I am certainly not alone in my fascination with the cosmos. I am just one of millions who are drawn to looking up. I study the stars, but not to retain it for further recitation. I do it for the sense of perspective I get about life. Thinking about Regulus, let’s say, wildly spinning with its coronal blue jets of flame, takes me out of this world of sorrow. This world is filled with such sorrow, most of it fueled by testosterone as evidenced by war, the power hungry, and the brutality seen in many sports or in rape or domestic abuse. The desire to escape a testosterone-free world draws me to other worlds.
There is an incredible irony to this, however, because space is an even more hostile and annihilating world. Yet looking up from a safe space connects me to the enlightened “eyes” of the past: the Greeks, Thales, Hypatia, et al, as well as ground-breaking European astronomers like Galileo, Brahe, and the Herschels. I marvel at what they saw, discovered, surmized, and made “real” for us. Gazing turns to introspection in that much of the light we see was extinguished millions of years ago. It is fascinating how a thought -- often born from the senses -- becomes a reality and that reality is nothing more than an illusion. The afterglow of a long-dead star is a powerful metaphor for this. Star gazing is just another way to help me make sense of the senselessness of this world.
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
Friday, February 5, 2010
WANT AD: Religious Equality for Women
My daughter-in-law, Tara, sent me a link to a CNN piece from an Islamic woman explaining "Why I'm Proud to Wear a Burqa." (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/02/04/france.burqa.ban/index.html.) Tara did so because I had rejoiced at the recent decision by the French government to no longer tolerate the wearing of burqas in their country.
I read it with interest, hoping to find the REASON for the burqa in the first place. If there was a logical explanation, I was more than ready to re-examine my position. If there is a reason for the implementation of this practice, the writer didn't mention it. She only explained why she chose to wear it, i.e., she dons it for religious reasons, to make her feel more spiritual. She explained she was following the laws of God, not man.
I will say that Mohammed, when he founded the religion, did several things to help liberate women. The ancient tribal customs that existed at the time were particularly harsh towards women. Admittedly, he did make some improvements in the lot of women's lives. (Interestingly, he did marry a much older woman who was a wealthy businesswoman and they had an equal partnership until she died.)
As a result, today's Islamic law does provide for inheritance by women and allows a type of pre-marriage contract that can protect them from the husband's polygamy. It gives them the right of divorce and establishes that their education will be allowed to continue. But one suspects that these privileges are available only to the wealthy as a practical matter.
There are many religious customs that have become a part of Islam that were not the original founder's intentions. This is true for other religions as well. Any religion that literally relies on an ancient Sacred Text, including Christianity, will inevitably fail to respect individual liberty and equality. Just look at Asheville Christian Academy which does not allow women to serve on its board because "women are incapable of making tough decisions."
Islamic women are kept subordinate through education or, should I say, a lack thereof. (It wasn't until the mid-1800s that even America considered giving its women more than a rudimentary education.) The number of women in schools across the Islamic world is unacceptably low. Their education typically comes to an end once they are wed, which often happens at an early age. The schooling they do get is focused on the study of Islam. Even more disturbing is the increasing control fundamentalists exert over educational institutions and academic freedom is non-existent.
Anyway, here is what I understand to be the reason for the burqa. It is so a man will not lust after a woman. It is interesting to me that the burden of keeping a man from acting on his urges is placed on the woman. What is it about the Arab men that they are so easily excited by even the sight of a wrist or ankle that they require a woman to be covered from head to toe? Why does the woman have to bear the responsibility for HIS urges? THe men imprison their women in layers of fabric to keep them from being distracted in the practice of their faith. I believe there is an underlying mysogyny here. Islamic jurists have even characterized a woman's reproductive organ as the "ever-devouring vagina", making it appear that men could not possibly overcome the lure of it. Makes it sound more like some sort of sinister sucking drain. Seriously now!
It is time for fundmentalist Islamic men to muster some self-discipline and stop forcing others to handle what is obviously their problem. It would be akin to me having men castrated so I could uphold a vow of chastity.
This woman is clearly brainwashed into believing the burqa is an integral part of her faith. She has not deeply questioned her faith but rather accepted the arbitariness of it. (This is true for many, no matter what religion is followed.) If she really stopped for a moment, she would realize that it is not clothing that develops a relationship with God/Allah/Yahweh, but actions.
I read it with interest, hoping to find the REASON for the burqa in the first place. If there was a logical explanation, I was more than ready to re-examine my position. If there is a reason for the implementation of this practice, the writer didn't mention it. She only explained why she chose to wear it, i.e., she dons it for religious reasons, to make her feel more spiritual. She explained she was following the laws of God, not man.
I will say that Mohammed, when he founded the religion, did several things to help liberate women. The ancient tribal customs that existed at the time were particularly harsh towards women. Admittedly, he did make some improvements in the lot of women's lives. (Interestingly, he did marry a much older woman who was a wealthy businesswoman and they had an equal partnership until she died.)
