Catholics and Obama

I've been enthralled by this article from the National Catholic Reporter: "I'm Catholic, staunchly anti-abortion, and support Obama." I read it this morning and simply can't stop thinking about it!

Here is my favorite part of the piece:

"There's another distinction that is often lost in the culture-war rhetoric on abortion: There is a difference between being pro-choice and being pro-abortion. Obama supports government action that would reduce the number of abortions, and has consistently said that "we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion." He favors a "comprehensive approach where ... we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children." And he wants to ensure that adoption is an option for women who might otherwise choose abortion.

Obama worked all of that into his party's platform this year. By contrast, Republicans actually removed abortion-reduction language from their platform.

What's more, as recent data show, abortion rates drop when the social safety net is strengthened. If Obama's economic program will do more to reduce poverty than McCain's, then is it wrong to conclude that an Obama presidency will also reduce abortions? Not at all."

Now, I'm a Christian woman who DOESN'T think fetuses are people, so not all of this applies to me (i.e., I don't think of abortion as "an unspeakable evil") but I really like this person's ability to incorporate his Catholic doctrine with real-world understanding. Unlike a lot of evangelicals, he realizes that abortion isn't something you can stop with a law— that women who don't want their babies will keep getting abortions regardless. And he recognizes that in order to stop abortion, you need to make societal changes, starting with a reduction in poverty.

All in all, a pretty interesting article. I love when people are able to use their brains when thinking about their faith!

What Paul Meant, Part 1

I've been reading What Paul Meant by Garry Wills, which my church's adult forum was apparently reading this past summer. I picked up the book from my fiancé, who is hoping to become an Episcopal priest and who enjoys reading about the Bible as much as I do. Of course I stole the book before he got a chance to read it himself, and have refused to return it until I'm finished. I've found it interesting so far, so I'm probably going to be bringing up some of the things it discusses for the next few days.

I found an interesting Biblical quote here that I seem to have missed during any of my seven or eight straight-through readings of the Bible:

I would rather speak five intelligible words in the gathering, to be understood by others, than speak thousands of words in tongues. (1 Cor 14.18-19)

Now, isn't that interesting? Paul is speaking to the glossolalists of Corinth here, and he seems to be insisting that their speaking in tongues act is all schtick and no substance.

This particularly calls to mind a film I've loved for years: "Hell House", which documents the insanity of an evangelical megachurch in Texas. In this documentary, these evangelical folks make much of the Bible's infallibility, and take the entire text literally and word-for-word. But they also appear to adore trying to speak in tongues, claiming that when one engages in this sort of behavior, it is like "a language that only God can understand."

Hrm. Seems to me that this Bible verse indicates that speaking in tongues is a waste of time. Intriguing, no?

Purity, schmurity.

This article interested me very much, as I have been intrigued by the concept of purity balls for some time now. In fact, I wrote a poem for my thesis on the subject, and continue to explore the concept as often as I can through articles, websites, and first-hand accounts.

For those who don't know, purity balls are a recent phenomenon in which a young girl (who can be as young as 2 or 3 and as old as a college student) goes with her father to a formal event whose theme seems to be a cross between a wedding and a debutante ball. The girls wear white dresses and the fathers wear suits; they stand at a cross or altar while the fathers pledge to protect their daughters' "purity" until those daughters marry.

I find this an interesting practice, particularly in light of the fact that we've known for months now that abstinence/virginity pledges actually encourage riskier sexual behavior. Why would anything think this could work?

Of course, I'm equally concerned with the damage these events can do to a girl's mental image of herself. In the above article, an 18-year-old girl tells the author that on her wedding day, her father will quite literally give her heart to her husband-- he has a key to a locket she wears, and will relinquish that key only when she is married. "It's a symbol of my father giving up the covering of my heart, protecting me, since it means my husband is now the protector," she says.

That makes me want to cry-- doesn't she think she's strong enough to protect herself? How does it make her feel, being nothing but a valuable prize to be given away to the strongest knight at the tournament? And what about her husband-- what if he needs a little protecting now and then? How will he feel, being asked to be a knight in shining armor instead of a contributor to a lifelong partnership?

Personally, I don't think God gives a whole lot of thought to "purity." I think God cares most about how we treat and respect others-- and I don't think he's peeping in through the keyholes of our bedrooms, waiting to pass judgment on our sex lives.

I'm a Christian woman. I believe that Jesus was divinely inspired, I believe that he loved everyone, and I believe that he died for that love. But I think the lesson of Jesus' death is NOT that we are sinful and bad and wicked and dirty and broken-- I think it's that we need to treat others lovingly, and to think for ourselves, unlike the blind masses that called for Jesus' death because they didn't understand his teachings.

And I believe that having sex before marriage is one of the best choices I've ever made. It's so nice to think that on my wedding night, I'll know exactly what my fianc likes, and I'll know exactly what I like, so I can really enjoy myself. It seems like a shame to waste such a most romantic night worrying about it being your first time, and having such intense pain in your genitals that you just lie there and wait for it to be over.

