The subject of gossip came up today, and I realized that gossip seems to be like pornography: I can’t tell you what it is, but I know it when I hear it.

Specifically, my friend and I were considering several cases.

If you pass along something that has happened to someone so others may know, such as a death in the family, a serious illness, or along happier lines an engagement, we don’t think that’s gossip. You’re sharing the news because you care about either the person to whom the incident happened, or you think the news will affect the person you are telling.

If your sharing information that may relate directly to you or your friends, I don’t think that’s gossip. I think this falls under the category of worrying about the future/bitching about the present.

The case that I wasn’t sure about was talking about your enemies and people you don’t like. If I gloat to my friend about something bad that happened to someone I don’t like, does this qualify as gossip? I’m not telling her so she’ll tell anyone else, I’m telling her because it makes my bitter little soul happy when bad things happen to bad people.

It seems to me that gossip primarily falls under the category of telling anyone who will listen news you know about other people. i.e. it isn’t personal in that you aren’t happy for the person, you aren’t worried about the person, the news does not affect you or the person you are telling directly, you’re just talking because you like talking about other people.

But I could be wrong. Maybe what I do falls into the category of gossip. If gossip is based upon intent, then I think I’m ok. But if it’s based solely upon talking about other people? Well, then I’m not so much of a good person.

An e-mail conversation got me thinking again about a subject I’ve been considering off and on for several years now, and that’s the change in attitudes in the United States towards multiculturalism.

My grandmother talks about how she regrets her parents never taught her Polish and Lithuanian. I have friends my age who speak only English, despite having a parent for whom English is not their first language.

Yet when I look at friends my own age with children, there is a push for the child to be bilingual, to speak the native languages of both parents (or of a grandparent in one case.)

It seems to me that between there is something profoundly different about my generation and those who are having kids now, and that is those my age want their children to be aware of their ancestry, their history, and the language and stories from which they descend.

So what changed between my parent’s generation and my generation? Well, the big thing that comes to mind is Civil Rights. The country had a radical shift from separate but equal to equality for all in the eyes of the law. And I think that profoundly changed the way my generation and those after me think.

In my grandmother’s time, having an accent meant that you dealt primarily with other immigrants. And I have to admit that until the great-depression, this worked very well for my great-grandfather. But I imagine that he came across prejudice for the way he spoke, and wanted to make sure his children would not suffer the same prejudice.

That doesn’t mean accents are acceptable across the US now. Unfortunately, there is still plenty of prejudice for those who speak with an accent of any sort. But being bilingual and fluent in more than one language is seen as something else entirely.

But even more than that I think there is a difference in how multi racial children are treated. Remember, it has been only 40 years since the Loving Decision. Only two years before I was born it was illegal in many states for interracial couples to get married. In such an atmosphere, is it a surprise that parents of a multiracial child would want to protect their child from the racism they may well have experienced in their daily lives?

But now such prejudices, although they still exist, are hidden away for the most part. There is no more rock throwing or name calling.

And I think this is a very important thing.

Is everything perfect? Hell no. There are parts of the country where you can be arrested for driving while black, where someone with dark skin and an accent is assumed to be either an illegal immigrant or a terrorist.

But when I sit and think that just 40 years ago interracial marriages were illegal, it seems to me that even if we still have a ways to go, we have still come very far, and it is important to remember and celebrate that fact.

May it not take 40 more years for us to come the rest of the way.

Yes, Eric is a fan of the God of Tapeworms.

Please, ask him how much he adores tapeworms.

Everyone else has been saying it, so I wasn’t going to say anything, but then I realized that it’s important to say something, because silences can be taken as tacit approval or disapproval.

So here it is:

I am thrilled and delighted that California is allowing same sex couples to get married. I think this is one of the best things that has happened in years.

I’ve been married now for 9 1/2 years, and I think there is something awesome about standing up and saying, “I love this person! I want to spend the rest of my life with this person!”

Marriage is an amazing thing. It’s a way of saying before the world that this is the person I love. No matter what, I am going to stick with this person and they are going to stick with me, because we complete each other.

I think that the more people that can say this and mean it and stick with it, the better the world will be.

Because really, how can the world have too much love?

So the pope is in the US. And his visit is all over the news.

All of which has served to remind me of the many problems I have with the Catholic church.

Religion is a very difficult subject for me to discuss here, because my family is quite devout, so I feel as if my lack of faith is letting them down.

Actually to be more clear, it is not a subject I have discussed with my family, first and foremost because I don’t want to upset them. (And that right there may tell you all you a whole lot about me.)

I think the biggest problem for me is that I have no faith–to try and put it another way, when it comes to religion, I feel nothing. When people talk about their faith and how it makes them feel, I have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about. It feels like I’m blind and someone is trying to explain color to me. I can accept the idea that such a thing exists, but I can’t imagine it myself.

From that stems all my other problems, I’d guess. Because since I lack faith, it fascinates me. I want to understand what other people think, why they feel the way they do, to see if I can figure out what is wrong with me that makes me different.

But I’ve found that this only makes things worse.

The more I read about religion, the less I understand it, and the more alien I feel from it.