As a result, today's Islamic law does provide for inheritance by women and allows a type of pre-marriage contract that can protect them from the husband's polygamy. It gives them the right of divorce and establishes that their education will be allowed to continue. But one suspects that these privileges are available only to the wealthy as a practical matter.
There are many religious customs that have become a part of Islam that were not the original founder's intentions. This is true for other religions as well. Any religion that literally relies on an ancient Sacred Text, including Christianity, will inevitably fail to respect individual liberty and equality. Just look at Asheville Christian Academy which does not allow women to serve on its board because "women are incapable of making tough decisions."
Islamic women are kept subordinate through education or, should I say, a lack thereof. (It wasn't until the mid-1800s that even America considered giving its women more than a rudimentary education.) The number of women in schools across the Islamic world is unacceptably low. Their education typically comes to an end once they are wed, which often happens at an early age. The schooling they do get is focused on the study of Islam. Even more disturbing is the increasing control fundamentalists exert over educational institutions and academic freedom is non-existent.
Anyway, here is what I understand to be the reason for the burqa. It is so a man will not lust after a woman. It is interesting to me that the burden of keeping a man from acting on his urges is placed on the woman. What is it about the Arab men that they are so easily excited by even the sight of a wrist or ankle that they require a woman to be covered from head to toe? Why does the woman have to bear the responsibility for HIS urges? THe men imprison their women in layers of fabric to keep them from being distracted in the practice of their faith. I believe there is an underlying mysogyny here. Islamic jurists have even characterized a woman's reproductive organ as the "ever-devouring vagina", making it appear that men could not possibly overcome the lure of it. Makes it sound more like some sort of sinister sucking drain. Seriously now!
It is time for fundmentalist Islamic men to muster some self-discipline and stop forcing others to handle what is obviously their problem. It would be akin to me having men castrated so I could uphold a vow of chastity.
This woman is clearly brainwashed into believing the burqa is an integral part of her faith. She has not deeply questioned her faith but rather accepted the arbitariness of it. (This is true for many, no matter what religion is followed.) If she really stopped for a moment, she would realize that it is not clothing that develops a relationship with God/Allah/Yahweh, but actions.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Freedom from Received Opinion
How much of what we believe in, react to, is merely received opinion? I suspect it is alot. We often marry ourselves to cultural, political and religious ideas that we were born into. I find it enslaving, constraining so...
I imagined my mind floating above a world, shaped not of land, but of "continents" of thought -- theological, philosophical, sociological -- hovering over them, detached. My whole life I have traveled to, and spent time on, several of those “continents.” I have made them my home, embracing them and defending them, jingo-istically so to speak. Today I increasingly resist those culturally-born boundaries. My mind flies above them relishing the freedom of no thought, of all thought combined. Where is the place where a truth pertaining to all can be found/absorbed/known?
Yet each of us is a prisoner of her or his thoughts. What’s more, we want, if not demand, others to see our truths as we see them. Many join a “club” of belief systems. Entire cultures subscribe to general concepts/thoughts and, even then the individual members never interpret the concepts/ideas/beliefs in exactly the same way.
Thoughts are as varied as the number of humans creating them. The influences and forces that we react to every second of every day is different for each and every one of us. And therein lies a sort of freedom. The freedom is in deciding that what you think/feel/believe can be truth for you because no one really knows for sure…at least not until we find a some sort of unified field theory. An ultimate truth that pertains to every aspect of the universe exists but I will never know it with my limited mind. Only until we achieve total acceptance of and adherence to universal truths will we ever be free.
(first contemplated in February 2007)
I imagined my mind floating above a world, shaped not of land, but of "continents" of thought -- theological, philosophical, sociological -- hovering over them, detached. My whole life I have traveled to, and spent time on, several of those “continents.” I have made them my home, embracing them and defending them, jingo-istically so to speak. Today I increasingly resist those culturally-born boundaries. My mind flies above them relishing the freedom of no thought, of all thought combined. Where is the place where a truth pertaining to all can be found/absorbed/known?
Yet each of us is a prisoner of her or his thoughts. What’s more, we want, if not demand, others to see our truths as we see them. Many join a “club” of belief systems. Entire cultures subscribe to general concepts/thoughts and, even then the individual members never interpret the concepts/ideas/beliefs in exactly the same way.
Thoughts are as varied as the number of humans creating them. The influences and forces that we react to every second of every day is different for each and every one of us. And therein lies a sort of freedom. The freedom is in deciding that what you think/feel/believe can be truth for you because no one really knows for sure…at least not until we find a some sort of unified field theory. An ultimate truth that pertains to every aspect of the universe exists but I will never know it with my limited mind. Only until we achieve total acceptance of and adherence to universal truths will we ever be free.
