Robin Morris' Bird's Eye View Bird's Eye View

Gosh, it's just one of those weeks when I'm on a roll. Here's a link to Time magazine. This week's cover story discusses whether or not our DNA makes us innately religious beings. See also this link to the book by Dean Hamer.

I'm sure countless bloggers around the world are linking to this Sunday's Ron Suskind article in The New York Times' Magazine, "Without a Doubt."

Wow. What an engrossing article, a real page-turner (or scroller depending on your preferred media)--full of unbelievable (and I mean that in the sense of, "Are you fucking kidding me?") anecdotes and quotes about and/or from George W. Bush.

During a delightful dinner at a friend's house Friday night, the conversation drifted--naturally, among our circle of friends--to politics. I interjected that if Evangelicals and others on the Right really believe that Bush was ordained by God to be President, then they should show (or test) their faith by not voting. I mean, if God's "will be done," they shouldn't have to, right? They laughed (as I hope you are now, beloved reader) and suggested I write that in an editorial to the Sun. I won't, of course--that's why I have a blog--but you're more than welcome to steal it from me if you will.

Looking back, that comment seems like it foreshadowed Suskind's article, which delves into Bush's "faith-based presidency" and his followers' "unquestioning faith" in him. I hope, though, that bloggers analyzing this piece don't just rant about how terrible religion is, which would miss the important point of the article's last lines, a quote from the author of Faith Works, Jim Wallis:

..."Real faith, you see, leads us to deeper reflection and not -- not ever -- to the thing we as humans so very much want."
And what is that?
"Easy certainty."

If you haven't already read my October 8th post titled "Reasonable Religion," please scroll down and read it. I hope I was able to get my point across about how important and useful religion can be as a personal psychological tool and as a vehicle for the improvement of humanity. I realize I risk being labeled a hypocrite for joking about others' faith in GW and the Almighty while extolling the importance of religion, but if you understand what I'm saying, I think you'll see (as Wallis and Suskind appear to) the difference between blind faith and useful, contemplative spirituality.

Please email me with your comments.

A couple of things really bother me about the whole Mary Cheney issue left over from the last debate.

One. Why isn't anyone taking Bush to task for his hypocrisy in the issue (Well, Kerry is a bit of a hypocrite on the issue, too--but Bush's intolerance goes much further and is more dangerous.) and for not realizing the human impact of his policies? Did he forget that he actually knew a gay person and could probably ask her if she feels she were born gay?

Two. On the same day of the debate, I wrote about this article on how homosexuality IS LINKED TO GENETICS. Hello! The question was "Do you believe homosexuality is a choice? " I understand that the candidates are busy and were probably unaware of the news story, but where in the follow-up reporting are the journalists (and bloggers!) referring to this and the other scientific studies that indicate that, yes, indeed, for most homosexuals, it's not a choice? Is this another case of the media burying a story so that they are not accused of promoting the gay agenda?

One other thing bothering me today is that I won't be able to see John Edwards when he comes to G'ville on Sunday. He's speaking at UF at 12:30! I guess the College Dems forgot that some of us lefties do still go to church. (Bill and I are teaching Ramadan to the Pre-K kids in RE class.) Okay, so it's probably more of a scheduling issue--he has to be in Tallahassee that evening, but still.

Have a good weekend, folks!

Did anyone else notice that the President had a glob of spittle in the right corner of his mouth for at least 5 minutes during the first part of last night's debate? I kept yelling to the TV, "Wipe your mouth!" This prompted Bill to say, "Well, when you're all hopped up on coke, you don't feel that stuff."

Did you also notice how much the President tried to smile? It didn't work well and seemed disingenuous. The most-oft displayed expression on his face was that smirking, shit-eatin' grin if his.

As Tom Shales writes in today's Washington Post:

Bush seems to have been taken apart and put back together again after each debate, reassembled according to estimates of how he'd done. Last night it looked as though his handlers had told him to smile, smile, smile, especially when Kerry was trying to make points, points, points.

I was a little offended by Bush's answer to the last question about what he had learned from the strong women around him. He said: "To listen to them. To stand up straight and not scowl. I love the strong women around me. I can't tell you how much I love my wife and our daughters."

That's all you can say? The first line, as delivered, came across to me as if you felt nagged by women when they express themselves. Your tone indicated you think "I better act like I'm listening so she'll stop bitching." Thanks for the lip service, Mr. President. It shows, once again (as did your failure to recognize Kerry's comment on the wage gap between men and women), that you don't understand what it's like to be female in a male-dominated world. You might "love (us) as best as (you) can," but you certainly don't care how your policies affect our lives.

