Anger to the left of me, rage to the right of me ...

With the current political climate of the United States, I find myself struggling with rage on an almost daily basis. The economy is horrible -- jobs simply aren't there. Unemployment has let thousands barely keep their head above water, and yet the standard conservative line is that these people are just lazy and need to go get jobs.

With the lack of jobs, recent collage grads aren't able to immediately join the work force, which will do nothing by harm their future financial opportunities. Banks have enough financial opportunities for the whole world, and in anger, Occupy Wall Street is formed. Yet conservatives frame it as they simply want handouts without working.

We're in 2012, and conservatives are having serious debates as to whether birth control should even be covered under insurance plans -- 2012. And whether a woman has the right to control her fertility (and by default, the path her life goes), is under attack.

Healthcare costs skyrocketing. Teachers are the favorite scapegoats ...

How can anyone not be angry?

And this feels like a personalized anger to me. I wonder if I could keep it more abstract if I only had liberal friends in my life, because then we could share our anger, and direct it towards this big blob known as "Conservatives/Republicans."

But I do have a close conservative Christian friend in my life, and perhaps that makes me anger quadruple. Because I have someone in my life that follows a political mindset that actively harms her friend.

Case in point -- birth control/abortion. I don't want kids, but even if I did, I'd be absolutely terrified to be pregnant in today's political climate. We've got people in Congress saying that women should carry dead fetuses to term because he's seen it work with livestock. We've got people equating those who use birth control as sluts. We had a Republican presidential candidate say that genetic screenings on fetuses shouldn't occur, because that drives up abortions.

Not to mention that pro-life policies are dangerous for pregnant women. I've read too many stories where women choose one thing for their childbirth option, only to have the doctor not only override it, but get court orders that strap the women down so that the doctors can do whatever they deem fit with the pregnancy.

It makes me feel like I'm no more than breeding livestock. Everything I am is nothing compared to the DNA of an embryo.

And then we've got her anti-union tendencies, and her justification for that? She doesn't need a union, because she's a hard worker, and so no one would have any reason to fire her. Right, because no one has *ever* been fired unjustly ... and companies just bend over backwards to offer decent pay, benefits, vacation time, paid lost time ...

And, of course, the ever popular anti-evolution stance, anti-climate change stance ...

I am no doubt turning her into a convenient target, but it's hard not to.

I was a monster at eight.

I see a lot of Christians justifying their faith and knowledge in Jesus by saying that they aren't who they used to be. Now they're a much better person, and the evidence of being this new person is a way that they know Jesus is real.

These are the same Christians who say they were saved at a young age, anywhere between the ages of five through eight.

So exactly how horrible were they as such young children, if a better personality is now proof of Jesus?

Seek the Light ...

After Rush Limbaugh's dazzling attack on women who would like their insurance companies to pay for birth control, and the passing of Andrew Breitbart who's lies took down Shirley Sherrod, I've been ruminating over those who flocked to both men.

Rush Limbaugh is vile. There's no other word for it. And those who defended his words, accepted his "apology" or even cheered him on in the beginning ... come across as attracted to the vileness and darkness that man exudes.

Andrew Brietbart -- his attack on Shirley Sherrod distorted the truth, and none of his defenders saw through that. They thought he was telling the truth.

And then I can't help think about how many conservative Christians support both men, flock to both men, praise both men ... and I can't help think about how conservative Christians also say that their religion is the only way that holds morality, that their religion follows the man who is the way, the truth, and the life ... how often they are told to reject darkness in favor of the light ...

Anyone else seeing the disconnect here?

For once, a non-religious post.

The "perils" of being newly married, and in a new job (both which are very good things), means that one has a lot less time to read and analyze religious topics.

Ergo, randomness:

1) I must go on travel next week to Canada. I was volunteered for this by revealing that I hadn't certain knowledge that would assist our sister company in London. I don't to go. I'll be gone four days, and be away from husband/family/friends/dog. And the most superficially annoying thing about this is that I've been trying very hard to not eat junk/bread/pasta/potatoes/dairy (and getting rid of junk would be much easier if Kroger's didn't have Cadburry Eggs out THREE MONTHS PRIOR TO EASTER). I've incorporated a lot more greens in my diet. Being in London is going to make both goals more difficult, because I highly doubt the hotel's complimentary breakfast is going to include a smoothie with spinach/kale/chard/orange mango juice/coconut-based ice cream.