Let’s take the Catholic Church for starters. Although there are some things I believe the church does right, there are many other things where I believe the church is mistake, and in their error are actually causing harm. Women in the priesthood. Birth control. Homosexuality. I think that by saying such things are wrong and unacceptable, the church is actually causing harm, not just to itself, but to the greater community.

These have long been issues for me, but the more I read and learned, the more areas of disagreement I found. Papal infallibility? Don’t accept it. Immaculate conception? That just seems like a really big fudge. And then there’s the creation of the New Testament. The Christian bible was created through years of what was essentially political wrangling. The idea that something was acceptable one year, and then suddenly out of the cannon seems ridiculous. And don’t even get me started on the translation errors and issues. You don’t like what the bible says? Just find another translation you like better.

Never mind the internal inconsistencies in the bible.

And then there’s the whole relativism thing. The pope is really big on telling us how bad relativism is. Well, guess what? I’m a huge relativist.

First and foremost, I don’t think God damns people for calling God by different names, or for worshiping in one manner over another. I also don’t think God is the sadist many make God out to be. I mean, the seven circles of hell? That sounds not like the God of loving kindness, but instead like a vengeful human hoping that his enemies get what’s coming to them.

Secondly, the more I read about different religions, the more similarities I see between them. Why allow humans to create different religions that are REALLY similar, but not QUITE the same, so these religions can all claim superiority and cause more war and suffering than any other subject in the history of humanity.

But putting all that aside, I don’t think the God described in these religions fits into the world today–or even the world of the past. Now before your head explodes, let me explain. American Christianity seems to have some bizarre focus upon a personal God. The God of healing and miracles. Well, when I look around the world I see absolutely no sign of that God. I see a world that continues on it’s merry way with no external intervention. Which is GREAT as far as I’m concerned, because I think a personal God counter-indicates free-will. And I’m an even bigger fan of free will than I am of relativism.

So I look at the world, with my lack of faith and my lack of belief. I see a world completely unlike the world described by so many religions.

But I don’t see a bad world. And I don’t see one in which God is absent. I simply see a world in which God exists in everything, and it is up to us to recognize that fact, and treat all other creatures accordingly.

Yesterday we had an inch of snow and the temperature didn’t get about 35 (however, this was limited to this area, as it was in the upper 40s at Parkersburg). Today the temperature got up to the low 60s and was sunny.

Hurrah for layers!

We all went out to lunch today, which is a good thing, because my grandmother doesn’t really like to go out that much, but my house is so small, she doesn’t get enough walking around here, even when she walks back and forth through the house. Of course since she’s out at least once a week for doctor appointments, I suppose she’s getting her exercise there.

But back to lunch. We went her new favorite restaurant, Cheddar’s, which she likes because the food is very good and very inexpensive. (Three of us ate lunch and shared a dessert for $25.) But as it is Sunday, it was incredibly busy (And there’s something I don’t get either. How come all these “Christians” who think that homosexuality is EVIL because the bible says so, have no problem ignoring the command to keep the sabbath holy by forcing minimum wage workers to work long shifts on Sunday and be away from their families? There’s a long rant for another time.) so we had to wait half an hour for a table, which I was expecting (having worked food service for years myself. [Are you still with me here? Not to many parenthetical asides for you? Good.]) What was interesting to notice which customers paid attention to others in the waiting area.

By the time I had parked the car, my grandmother was seated on one of the benches and Michael was standing in front of her chatting. After a brief moment, the mother and daughter who were sitting beside her got up so Michael and I could have their seats. I protested, but they left, so we sat. As we waited, I paid attention to who sat and who stood, and who offered their seats to others.

After one white haired couple put their name on the list, they turned around and there were no seats, so they stood in the middle of the lobby, right in front of us and two college students (a young couple). After a minute, when the college students didn’t get up to offer their seats, I got up and offered them my seat (and Michael’s seat).

It just leads me to wonder, what people are thinking (or not) as they wait. When we’ve got (without my grandmother) to restaurants where there is a long wait, I inevitably give up my seat for older customers or pregnant women (especially the ones who like they’re about 10 months pregnant and about to fall over). Now don’t get me wrong, I absolutely don’t mind doing this, but as there are other able bodied men and women in the lobby, I wonder why no one else ever offers their seat to someone else? Is this common elsewhere or just here? Or do I spent more time people watching and am just more likely to notice older couples and pregnant women who need to get off their feet?

John Scalzi finally went to the Creation Museum. Essay AND a photo set with snarky comments!

My favorite part is “vegetarian dinosaurs.”

I read a fascinating article this morning on the Amish and forgiveness.

Really, it’s interesting. Go read it.

Back? Good.

First of all, I find it astounding that they are able to forgive so quickly and seemingly easily. That has to be very, very hard. But it also gives me great hope, to know that human beings are actually capable of forgiveness, even under such terrible circumstances. Maybe the human race isn’t completely doomed after all.

I also note that they separate forgiveness from grief. Because you have forgive someone, it doesn’t seem to mean that you don’t still feel grief for the loss. That’s kinda important. You can still feel pain about a situation, but it doesn’t necessarily help to feel anger as well as pain.

