice tends to spread throughout our lives.  What started as one instance where we thought we had no control or no power becomes two.  Then it becomes five.  Then it becomes a regular occurrence.  Soon, we are never empowered because we fail to see our choices.  And then we wonder why our lives are nothing like we want them to be.(4)

Now some may be ready to ask me, "But what about magic?"  And it's a good question, so I will answer it.  Back in 2007, I blogged about the role one's will plays in magic.  At that time, I suggested that our will is the part of our psyche that initiates action.  It's the part of us that actually goes about making all of these choices, and it's central to the process of working magic.

So what happens when we say that part of us is incapable of making choices because there are none to be made?  We are effectively subjugating it or turning it off.  A belief that we have no choices actually hinders our will.  And a subjugated or hindered will simply cannot operate effectively.  Which means our ability to do magic effectively disappears as well.

Notes:
(1)  As witches are not the only people who believe in or value self-empowerment, I'm sure many other people will be able to identify with much of what I'm saying here.  I think that's great.  But since I'm a witch, I'm going to focus on witches.  Though I do hope anyone who isn't a witch still shares with me what value they might find in my thoughts.

(2)  In reality, I suspect they won't find it anywhere.  But I respect their right to continue searching.  That's their choice to make.

(3)  The other advantage to realizing you still have choices, even if they're all less than ideal, is that it gives you the freedom to think creatively and look for even more choices.  The ones you see immediately may not be the only ones laying about.

(4)  Of course, there are also times when our lives are nothing like we want them to be because our desires are simply not realistic.  Again, this is because self-empowerment is not about living a fairy tale life.  Sometimes, we just have to find a way to live within our limitations.  But my experience is that even within our limitations, there's a life that's well worth living.

I've been reading a lot of blogs the past few days, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America have been a major topic of discussion.  This is because the ELCA has been holding their Church-Wide Assembly this week, and the church's response to GLBT people in various circumstances has been a huge topic of conversation.  They've voted on a statement on Human Sexuality (of which GLBT issues is only a small portion), a policy of allowing local congregations to minister to GLBT people in accordance with their own conscience, and a policy allowing the ordination of GLBT clergy in monogamous, lifelong patnerships.

It's this last policy that I'd like to talk about briefly.  Although I am no longer a Christian and don't foresee returning to that faith (and if I did, I'd be more inclined to join the Orthodox church anyway), it's something that in some ways is near and dear to me.  As someone who loves to help and serve others, it pleases me to see new opportunities being provided to GLBT to help and serve others.  And as someone who once felt called to ministry, I admit some pleasure in knowing that such an opportunity has come in my lifetime, even if I no longer plan to take it.

As I've read various people express both their joys and their concerns about this decision in the ELCA, I began to consider my own time of serving in my old (American Baptist) church back home.  While I was not an ordained minister, I spent time as a Sunday school teacher, the leader of the youth group, and even the superintendent of the children's Sunday school program.  (I also did speak from the pulpit as a lay leader a handful of times.)

I came out to myself as a gay man towards the end of my senior year in college.  When I graduated and returned home, I also returned to my small rural church an quickly found myself pulled back into leadership.  I almost immediate took over the Sunday school class for grades 7-12 as well as the youth group.  That summer, I also co-led our church's Vacation Bible School program.  A few months after that, my aunt stepped down as superintendent of the children's Sunday school program and I was asked to take over.

At the time, no one in my church (with the possible exception of a couple of family members) knew that I was gay.  To be honest, I'm not sure how the other members of the church would've reacted if they knew, and I was too afraid at the time to find out.  So I kept my sexuality a secret and focused on doing my duties as a leader in the church.  And I suffered in silence.

Yes, I suffered.  Those first few months to a couple of years after you come out to yourself can be quite difficult emotionally.  You find yourself sorting through a lot of feelings and trying to understand what it means to be gay and all the implications it has for your life.  So here I was trying to act as a leader in my church and deal with my own problems, and I was afraid to turn to any of the other church leaders to seek help during this time of my life.