In a recent email debate with one of my aunts, she wrote that the Republican party did not advocate writing discrimination into the Constitution and that homosexuals shouldn't get "special rights" based on their "behavior," implying that people choose to be gay or straight. Oh, really?

Well, friends, there's new news in the scientific study of sexuality that indicates homosexual "behavior" is largely based on gentetics. Last year, scientists discovered that sexual identity may be hardwired prior to birth. Also, check out this paper, which I've cited in an earlier post, from a Cornell psychologist that discusses an interesting theory on how sexuality is dictated by biology as well as socio-psychology.

When will the rest of the country understand that discrimination is based on lack of knowledge, and that just because you're not aware of your ignorance doesn't mean it doesn't exist? Humanity is not yet in possession of full knowledge on human genetics. Yet, science has proven that sexuality is linked to genetics as well as psychophysiology. Therefore, any law or amendment that denies an individual rights based on his or her sexuality is inherently discriminating against that individual merely for being the person he or she was born to be.

The last time I saw 4:30 am, my breasts were still engorged with life-sustaining milk.
I've been up for a few hours now thanks to Bill's bladder and an absent nightlight. Sleep has been elusive lately, but at least tonight (this morning?) I had the chance to organize and add to my links section.
Enjoy!

If this doesn't convince you that we need to hit the reset button on the FCC, I don't know what will.

Even the CNN headline's first word was "Superman," but I remember Christopher Reeve for something else. One Saturday afternoon, I was watching yet another TV-movie mystery with my Mom. It was Deathtrap, and the on-screen kiss between Reeve and Michael Cain became the first male-on-male kiss I ever saw. It was shocking to my adolescent eyes--not just because it was another crazy plot twist in a good movie, but he was Superman. Interestingly though, I didn't find it ooky; it was exciting, titillating, a turn-on, yet another formative moment for my burgeoning sexuality.

Below is the post I have been working on this week. Enjoy...

NPR has been playing an interesting series on politics and religion the past week or so.
I find it interesting that some people can separate their political/secular lives from their religious beliefs, while some* allow their religious beliefs to dictate their political views and even use political power to thrust their beliefs on others.
*I guess I should separate Bush's socio-political beliefs from his economic beliefs. Isn't it ironic that many on the Right suddenly believe in "survival of the fittest" when discussing business?

Me, I found my religion through my political activism: I discovered the link to the UUF website while trying to find other Alachua County Democrats. I was shocked to find a religious organization that had reached the same conclusions on religion that I had already discovered through my own personal searches. Bill and I have been attending church nearly every Sunday for the past year. We've begun teaching Pre-K Religious Education classes (Sunday school) one weekend a month, and I am becoming very involved with the Children and Youth Committee. I've also "testified" on my personal deity, the Green Tara, during a worship service devoted to feminine goddesses.

Now, I like to think I'm a reasonable person. I find patterns in everything; I play devil's advocate when making decisions, trying to weigh both sides of the issue as best I can; I believe in the standards of scientific research and logical reasoning. Yet, I've also found, to my surprise, that I am a spiritual person. It's something inside me, indeed inside us all, that needs to be explored. We, as thinking beings, have a deep connection with, if not an innate desire to understand, the great mysteries of life. I don't claim to have found any answers, and I doubt that I will ever find one that I can cling to with 100% conviction. And I'm okay with that--it's my doubt in the idea that there is one "true" religion (all of which are born of the human mind) that sustains my search for self-discovery. Instead of clinging to one faith, I choose to study and find wisdom in the religions and philosophies humanity has created. (This might be a reflection of my cover-your-ass mentality. I mean, if I don't say my religion is the only one, true faith, then I'm not pissing off any unknown deities that might be out there, right?)

I believe religious services, traditions, and ceremonies are useful as psychological tools. I do recognize that not everyone needs religion to be "good" or "strong" people. Indeed, I was a damn good person before I started going to church--and raised in an agnostic household at that! However, I see now that religion can be just as useful as psychological counseling. It's certainly more cost-effective.

