Sincere Holiday Well-Wishing

Apparently, 'tis the season to be offended.  I'm told that if I wish someone a "Merry Christmas", I'm being offensive because maybe they don't celebrate Christmas.  But the back-lash to this idea has reached the point where people express offense because they aren't wished a Merry Christmas.  They are actively offended by wishes of "Season's Greetings" or "Happy Holidays".  They bemoan the removal of Christ from Christmas.  Twice this holiday season I've received particularly belligerent well wishes of "Merry Christmas! (Yes, I said "Christmas" because Jesus is the reason for the season and if you don't like it you can stick it!)" -- well, I'm sure you get the picture.

Really, I understand the sentiments behind both sides of the issue.  People don't like religion crammed down their throats, and people feel defensive of their own beliefs.  I do understand the implied connection to the larger issues of separation of church and state, as well.  The government is supported by and serves all of us, and shouldn't be seen as promoting any religion.  But let's be reasonable.  Is hearing "Merry Christmas" or merely being exposed to the celebration really grounds to take offense?  Outside of state-sponsored institutions and programs, do we really have a right to be free from exposure to the dominant culture?  Do we really have a "right" to not be wished well?  Truly, when most people say "Merry Christmas" that's exactly what they are doing.  They are not splashing holy water on you or trying to convert you.  "Merry Christmas" from the mouths of the vast majority is simply the Thanksgiving-to-New Year equivalent of "Haveaniceday", though I suspect it's usually a bit more sincere.

On the other hand, no matter how washed in the blood of Jesus you are, if you live in America you live in a largely pluralistic society.  Sure, there are far more (nominal) Christians than any other religion (or lack thereof) in the country, but we do live in a world where different points of view abound.  If you want to wish the world a Merry Christmas, I say have at it, but why not let other people express their greetings as they see fit for whatever reasons they see fit.  If I wish you "Happy Holidays" why not take that with the same grace you'd expect me to take your "Merry Christmas"?  Why assume that I'm being held hostage by some sort of "political correctness"?  Maybe I'm being sensitive to others' feelings, or maybe I don't believe in Jesus, but I want to participate in the "Season", which after all is as much a hodgepodge of pagan ritual and various pre-Christian winter festival customs as it is anything directly stemming from Christianity.  (Even most Christian scholars agree, for instance, that Christ was not born in December.)  But I digress.  My point is it shouldn't matter one way or the other.  Celebrate as you see fit, and if you want to wish others well, do so sincerely, but let others do the same.  And if you don't feel like wishing others well, well don't.  But why take needless offense at someone else's good intentions?

There are surely more important battles to be fought over freedom of (and from) religion.  The "Merry Christmas" battle is a monumentally stupid one on both sides.  It does nothing to pursued or promote a better world but only spreads the "circle the wagons" mentality on either camp.  Let there be Peace on Earth, and let's all be free to express that wish however we see fit.

Death Becomes Her?

I was recently chatting with a friend about life, immortality, and death.  We were mostly talking about the increasing human lifespan, at least in most developed countries, and what the future of technology holds for those who are lucky enough to live to take advantage of inevitable breakthroughs in the problems of aging, disease, and death.  Although my friend seemed excited by the prospect of eliminating diseases and improving the quality of life of the elderly, she surprised me by adding, "of course, I wouldn't want to live forever." Now this shouldn't have surprised me, I guess.  I've heard it many times before, as I've also heard her explanation:  "If you lived forever, wouldn't life get terribly boring?" 

OK, so I wasn't exactly surprised, but I was a bit taken aback, as I always am when I hear this thought expressed.  My friend isn't a particularly bored person, and she's certainly not boring.  She seems to always be interested in something exciting or new (to her, at least) or fun.  It's not that she's flighty or superficial. It's just that she's immensely curious.  "If you get bored," I told her, "move to the south of France.  But death?  At least France has email, and the return flights are cheaper."