At one point, I began having trouble upholding my responsibilities as a church leader began to sag due to the issues I was trying to work through.  (And things got even worse the few months before I finally left the church -- as I had also begun to add in the complications that come with one's first real relationship.)  I started to procrastinate and forgot to do certain things.  A few of the other leaders began to get upset, especially as they relied on me for certain things and I let them down on more than one occasion.  And I was frustrated because they never once asked what was going on with me or why I was becoming less dependable.  But to make matters worse, even if they had asked me what was wrong, I doubt I would've had the courage to tell them.  I just wasn't comfortable.

As I think of my experiences, I think of the ELCA's decison with some pleasure, knowing that at least some GLBT people who wish to serve in a Christian community will now be able to do so openly.  And this means that they will be able to get the support I felt was denied to me back when I was serving as I felt called.  And that is something that pleases me greatly.

"But I had to do it!  I didn't have a choice!"

I think most of us have heard that statement or similar ones like it.  In fact, I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say that most of us have made that statement or similar ones.(1)  It's a common sentiment to express when we are faced with a tough decision, especially one with ethical implications or consequences we're not entirely comfortable with or feel defensive about.

Claiming that we had no choice in such circumstances allows us to feel better about our choices.  It helps us feel less responsible for them and their consequences.  It's away to mollify our own sense of discomfort and even guilt.  It's an entirely human temptation.  The problem is that it's both self-deceptive and anti-thetical to living an ethical life.

As I've mentioned before, choice is essential to ethics.  If one cannot make a choice, then there is no way to act ethically.(2) So in order to act ethically, one must acknowledge and accept not only that one had a choice, but that one made a choice.

I think that this is sometimes hard to do because we're actually uncomfortable with the ethical choices we are forced to make.  It's easy to make the easy choices when it comes to ethics.  It's easy not to steal from our neighbor.  It's easy to refrain from beating up the person who makes you angry.  In contrast, it's not always so easy to decide how to handle a hurtful situation with a loved one.  It's not always so easy to deal with a situation involving a painful truth.

I think that it's these harder situations that make the "I had no choice" argument so appealing.  If we can claim that our chosen course of action -- that might hurt our loved ones to some degree -- is beyond our control and choice, then we can escape responsibility and the sense of guilt involved.  It becomes "not our fault."

The problem with this approach, I think, is that taking such an escape becomes easier the more we do it.  It becomes easier to forget our own agency in our actions the more we deny it.  So suddenly, nothing we do is of our own choice, nor are we responsible of it.  In effect, we become free of our ethical obligations.  But again, the problem with this is that we cannot then be ethical.(2)

I would suggest that it is better, rather, to accept that we do have an element of choice in such tough situations.  It allows us to acknowledge that we (hopefully) made the best choice is among a list of rather undesirable choices offered to us.(3)  This allows us to acknowledge both our sincere attempts to live ethically in a given situation and the difficulty and imperfection of the situation.  And it puts us back in a position of agency and personal empowerment.

Notes:
(1)  The variation I've personally struggled with recently is, "You put me in this position so I had to do it!"  The idea behind this is that someone else has created a situation where I had to make a hard decision, one that I could've avoided if they had made a different choice themselves.  The thing is, my entire argument still stands.  They may have created a situation where I had to make a hard choice, but it was still my choice to make in the end, and I have to own it.

(2)  This is not necessarily the same as being unethical, mind you.  But it does put us in a position that is not one that I would personally enjoy.  Nor would I enjoy the company of one who chooses to live in such a position.

(3)  I also suspect that the "I had no choice" argument is often tempting due to a fear that we didn't make the best choice in a given situation, or that we might even discover that we totally overlooked a better choice.  That's a concept I might come back to in a future post.

Related articles by Zemanta

• It's a dirty job, but ... (guardian.co.uk)
• How to discover your Integrity and Morals. (imperfectaction.com)

Fred Clark over at Slacktivist recently made another post in his series about what motivates some people to disseminate false, injurious information about others despite that information being demonstrably false.  In this particular post, Fred uses the videos over at Good Fight Theater as an example for the continuing discussion.  While I highly recommend Fred's post and the ongoing series of which it is a part, I wanted to look at a related but slightly different topic:  The way that groups like Good Fight Ministries tend to stretch and twist whatever they're looking at to make it fit Christian theology and/or cosmology.

For this post, I'm going to focus on GFM's video regarding the first Transformers movie.  I've watched clips from a few other GFM videos, and I get the impression that my criticisms can be adequately applied to most of their videos.  But as the Transformers video is the only one I've watched in full, I'll focus on that one.