2) My husband and I started watching "Modern Family." Funny and enjoyable.

3) I still feel like I'm a high-schooler pretending to be a grown-up anytime I say "my husband." And I'm 30 years old.

4) I recently read a book called "The Gift of Fear." One of the points it mentioned is how conditioned women are to be polite and accommodating, and not make a scene. And how simply being strong and standing up for oneself -- normal male behavior -- can so quickly get a woman labeled a "bitch." And it's sobering to see how much that conditioning is applied in my own life.

5) Lots of women have a a biological clock. I don't want children, and I never have. I do, however, have a canine biological clock, and want another dog yesterday.

I'd like to throw puriety against the wall

I don't even know where to start with the wrongness of thishttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

Christian singer Rebecca St. James was asked about how her recent marriage has impacted her stance on purity. The YouTube video is her response.

My response to her response: Seriously?????

So the most profound gift you can give your spouse is virginity on your wedding night, because it's showing faithfulness to one's spouse. Something physical, something that says nothing about the unique personality of either spouse, is the most profound gift. I don't have an issue with those who wait until marriage -- my issue here is that one's faithfulness is tied to the fact that one didn't have sex prior to marriage. Not about someone's character, not about someone's intentions, not about who that person is -- no, a physical quality.

She then goes onto to say that said faithfulness has really impacted their level of trust with one another, because they know that since each one was faithful prior to marriage, then each one will be faithful during the marriage.

Because no marriage between two virgins has ever ended in infidelity.

The implication behind these words is that if one of them hadn't waited for the other, but had had per-maritial sex, then the level of trust would be "less than" what they have now. Really? So they'd have less faith in the wedding vows? In the level of commitment one person has declared towards another? Someone's words and vows wouldn't matter as much? What really matters is a physical component prior to marriage?

That, and a virgin could be the most rotten person ever, but the fact that said virgin remained a virgin until the wedding night means ... best faithfulness ever?

Ugh. What mattered to me when I got married was someone who completely accepted me as I am, and wanted to be with me the rest of his life, through all sorts of times. Anything that occurred in prior relationships was just an important part of shaping who the person was who I married.

It's very hard not to derail the conversation sometimes ...

A friend of mine -- conservative Christian -- was telling me about a friend of hers. This friend had gotten married a few years ago, and the marriage didn't work out. It ended in divorce for a variety of reasons, such as the ex-husband was controlling, wasn't the devout Christian he pretended to be, and somewhat abusive. This person had told my friend that by the time of the wedding, she knew God didn't want her to marry him, but she went ahead and did so anyway.

Ergo, she did something that God did not want.

This woman and her ex-husband also have a son.

And here's where I had to bite my tongue and not derail the entire conversation. For what I wanted to say to my friend was, "You follow a belief system that believes every fertilized egg is specifically planned by God -- hence one of your reasons you oppose abortion. So clearly, your friend's son was very much planned for, and God wanted him to exist. At the same time, you're also telling me that God *didn't* want your friend to marry her now ex-husband. But in order for the son God wanted to exist, wouldn't in turn He also have wanted your friend to marry her ex-husband?"

Really, it sounded to me more like my friend's friend -- who also doesn't believe in divorce -- was subconsciously looking for a reason to justify why she had to get a divorce in the first place, and why her marriage didn't work.

Which isn't meant to sound as harsh as it looks in writing -- I truly was saddened by what this woman had gone through, and was sad for her that her marriage didn't work. But this is the same religion that my conservative friend is so desperately praying that I join, by accepting Jesus as my Savior, so I stop being so hell-bound.

He withholds no vague good etheral thing from us, part two

In which I continue my ruminations.

I've been pondering this whole "Good things God has for us." As well as the idea that in an effort to defend the conservative Christian ideology, a defense in one area greatly weakens another. Consider: Jesus advocated helping the "least of these." One great example is where those welcomed into heaven asked when they feed Jesus, or visited him in prison. As that was what earned them a place in Jesus' good graces, I would say it's a natural implication that performing such actions are what God wants, and thus are good.

Yet in Sara Groves response, she says that if God is helping someone through financial or health difficulties, then those are clearly not the good things God has for Christians. But if those are not the good things God has, why insist so strongly that Christians help those who are starving? Who are in horrible pain? Why insist that God gives someone a new heart that's filled with love for others, a love that God has, if God doesn't in turn provide those things?