On the one hand, I guess I sort of get her point.  There is arguably a finite amount of information to be learned in the world, so at some point I guess you will have seen it all.  However, it seems like it would take so long to reach that point that this really no longer becomes a reason to accept death, at least not death as we briefly-lived humans know it.  It would take so long, in fact, that I'm not even sure I can wrap my head around the length of time it would take.  To me, it seems like that alone is good enough reason to want to live "forever" or at the very least make death into a door we only open when we choose to.

And is there any other reason why we'd choose to open that door, other than boredom?  Dread of a few upcoming events might make it seem attractive to die before they come.  Eventually, our sun is going to die.  Before that happens, she'll balloon up, completely engulfing Mercury and Venus, and if not engulfing Earth, at least making it too hot for life here.  Of course, by then we may have moved the species off-planet to what by then might be a few balmy moons of Jupiter or Saturn.  Then, of course we'd face the eventual dying of the sun.  But maybe by then we'll have world-sized interstellar spaceships, zipping us along to new star systems.  Who knows?  But isn't finding out sort of the point?

Some will say that even if we last beyond the death of the sun, eventually we'll find our galaxy standing seemingly alone in a universe expanding so fast we won't even see our nearest galactic neighbor.  On the other hand, maybe we'll kill ourselves with climate change, or global war, or maybe get hit by an Earth-shattering asteroid while our backs are turned in political and religious infighting.  Even so, wouldn't it be enough just to know how it all ends?

Another of my friends, Ty, and I talked about this once.  He was equally as baffled by the death-welcoming attitude of most people we knew.  We agreed that we're going to have to be forcibly evicted from this life, kicking and screaming.  I haven't talked to him for far too long, but we have a standing date to do some inter-galactic backpacking a few million years from now if we get this whole death thing licked.  All the rest of you adventurous spirits are welcome to join us.  I can't begin to tell you what that will be like, except to promise that it won't be boring!

*****

P.S.  A Christian friend of mine (also of the "won't it get boring" camp), reading a draft of this said that if I don't die, I won't know the joys of the next life.  My reply to that is two-fold:  First, if there is a "next life" it'll still be there when I'm kicked out of this one, and second, if you can't find enough to hold your interest now, what makes you think you'll fare better in "eternity" somewhere else?

Catching up

Quite a lot has happened since I last updated this blog.  Primarily, I've come to realize that as much as I love massage, it's not going to be a practical long-term career for me.  There are a couple of reasons for this.  First of all, I think I came to this profession too late in life.  While I believe I have above-average skill in the art of massage, I don't think my body is going to hold up for a decade of this work, full-time, much less through retirement.  If I have enough work to not feel anxious about money, then my hands hurt almost constantly.  Ironically, massage has given me a lot of time to think about this.  While giving a massage, I can often achieve a state of meditation, and this has given me ample opportunity to reflect on my life and my long-term goals.  

I've always been interested in psychology - in what motivates people and in why they believe and act as they do.  I've also been reading a lot of science blogs and books, as well as books on philosophy and religion.  Of course, I've also been an observer of contemporary "culture wars", especially concerning gay rights.  Living in Utah has also brought home the struggles of gay people who live in especially conservative and unsupportive environments.  Add to that the fact that I'm increasingly regretting the fact that I never went back to college after completing my associate's degree, and that brings you to my latest adventure.  I'll be attending the University of Utah this fall, double-majoring in Psychology and Philosophy.  Truthfully, I'm not exactly sure where this is going to take me, but the more I learn about the field, the more I believe I have something to contribute.

I love giving massage.  I've connected with a lot of people in a very intimate setting, often helping them to work through recovery from painful accidents and surgeries.  This is really the first time I've dedicated myself to a profession where the primary satisfaction I receive is that of improving the lives of my clients in some small way.  Most of the jobs I've done in the past have had a large service element, which I have always enjoyed and which is probably why I've felt drawn to massage in the first place.  I'll continue giving massage, at least until I graduate.  Hopefully I'll be able to maintain enough of a clientele to help pay for school.  But even if at some point I don't give another massage, I don't regret the effort I've put into learning the craft, and I'm very grateful to those who have given me their trust as clients and friends.  