The goal of the GFM video is to suggest and argue that Transfomers -- and other movies about aliens (and an interest in aliens in general) -- is an attempt to brainwash humans into accepting the lead of demons during the final battle of Armageddon as portrayed in Pre-Millenial Dispensationalism.  (As an aside, Fred also offers a wonderful look at PMD theology as part of his ongoing review of the Left Behind series.)  GFM does this by suggesting that in Transformers, Michael Bay is effectively portraying the fallen angels of Armageddon with as the good guys -- in the form of the Autobots -- and God and the angels of Heaven as the bad guys -- in the form of the Decepticons.  However, it seems to me that GFM has to make a lot of assumptions -- assumptions I'm inclined to question, challenge, and even refute -- in order to make that argument.

The first assumption is that the Cube -- the original source of creation life on the Autobots' home planet -- is somehow representative of the Christian god.  It's not clear to me why GFM makes this claim.  While it is certainly understandable that the Cube possesses capabilities that is often considered the sole domain of the Christian god, I find that a tenuous argument for this comparison.  After all, nothing suggests that the Cube is the creator of the entire universe or even all life in it.  If the Cube is not the sole source of life -- and much in the movie left me with the impression that its not -- then the comparison between the Cube and the Christian God quickly falls flat.

Another consideration is the nature of the Cube.  Specifically, the Cube is not portrayed as a conscious being with personality or identity.  Again, this separates it from the god of Christianity, which is very much a conscious being with personality and identity.  This alone suggests that a better parallel to a divine force found in other religions that have a more impersonal conceptualization of God.(1)

This impersonal nature of the Cube creates another problem for the assumptions in GFM video.  The GFM video suggests that Transformers is based on the Gnostic idea that God is evil.  However, how can an impersonal god like the Cube be evil?  The Cube has no plans and gives no orders.  All of the actions of the Decepticons -- those GFM ministries would like us to believe are the stand-ins for Jesus and the heavenly host in the movie -- come from Megatron, not the Cube.

Theologically, this causes problems for GFM's claims.  If we accept that Megatron is the stand-in for Jesus in this movie(2), then that would mean that Megatron is acting on the authority of God's stand-in, the Cube.  However, it is clear that Megatron's authority and power is not granted by the will of Cube, but is gained by him by his control of the Cube.  Such a discrepancy further destroys the analogy that GFM is attempting to make.

This also comes into play when we consider Optimus Prime's plan to destroy the Cube.  GFM points to this as paralleling the fallen angels of his own theology who wish to destroy the Christian god.  The problem with this comparison is that the fallen angels of GFM's wish to destroy God in order to take his place and rule over the universe.  In contrast, Optimus Prime merely seeks to destroy the Cube as a last resort in order to prevent Megatron from using its power to destroy and control others.  In this sense, it's not only the actions that are being inverted in Michael Bay's supposed "retelling" of the Final Battle, but the players' motives as well.

This is particularly notable when you consider Optimus Prime's plans for destroying the Cube if it becomes necessary.  The leader of the Autobots plans to destroy the Cube in a way that will require him to sacrifice his own life.  Indeed, the decision to ultimately destroy Megatron along with the Cube is actually Shia LeBeouf's doing.  Optimus's plans for self-sacrifice strike me as far more, well, Messianic.

In order to accept GFM's interpreation of the movie, one must completely ignore the actions, goals, and motives of the characters being portrayed.  One must completely ignore where the analogy quickly falls apart.  And one must be willing to accept the wanton disregard for life and the desire to control and destroy others is an acceptable depiction of God's just wrath.  (3)

In other words, to accept GFM's interpretation of this movie as an inversion of the Final Battle of PMD theology, one has to put the entire movie through a blender and force it into preconceived notions.  It makes far more sense to me to watch the movie and consider the ideas it offers on their own merits.

Notes:
(1)  Of course, it's possible that the folks at GFM consider all non-Christian religions to be nothing more than inversions and perversions of Christianity.  So this distinction may not matter to them.  However, I personally think it's an important one.  After all, not everyone sees everything in terms of being a direct perversion of or attack on Christianity.

