Something New

I normally don't address politics.  Predominantly because it causes fights and I'm not a big fan of those.  But at this point i really don't care who I piss off.  I have to join the band of arm waving, screaming, mad as hell women in this one.  So here we go...

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum (this is a gut who wants to run your country, ladies and gentlemen) believes that birth control "shouldn't be covered by insurance at all."  He says that birth control is "a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."  He wrote a book in 2005 called It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good.  In this book he makes his his opposition to contraception (as well as to abortion, even in the case of rape) very well known.  To me it seems like he has a deep hostility toward efforts to empower women and enhance their status.  He has a VERY stone age view of women.  I'm floored that his wife puts up with that.  I know I wouldn't.

He claims that "men and women be given an equal opportunity to make it to the top in the workplace" and calls opposing claims from women a "radical feminist pitch."  Really, buddy?  REALLY???  It's not much of a surprise to me that his wife was not listed as a co-author of this book.  I wouldn't want my name anywhere near that.

There's one section of the book that really makes my blood boil.  In his book he dismisses programs to help impoverished single mothers improve their job prospects by returning to school by saying that "the notion that college education is a cost-effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs move up the economic ladder is just wrong."  Santorums' apparent hostility to women's educational and professional advancement is insulting and out of touch with today's world. But it is also odd in light of their purported interest in the welfare of children. It turns out that the most powerful single influence on a child's educational success is not the mother's marital status but her own level of education and her educational aspirations for her children.  BOOM!  Take that, jerk!

Let's go back to the issue of birth control and abortion for a second.  Now, I consider myself predominantly pro-life.  But if a woman or girl is raped and gets pregnant, she should have the choice of what to do in that situation.  End of story.

About 2 weeks ago, Santorum (of course) was bashing Presidential candidate Mitt Romney about a few things that he's done as Massachusetts Governor.  Gov. Romney "required all Massachusetts hospitals, including Catholic ones, to provide emergency contraception to rape victims."  Good!  They deserve to have that choice!  But, of course, Santorum had to crap all over that.  He said " I believe in my 'heart of hearts' that receiving these contraceptives – free of charge – trumped employees' religious consciences."  Well... If the employee feels that way, they can get another employee to do it.  Or perhaps they shouldn't be working in a field where this kind of thing happens.  Daily.  Or they can just get their heads out of their butt cracks and deal with the reality that SHIT HAPPENS!!!!

Which brings me to Obama.  He decided to take this thing and run with it.  And screw with insurance, too!  Again!  He's put forth a "new policy concerning employer-provided health insurance plans and their coverage of contraceptive services for female employees including those at religiously affiliated institutions."  Basically that means that if you're a woman and you work for a church then your employer can deny you health coverage for your birth control.  So not only can the government screw your health care up, now your employer may be able to as well.  Under the new plan, religiously affiliated universities and hospitals will not be forced to offer contraception coverage to their employees. Insurers will be required, however, to offer complete coverage free of charge to women who work at such institutions. Female employees at churches themselves will have no guarantee of any contraception coverage.

I just don't understand how the health of women has become such a huge issue.  It's my body.  It's my life.  It's my choice.  I suppose in a male-dominated society, it's become easy for them to say "oh they don't need this right."  Well, guess what....  77% of anti-abortion and anti-birth control leaders are men.  100% of them will never be pregnant.  They will never have to experience the shame of being a 13 year old rape victim seeing that little pink plus sign materialize.  That is hell.  Right there.

That's for you, Santorum!

The health rights of any person should not be a legal debate!  My body isn't a government battleground!  So stop forcing your religious convictions down my throat and take care of your own problems while I take care of mine.

Amen.

To see another totally epic blog on this subject, click here.

Scooter Out.

Why Shouldn't I Have Tattoos?

To me, this is a rather absurd debate.  Why shouldn't I have tattoos?  Well, a few would say that as a Christian it's wrong for me to have them.  Those are also the same Bible-thumping judgemental bigots who try to condemn me to Hell for being a homosexual (GASP!!).  So why should I care what they think?  In all honesty, I don't.  But it also sparked me to want to dig a bit deeper on why people think Christians shouldn't have tattoos.

Tattooing dates back to almost the dawn of time.  Archaeologists have discovered tattooed mummies dating back to circa 3300 BC.  In Borneo, tattoos were believed to ward off harm and disease.  In Polynesian culture, tattoos are a right of passage into manhood.  All of us are familiar with the war paint of the Native Americans, right?  Well they believed that their war paint would protect them from harm in battle.  There have been historical reports from civilizations all over the world stating that people believed tattoos were everything from a protective force in battle to something that would give them magical powers to something that they couldn't gain admittance into the after-life without.  So why are they such a big deal?  Because they began as a Pagan practice.

As my personal opinion i think it's stupid and narrow-minded to look down on a Christian for having tattoos just because they began as a Pagan practice.  They date back to 3300 BC for goodness sakes!  And correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't BC stand for Before Christ?  What else were people supposed to worship before Christianity?  Were they just supposed to be psychic and know the Truth?  Of course not.  But, we know better, so we shouldn't mar the bodies God gave us that way.  At least that's what I've been told.  But answer me this...  Where in the Bible does it say "Thou shalt not have tattoos."?  If you can point me to that verse, I'll gladly go get my tattoo lasered off.  Until then, it stays where it is and the list of 6 other tattoos I plan on getting is still considered a "To Do" list.