To Those Who Love Too Early and Too Deep

To those who love too early and too deep,
Whose love is both impractical and bold,
Who wage wild dreams and trouble their own sleep
And find their beds without him all too cold.
I know the passions burning in your heart.
I know the pressure building in your chest.
I know the quick despair each time you part.
I know the joy and pain and all the rest,
And though I have no words to ease the fears
That love won’t last or he won’t love in kind,
Believe in love despite the pain of tears
That threaten every time he comes to mind.
  I know that love is all we need to know;
  Despite the risks, I’d ever have it so.

[Karl Jennings, Dec 28, 2010]

This poem came to me earlier today almost whole. I know what it's like to love to early and too deep(ly) (Ha! Poetic license trumps grammar). I've jumped in almost blindly to every friendship and romance I've had. This is especially true for those relationships that have meant the most to me. So for what it's worth, I can relate to those of you who fall hard and quick and sometimes find it not returned or ill timed or just too much too quickly for the object of affection. Despite that, though, to me there's a freshness and an honesty in letting people know how you feel. The greatest tragedy would be not to show it and miss a joy that could have been.

I've Boldly Broken From the Traveled Road

I’ve boldly broken from the traveled road.  
The toll, I found, was much to dear to pay.
I’ve left the path, ignored the ancient code.
With one last glance I’ve thrown my maps away.
For where I head no map can be designed.
There are no guarantees of how I’ll fare
Though you may call me “lost”, I hope to find
A life and love more beautiful and rare.
But I would travel pathless, not alone.
Will you come with me, Angel, lover, friend?
And you, my Lover-Saint, can we as one
In life, in love, seek out a better end?
  Let others walk the wider path and scorn
  While we find out how better loves are born.

[Karl Jennings - 12/24/2010]

I've found the most joy in my life in unconventional places. I don't know what it is about the "beaten path" but it always seems to become an end in itself, even when the more fertile fields of life and love have migrated elsewhere. I've come to the realization that life is too short to waste time following paths that only have the virtue of being well traveled. I don't intend to be a trail blazer, necessarily, though if I find what I'm looking for, I'll try to leave the trail well marked. I hope some of you will come with me, and others will forge new paths of their own.

Halloween Treat

I love Halloween.  I especially like the old-style spookiness that often seems to be forgotten in favor of blood and gore these days.  I also really enjoy spooky stories, poems and other writing and like to try my hand at it around this time of year.  This year, I came across a challenge to write a short story, (300 words), and it had to involve a pumpkin.  Here's my attempt:


Jack

Summoned from another year’s rest, I will protect you from darkness and from evil.  I’ve done this since ancient times, watching from porch or fence, daring the Evil Ones from making mischief here.  Oh, they will make mischief.  The lucky or persistent ones may even find a home where they can latch-on to strife or anger, hatred, envy, greed or any other misery.  Then they will do mischief, and more, but not here.  Not on my watch.  The oldest ones know better, but the younger, foolish ones I gobble up and swallow back to the dark place where they can think about their foolishness for another year.  Better luck next time, heh, heh.  

This is the charge I was born for: to protect you during this brief time when evil pours anew into your realm.  But each year I see fewer and fewer of my comrades.  Your neighbors have turned the ritual into a game, making mockery of the sacred gourds.  They forget the ancient ritual, the sacred symbols for eye and nose and mouth.  They carve bats and greetings and even (ugh) kittens into the sacred fruit, or worse.  The fools will weep.

But tonight I guard you, who remembers the sacred ways.  My face is fierce and my flame is strong.  I will keep the dark things from your home even as your neighbors are invaded.  (Kittens?  Really?)