(2)  Bear in mind that the biggest argument for this supposition appears to be that Megatron sounds a lot like Metatron, which is a name mentioned in certain extra-Biblical texts and might be another name for Jesus according to extra-Biblical commentaries on those extra-Biblical texts.  So not only is GFM playing fast and furious with the movie to make it fit their theology, but their having to invoke appeals to theology that many of their fellow Christians might find questionable.

(3)  And there I think is the greatest problem with GFM's interpretation of this movie.  In order to accept this, one must not only believe in a god that is a wanton tyrant who treats his Creation with contempt and disregard for its ultimate well-being, but you must believe that such a god is worthy of respect and adoration.  Perhaps teh folks at GFM can do so, but my own conscience forbids it.

I thought I'd spend some time today playing around with my blog.  It started out by deciding to find a plugin that would allow me to tweet my blog entries on Twitter automatically.  My search also led me on to discover another neat plugin called Zemanta.  It's a handy plugin that suggests links, pictures and other content that I might want to include in my blog posts.

I'm hoping this will be particularly helpful to me, as I've been trying to make sure I include at least one photo with every blog post I make.  I find while it's not necessary, it does make my blog much more aesthetically pleasing.  However, this has proven challenging, as I'm very concerned about not using copyrighted work. This has mean trying to find public domain images, which can be a challenge.  So if this new plugin helps make things better, all the better.  Here's to hoping.

One of the things that I have learned over the past few years is that there are certain consequences to having a blog under your real name and a visible presence on social networking sites.  Namely, people from your past suddenly start finding you again.  This can be both a pleasant surprise and an unpleasant experience.  This is especially true when said friends last associated with you when you were a completely different person -- say an evangelical Christian who identified as heterosexual.

In most cases, I've been very fortunate when people from my past pop up.  They either don't comment on how I've changed (though I suspect some of my old high school classmates might actually be pleased to learn I've loosened up since leaving Williamson) or they've expressed curiosity and a desire to understand how I got to where I am today, given my starting point.

This week, I had one of the -- fortunately rare in my cases -- less pleasant experiences.  A friend from my first two years in college decided to contact me expressing a strong desire to rebuild our friendship.  She also expressed remorse for how badly a prior attempt to rebuild our friendship turned out.  That previous attempt was extremely short-lived, so much that I never revealed any of the changes I had undergone.  It simply became clear that a friendship was not possible -- at least not the kind that was being sought.

So when Lynn apologized and asked again to rebuild a friendship, I did so with some hesitancy.  I still got the impression she had expectations for what the friendship was going to be like -- expectations based on the person I was in 1993 and which would not be met by the strong, self-loving person with a decent sense of boundaries that I am today.  But I'm also the kind of person that wants to give people the benefit of the doubt.  So I told Lynn that I'm willing to be friends, but that she needed to understand the kind of friendship I could offer due to the changes I've gone through in my life.  To give her an idea, I gave her the address to my website so she could learn about me again.

Alas, it would seem Lynn can't deal with the person I've become.  I'm not entirely surprised by that, though I had hoped that things may change.  So she's decided to let me go, though she promises to be there for me and be my strongest supporter if I should ever choose to "leave these lifestyle choices."

To that I say, "Bah, humbug."  I tried the good little straight boy routine before and it almost cost me my life.  I simply have neither the desire nor a compelling reason to return to that nightmare.  And if it means that I will have to struggle on without Lynn's support and friendship...well, let's be honest here.  I've thrived without her support and friendship since around 1994, and I'm pretty sure I can maintain that trend indefinitely.  After all, I wasn't the one who sought to renew our friendship after all this time.

In the end, I think that's what bothers me most about this experience.  Lynn came to me looking for something.  She talked about how she had missed me and wanted me back in her life.  But the moment she realized I no longer met her expectations based on her recollections that are over a decade old, she suddenly decided that wasn't possible anymore.  Not only that, then she started acting as if I would eventually be the one that needed her.  That's just not the way things work in the world I know and understand.

In the end, I'm a bit sad.  I don't like realizing that there are just some people I can't maintain a friendship with.  And in some ways, I'm sad that Lynn is unable to maintain a friendship with someone who doesn't meet her expectations and is apparently even unwilling to understand what happened in the sixteen years she's been absent from my life.  It tells me that blessing I offered her is still need of fulfillment:  that she finds the healing her soul needs.

The sad irony is that she now probably thinks it's my soul that needs healing.  If only she took the time to learn the truth.