Last Sunday, our interim minister, Barbara Jamestone, delivered a wonderful sermon on the need for "ministering congregations," which brought me to tears and at the same time filled me with inspiration--not with the holy spirit, mind you, but a life-affirming excitement, reminding me of my civic duty to give and be all that I am:

...Our denominational leadership recognized that without a religious focus, we were foundering. By determining to be a secular rally place, performing arts place, and Sunday service place, we were fast becoming neither fish nor fowl...
We were no longer that force which in days of old, moved heaven and earth, by marching at Selma and being killed for it, by going to jail in protest, by putting pen to such documents as The Humanist Manifesto, The Declaration of Independence, "The Battle Hymn of the Republic," the Bylaws of the National Association of Christians and Jews, The Origin of Species, Walden, The Man without a Country, Little Women, essays like "The American Scholar," and even "Jingle Bells!" Unitarians and Universalists wrote into being the American heritage we share.
But, we were no longer nurturing church members who did such writing, who could envision and start universal free public education, public mental hospitals, public libraries, the America Red Cross, the first World Parliament of Religions, the Barnum and Bailey big top, Hull House, the
Humane Society--ALL of which were begun by Unitarians or Universalists.
--Members who might become the 7th Unitarian President in the history of the U.S.A. We've had six with our teeny membership.
--Members who might run for that great office and lose and run again and lose again as Adlai Stevenson did.
--Members whose female faces get stamped on American coins. Unitarian and Universalist churches have nurtured a vast and awesome roll call of ministers to the human race...
...We can serve, help, meet needs without seeing ourselves as a church, without using religious language and story...We can. A few of us do--have the inspiration, motivation, willingness, and vision to submit our will to the good of the group, to let our common welfare come first. A few of us have such depth of compassion for the human condition,that we, believer or atheist, do delight in sacrificing ourselves for others. But most of us don't. Most of us need help. And so, our denomination invites you to imagine yourself as a minister, because there's special juice in that word. Ministers serve because--we feel called, wanted, known, loved by that transcending mystery and wonder which we all get glimpses of...

The Sunday before that we held a Rosh Hashanah service, which called on us to forgive others as well as ourselves, which also made me weep. "Who have I not forgiven?" is one question I was directed to ask myself. Surprisingly, I came up with a few answers, one of which prompted me to reconnect with an old friend and one of which made me understand that I had forgiven my mother for her human frailties, but not my biological father. (I'm still working on that one.)

A reasonable religion has many things to offer--opportunities for self-discovery, a fellowship with others in which you are encouraged to share your joys and griefs, and a caring community to help raise your kids to be humane adults. It's when religion becomes distorted by factions with agendas (see Ben Hellmann's October 8th post on this related topic) or through utter superstition that religion becomes dangerous.

As Albert Einstein once said, "Science without religion is lame. Religion with out science is blind." When one fails to use the checks and balances of science and logic on their faith, terrible things can happen. On the other hand, when one relies solely on science and logic, they may be cheating themselves out of intense emotional experiences and personal journeys that might just serve to better themselves--and humanity.

I've been sick, so I'm thinking in squiggley lines. I have been working on a post, but it's not yet ready for publication.
In order to quench your thirst for some Robiny drivel, I thought I'd write about the CD that's been in our Honda's stereo for the past week--since Bill brought it home from Daytona. Please allow me to introduce you to Scurvy. These guys are acquaintances of Bill's from way back. The first time I met Derek (about seven years ago), he sported a handsome pompador, which is probably the only reason I remembered who he was (I'm terrible with names--I still don't know half the folks in my lab).
I am so impressed with this CD. If you get a chance to see them, or can get a hold of some of their tunes, you might just have to force-feed yourself some OJ, too.

First, here's a transcript of the debate. You should also be able to see the debate here or listen to it here.
Second, here are two articles on factual errors from both candidates.
Now, my opinion: Bush came off as defensive and slow-witted. Kerry projected that he is capable of being a strong, intelligent leader, conquered his usual inability to be succinct, and finally gave us the bullet points we wanted on his Iraq war position:

I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat. There was a right way to disarm him and a wrong way. And the president chose the wrong way.

Bush's response? Ignore the reality of what Kerry just said and repeat what isn't true:

The only consistent about my opponent's position is that he's been inconsistent. He changes positions. And you cannot change positions in this war on terror if you expect to win.

What did the press think?

The buzz in the pressroom was that Kerry turned in the stronger performance and may have revived his campaign, but reporters were surprised by the 10- and 15-point margins by which the networks' insta-polls gave the contest to Kerry. Keep in mind, though, that these early snapshots may not mean much, as Gore found out four years ago. Source

I'm giddy with excitement and anticipation for the next 2 Presidential debates (October 8th and 13th), and I can't wait to see Edwards go toe to toe with Cheney on October 5th. Most importantly, I'm confident in the man I support for president. When he said,

"And for all the rest of the parents in America who are wondering about their kids going to the school or... what kind of world they're going to grow up in, let me look you in the eye and say to you: I defended this country as a young man at war, and I will defend it as president of the United States."

I believe him. I can't say that about Bush. It's up to America to decide if they feel the same.