I understand that tattoos began as a "heathen" practice.  I also understand the the Bible tells us that the Lord condemned all heathen practices.  But what about the people who have tattoos expressing their Christianity?  What is so wrong with that?  Or the tattoos people get in remembrance of a loved one who passed?  Or a daughter who gets a pink ribbon tattoo in support of her mother who is fighting breast cancer?  Yes I know that for every beautiful tattoo that has a wonderful meaning to it's owner, there are an equal number of people covered in racist and gang related tattoos.  But aren't we as Christians supposed to look for the good in others?  To look past some one's history and what they look like, to the heart and soul of the person?  But, let's get real here.  Most of us don't.  Christians are some of the most judgemental people I've met.  They go around thinking they're better than everyone else because they believe in God.  But let me force the reality pill down your throat for a second.... Satan himself also believes in God.  Just marinate on that for a second...

I'm gonna go back to "not marring the body God gave you" thing for a second...  We are told to treat our bodies like temples, right?  Well temples are FULL of artwork and engravings and other decorative things.  What more is a tattoo than an engraved piece of artwork (or decoration) on your skin??  In a sense, we ARE treating our bodies like temples!  Also, a tattoo could open a conversation about the Lord with a stranger who would have otherwise remained lost.  In short, I just don't see the big deal about a Christian having tattoos.

I have my own personal reason for this blog, as I do any other one I'll type.  My personal reason is this:

I was in Walgreen's the other day picking up some face wash and Kleenex.  There was an old woman and her granddaughter in line behind me.  Now, the tattoo I have is small and on the inside of my wrist, so the only way this woman could have seen it is if she was looking at my wrist when i reached up to brush my hair out of my face.  ::Side note - My hair is also partially purple, which may have added some fuel to this woman's fire::  She went off and proceeded to tell me that I was going to Hell for "destroying the temple God gave you" in such a "vulgar and tasteless manner."  Until then I was completely unaware that the word "Love" was vulgar and tasteless.  That's still news to me!  I could have said a lot of things to this woman, including telling her that I'm a lesbian and would do VERY dirty things to her extremely sexy and clearly lesbian granddaughter.  But I smiled at her.  and I said "God bless you, ma'am."  Then I collected my things and left the store. 

Now answer me this... Was it "Christian" for that woman to judge me based on what I look like?  Was it "Christian" of her to condemn me to Hell?  I don't think it was, but maybe I expect different behavior from fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.  Oh, well.  I guess that's what I get for having high expectaions of others, isn't it?

I'd love to hear the opinions of others on this topic.  Should Christians have tattoos or not?  Let me know what you think!

Scooter Out.

Born this way or a subconcious choice?

I'm going to address the issue of homosexuality.  And, no, that is not all I talk about, and I'm not some psycho radical lesbian trying to promote her own agenda.  It just happens to be on my mind at the time, so stop stereotyping me and open your mind. 

I've been told that I chose to be gay, whether i realize it or not.  I've been told that I'm seeking attention.  I've been told that due to the fact that I grew up in a house with a belligerent male alcoholic that I'm traumatized by men and can't mentally handle being with one.  I've been told that I have a chemical imbalance in my brain that a bit of psychotherapy would fix.  I've been told that God can cure me if I ask Him to.  I've been told that I have a genetic mutation due to all the pesticides and fertilizers and steroids used on the food we all consume.  I chose to believe that I was just born this way.  Whatever the reason may be, I am gay.  But I'm very obviously not the only homosexual human.  And humans are not the only homosexual species.  Let me explain...

Current biological research tells us that many animal species exhibit homosexual, bisexual, and even transgender behavior.  In 2007, Peter Backman set forth the theory that no species has been found that didn't exhibit some form of homosexual behavior, except those that do not have sex, such as sea urchins and aphids.  So why do some people say it's against nature if it's all over nature??  Let's take a step further and talk about gender.

Any person who has ever seen the movie Jurassic Park knows that "some West African frogs have been know to spontaneously change sex from male to female in a single-sex environment".  Which is quite true.  There are also several sea-dwelling creatures (i.e. - fish and several species of mollusk) that can do the same thing.  So why is it considered wrong and strange if a human being wants to change his or her gender?  Maybe the genetic mutation isn't in the gay and transgender population.  May the genetic mutation is in ALL of us.  What if we were originally able to change gender as well?  What if, considering that nearly all species on the earth exhibit some kind of homosexual behavior, we were all meant to understand and embrace it?  What id Plato was right when he wrote his Symposium which included Aristophanes's speech.  if you have never heard the story, I will post it below:

One upon a time, many years ago, every person was double.  Two humans, joined back to back that moved across the land foot over hand doing cartwheels.  These double people had the strength of two and were swift as they moved.  One day, these double people decided to ascend Mount Olympus and war with the gods.  Zeus, the king of the gods, became angry.  As punishment, the double people were split in two to form what we know at humans today.  We are now slower and weaker, and not only that, we spend our lives looking for out "other half".  Now, there were three genders of these double people:  the all-male, the all-female, and the androgynous, which was one male and one female.  This was the story to explain why some lovers are straight, and others gay.  this story has always made sense to me because it seems fair. 

I'm sure I'm going to get looked at funny for this defense of homosexuality, especially considering that I am a Christian.  But, aren't we all made in the image of God?  Murderers and rapists and pedophiles and thieves.... The Bible says ALL are made in the image of God.  Not just straight people.  Not just nice people.  All of us.  But God gave us a free will to let us chose him or not chose Him ans we are of a sinful nature.  So instead of spending so much time judging each other for our differences, why don't we stop and look at our similarities?  Take the time to replace hate and judgement with love and acceptance?  It's a lovely concept when you think about it.  But who will step up to the challenge?  Who will honestly try to look at others from a point of familiarity instead of strangeness?  I pray we all do someday.

Scooter Out.