(first contemplated in February 2007)
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Bible Manipulated Once Again by the Self-Serving
The Taliban must be smiling over Asheville Christian Academy’s recent decision (ll/17/09) to exclude women from serving on its board. The Taliban might even be rethinking its strategy. Rather than seek to destroy our way of life, they may choose to nurture this spore of their ideology which is thriving in western North Carolina. This is not a stretch. The Board has manipulated a sacred text to claim dominance over women just as the clerics have done with the Koran. There are two versions of the Creation story in the Bible. Men and women were created equally at the same instant in one version but it is apparent the one studied by these insecure men is the “rib version.” They argue that women’s temperaments are not suited to making tough decisions. Tell that to Supreme Court Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor as well as Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin. Those bylaws weren't written in 1972 but rather 972.
To read the entirety of the article printed in the Asheville Citizen Times, follow this link: http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009911170322
To read the entirety of the article printed in the Asheville Citizen Times, follow this link: http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009911170322
Saturday, August 29, 2009
The Lioness on the Cheese Grater
I was recently checking out a synopsis of Lysistrata, the Greek comedy written by Aristophanes around 411 BCE. The women of Greece, sick of the wars on the Peloponnesis (431-404 BCE), took the dramatic step of denying men sex until they ceased the insanity. They also took over the acropolis which held the state treasury to hamper funding of the war. In a long, detailed oath the women abjure all their sexual pleasures, including the ever-popular ancient Greek position called "The Lioness on the Cheese Grater."
Well, I just had to know what this was. My research did not yield the answer, nor a picture, but I did come across an excellent blog on the more serious side of this topic. If you have time, check out the link below. It is about the steps that Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the first female president of Liberia, is taking to heal the wounds of civil war brought on by the men. "Her leadership is helping to inspire her countrywomen to seize control of their nation’s destiny, pulling it from the whirlpool of civil war onto the solid ground of a functioning democracy," he writes.
She is not doing it by denying sex to bring about change but she is modeling what female leadership looks like. Our priorities are different and with more in power, it is entirely possible the world would be a gentler place.
http://wordinedgewise.org/?p=57
Well, I just had to know what this was. My research did not yield the answer, nor a picture, but I did come across an excellent blog on the more serious side of this topic. If you have time, check out the link below. It is about the steps that Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the first female president of Liberia, is taking to heal the wounds of civil war brought on by the men. "Her leadership is helping to inspire her countrywomen to seize control of their nation’s destiny, pulling it from the whirlpool of civil war onto the solid ground of a functioning democracy," he writes.
She is not doing it by denying sex to bring about change but she is modeling what female leadership looks like. Our priorities are different and with more in power, it is entirely possible the world would be a gentler place.
http://wordinedgewise.org/?p=57
Monday, August 24, 2009
Making (Informed) Choices
In the past 50 years, the nation's food source has changed dramatically. The emergence of the fast food industry was the catalyst for this change. Books such as Fast Food Nation and In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto are today's Upton Sinclair-style exposés. Community seminars are also shedding light on the deleterious impact of the shift from family farms to highly mechanized agri-conglomerates on our environment and the nation's health.
Yet film is often unparalleled when it comes to getting a message across. This is certainly true of the recent documentary film "Food, Inc.," produced by Robert Kenner and Eric Schlosser. American consumers, it maintains, are blithely unaware of where their food sources with most laboring under the impression that it comes from bucolic farms. Viewers see, instead, a highly mechanized process run by poorly paid workers who are nothing more than human machines doing one simple task over and over again. The workers are treated only slightly better than the animals they are processing.
The message is clear. Consumers desirous of changing this scenario can make a difference by buying locally and/or making educated choices at the grocery store. Big business responds to consumer dollars.
Many people will choose not to see the film or read the books. One reason is they don't want to know. One person stated, "I don't want to see it (Food, Inc.) as I might become a vegetarian." It is a sad situation when one chooses not to know rather than be faced with having to make a change. It IS possible to have the information and NOT make a change but isn't it just better to know rather than to live in a deluded state? Ultimately the illusion falls away and then it is often too late to make another choice.
Yet film is often unparalleled when it comes to getting a message across. This is certainly true of the recent documentary film "Food, Inc.," produced by Robert Kenner and Eric Schlosser. American consumers, it maintains, are blithely unaware of where their food sources with most laboring under the impression that it comes from bucolic farms. Viewers see, instead, a highly mechanized process run by poorly paid workers who are nothing more than human machines doing one simple task over and over again. The workers are treated only slightly better than the animals they are processing.
The message is clear. Consumers desirous of changing this scenario can make a difference by buying locally and/or making educated choices at the grocery store. Big business responds to consumer dollars.
Many people will choose not to see the film or read the books. One reason is they don't want to know. One person stated, "I don't want to see it (Food, Inc.) as I might become a vegetarian." It is a sad situation when one chooses not to know rather than be faced with having to make a change. It IS possible to have the information and NOT make a change but isn't it just better to know rather than to live in a deluded state? Ultimately the illusion falls away and then it is often too late to make another choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)