But forgiveness is a very hard thing. It’s something that comes up sometimes when you’re dealing with depression. Even if your depression isn’t caused by something that someone did to you, it may be caused by an inability to forgive yourself.

My depression falls into the later category. For the most part, I can get beyond things that people do to me (I do tech support. If I took everything personally my head would have exploded years ago.) but I find it far harder to forgive similar lapses in myself. After all, I did some pretty stupid stuff when I was younger, so it’s easy for me to see where other people are coming from. It’s far harder to accept stupidity from myself, after all, I should have known better, right?

Not really. But that doesn’t always stop me.

So maybe I need to take a lesson from the Amish and forgive. Forgive those who have hurt me, but also forgive myself, because I am just as deserving of my own forgiveness as anyone else.

It’s Banned Book Week.

Go read something subversive.

Here are the most frequently challenged books for 2006:

1. And Tango Makes Three by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell
2. Gossip Girls series by Cecily Von Ziegesar
3, Alice series by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor
4. The Earth, My Butt, and Other Big Round Things by Carolyn Mackler
5. The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison
6. Scary Stories  series by Alvin Schwartz
7. Athletic Shorts by Chris Crutcher
8. The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky
9. Beloved by Toni Morrison
10. The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier

Here are the most challenged books for the first half of this decade:

Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling
“The Chocolate War” by Robert Cormier
Alice series by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor
“Of Mice and Men” by John Steinbeck
“I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings” by Maya Angelou
“Fallen Angels” by Walter Dean Myers
“It’s Perfectly Normal” by Robie Harris
Scary Stories series by Alvin Schwartz
Captain Underpants series by Dav Pilkey
“Forever” by Judy Blume

Me? I just finished catching up on an excellent comic series, and am now reading some supernatural fiction and trying to figure out what else I want to be reading (aside from everything listed in the sidebar.)

(more…)

I think what I found most amusing, was that the last question was, “Do you read the bible” and my answer was “No.”

I just read a lot about religion is all.

Too bad it doesn’t tell me what I missed. I’m pretty sure it was one or both of the “which book follows which book” questions.
(more…)

If this isn’t a mistranslation, then the I must say that the pope is a true politician.

…I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims.

Yes, I am quite certain that the pope is sorry that Muslims around the world reacted badly to his quotation of Emperor Manuel II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire.

Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached

However, I’d rather read that he’s sorry for what he said. I find it difficult to believe that he didn’t consider the reaction of his words before he said them. After all, it’s not as if the Catholic church was a paragon of peace and human rights at that time. The Crusades stretched the thirteenth century, the Spanish Inquisition began in the fifteenth century.

I was initially going to ignore the remarks by the pope. After all, I don’t like him, so I know I’m likely to take things he says the wrong way. However, if he can’t even get an apology right, then I fear that my negative impressions of the head of the Catholic church may be well-founded.

There was a bit this morning, just as I woke up, on the health aspects of forgiveness.

One comment was that if you forgive someone, and they don’t apologize in response, then what’s the point?

The reply was (in essence) that forgiveness is not to get a response out of the other person who has hurt you, but for you yourself, so you can get on with your life.

It made me think about times I’ve seen, primarily from “evangelical Christians,” people who will often speak openly about “forgiving you” for your transgression/sin/whatever. They’re often quite blunt and in the face about it, stepping right up to get that other cheek slapped.

I don’t think they have it right any more that the person who wanted an apology in response to their forgiveness. From where I’m standing, they don’t look like they actually forgive. They’re just trying to look better than their transgressor. It comes across as “look what a good Christian I am! I’m forgiving my enemies, just like Jesus said!” Which seems to be missing the point entirely.

They are openly forgiving those who have trespassed against them, yet who quite obviously do not want or need to hear abot that forgiveness, and who in many cases see that “forgiveness” as yet another slap in the face; a part of the original argument.

If you forgive someone–truly forgive someone–who has hurt you or upset you, do you always need to tell that person you have forgiven them? Is that the only way for them to know that you have forgiven them?

It seems to me that the answer is no, you don’t, and in some cases, if make a point to tell the person that you are forgiving them, then you aren’t really forgiving them at all. Forgiveness is something that happens to you. Often something you have to work very hard to achieve. Forgiveness is not just something that occurs when you say the words.

“I forgive you.”

Sometimes, yes, you do need to say those words. To let the person know that enough water has passed under the bridge. To let them know (to quote Concrete Blonde), “I’m not angry anymore.”

But I don’t think that is the case for all situations. And I don’t think that in most cases when the words are still hot on your tongue–or hot in your ears–that forgiveness is what is called for.

Sometimes, when you think that you need to give forgiveness, maybe what you need to give is an apology. Or maybe you just need to step back from the situation, to give everyone room to breathe and room to consider. Then later, when you’ve come to terms with the situation, that is the time to forgive. That’s the time for you to move on with your life, to forgive, regardless of whether the other person knows or not.

Godchecker.com.

This is wonderful!
(via Making Light)

Dante’s Nine Circles of Hell and those who reside there.