Now the witching hour approaches.  Now the evil presses in from every shadow.  Now I burn with righteous fire!  But wait!  No!  My fire is weak.  My candle burns low.  It gutters and will go out!  That Old One!  It sees me falter.  You will be naked to him and he knows it.  Foolish mortal!  To leave me so weak at this evil hour!  This is not a game!  THIS IS NOT A GA--

Gay Marriage Opposition Shows No Substance

The initial trial over Prop 8 is over and I'm sure no one reading this is unaware that Judge Walker ruled the proposition unconstitutional.  Of course, proponents of the proposition are appealing the decision, and the question probably won't be settled until it goes to the Supreme Court.  However, Judge Walker's opinion (which can be read in its entirety here) makes it clear that proponents of Prop 8 had no other basis than religious bigotry for barring same-sex couples from the right to marry.

This is monumental.  As is well documented, the campaign for Prop 8, while a California state initiative that would have no standing outside the state of California, was heavily influenced by organizations (mostly religious) who drew enormous resources from out of state.  When Prop 8 was challenged in federal court, the state officials named as defendants (including Gov. Schwarzenegger) chose not to defend the proposition, the state Attorney General even conceding the unconstitutionality of the proposition.  This left the organization and individuals initially responsible for the proposition to come to its defense.  Because this issue has been touted almost as a last stand for "traditional marriage", and has enjoyed the support of such deep pockets and well organized indoctrinators as the Mormon and Catholic Churches, one should expect that this defense represented the best arguments available for preventing gay marriage.  Of course, in a court of law in a country where laws are not supposed to be enacted on purely religious bases, the proponents of Prop 8 took pains to avoid explicitly religious arguments supporting their proposition.  Unsurprisingly to many, without "god says so", they had nothing to left to offer, and Judge Walker agreed.

As one would expect in a pluralistic society such as ours, Judge Walker maintains:


"A state’s interest in an enactment must of course be secular in nature. The state does not have an interest in enforcing private moral or religious beliefs without an accompanying secular purpose."

Left to show a secular purpose behind their proposition to bar gays from marriage, the proponents of Prop 8 claimed that "the state's interest in marriage is procreative", but when asked to explain how allowing gays to marry would adversely affect this interest, the only response they had was "I don't know".  Despite this, they claimed they would show some 23 specific harmful consequences that would result from allowing gays to marry.  In the words of Judge Walker:

"At trial, however, proponents presented only one witness, David Blankenhorn, to address the government interest in marriage. Blankenhorn’s testimony is addressed at length hereafter; suffice it to say that he provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate."

The opposition purported to provide evidence that children raised in straight households fare better than those raised in same-sex households.  They failed to show any credible evidence of this.  Not a single legitimate study has shown this to be true, and in fact, the studies cited by the plaintiff's lawyers showed the opposite, that there was no appreciable difference in the adjustment or care of children raised by gays or lesbians, and those raised in more "traditional" families.  


In the end, the key witness for the proponents of Prop 8 agreed with the plaintiffs:

“Blankenhorn noted that marriage would benefit same-sex couples and their children, would reduce discrimination against gays and lesbians and would be 'a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion.'”

In spite of that admission, Blankenhorn maintained that gays should be denied the right to marry on the basis of his unsubstantiated opinion that to allow them to marry would "weaken the institution of marriage".  Anyone following the debates about gay marriage should be all too familiar with this vapid, yet often repeated platitude, clung to so desperately by the anti-gay-marriage crowd.  For years proponents of gay rights have asked "How, exactly?"  Now, officially and before a federal judge they reveal their only legitimate answer "I don't know."


Religions enjoy a lot of freedom in the United States.  They are free to disseminate all manner of doctrines, theories, creeds, and even diatribes, venom, racism and bigotry, as are the rest of us.  What they don't have the freedom to do in the United States is to legislate their private religiously based morality.  To enact laws abridging the activity of others in the United States, they have to show that there is a compelling state interest in that abridgment.  The proponents of Prop 8, despite the support of highly organized and well financed organizations on a national level, have failed utterly to show any state interest in denying marriage rights to gays.  I submit that this is because there is none.  If there were, the Prop 8 trial would surely have been the place to show it.