And you know what? I talk to God pretty regularly, and he's not mad at me. In fact, I think he's pretty proud overall of how I've turned out.

Plugging Someone Else, For a Change

Everyone: go read clairelight's short post on the subject of hateful anti-gay churches, entitled "Dykes Go To Hell." It's entertaining and insightful, and it has some very good observations on these churches' nasty behaviors. Go read, now!

Joe Biden and Religion

It's interesting that the Catholic faith of Barack Obama's newly minted running mate, Joe Biden, is considered somewhat of a liability. I'm not quite sure what the objections to the Catholic church in politics are anymore; back when Kennedy was running, people feared that a Catholic president would be a puppet of the Pope, but since it seems that evangelical presidents are puppets of conservative evangelical leaders anyways (GWB, cough cough), I don't understand how that charge could be uniquely Catholic in nature.

Well, I suppose that being a Mormon was ultimately what torpedoed Mitt Romeny's campain, since I think people feared that the Mormon church would have undue influence if he became president. So there's that.

Joe Biden's approach to religion seems to be my kind of thing:

"The six-term Democratic senator from Delaware also has offered to shove his rosary down the throat of the next Republican who tells him he isn't religious."

Sounds like something straight out of my book— except, y'know, it'd be an Anglican rosary instead of a Catholic one. I own two Anglican rosaries, so I'm sure I could spare one for such a noble purpose. :P I do sympathize with his annoyance, though, even if he phrases it in a slightly un-Christian way. I hate how everyone assumes that if you're not a member of some megachurch parish that meets in a warehouse and speaks in tongues and hates gay people, you're not a religious person.

Really, we shouldn't worry too much about the influence of Biden's religion, considering that, for the first time, the majority of the American public wants religion to stay out of politics. It might not be that big a deal. As long as he keeps it personal, he should be fine in the polls. But I'm going to be interested to see how this plays out in the media— and how people end up treating his professed Catholicism.

A Short Post On Prayer

Recently I've been thinking a lot about prayer, and how it works. I kind of object to the way a lot of people seem to be insisting that prayer can cure cancer or grant your every demand. I don't think prayer is a request-receive system; I don't think God sits around picking up the Prayer Telephone at random intervals and then zapping down whatever was desired to the appropriate supplicant.

Thus, I've always felt very uncomfortable praying for specific events to happen or for certain material goods to fall into my lap. I don't think that's how it's supposed to go. Rather, I prefer to request spiritual or emotional gifts, things like patience, bravery, cleverness, and willpower.

I can’t quite bring myself to ask for things, like “Please God, let me get this job,” or “Dear Jesus, please cure my friend’s illness.” I tried praying that way when I was younger, and it didn’t work; I tried praying for my grandpa’s life when I was thirteen, and all that did was make me angry with God for not delivering. I think the best approach is to pray for guidance and strength; thus, that first example becomes “Please God, help me stay calm during this job interview, so that I can prove I’m the right person for the position,” and the second becomes “Dear Jesus, please comfort my friend during her illness, and help her to feel how much we all love and support her.”

And mostly, I don’t ask for anything at all— I just say thanks. Only when I’m in serious trouble (recent economic events come to mind) do I ever implore God for emotional assistance. Most of the time I’m just thanking him for everything he’s given me, like my wonderful family and my fine education and my intelligence and my writing gifts and my adorable kitty and my awesome friends and my loving husband. It’s nice to be able to thank him for those things, because when I concentrate on them I can sort of forget about any negative things going on around me.

I think praying like this actually makes me feel better. It also doesn’t put God in the position of not being able to explain to me why he couldn’t produce instant results.

The Camel and the Needle

Okay, we need to talk here about Christianity and wealth. I thought I'd covered this pretty well in my post about poverty and God, but clearly I'm not getting through.

The Republicans are running some new ads this week, attacking Sen. Obama for saying he wants to "spread the wealth" while assuring people that McCain wants to let you "keep what's yours." And if they really believe that, that's fine— but then the Republican Party doesn't get to pretend like they're some sort of bastion of Christianity. In fact, they'll have to declare that they're a secular party with no use for Christian belief, because such talk is actually contrary to everything that Jesus said and did in his ministry.

Consider one of my favorite passages, wherein Jesus discusses the rich and their responsibility to the poor:

Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"

 "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

 "Which ones?" the man inquired.

  Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"

 "All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"

 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." [Matthew 19: 16-24, NIV]

This story is told in several forms throughout the Gospel, but it is always the same basic storyline: a young man comes to Jesus and asks how he can be saved, and Jesus tells him to give everything he has to the poor. The implication in the camel/needle statement is that the rich aren't welcomed by Jesus because they're not sharing their wealth with the poor.

And here's a passage from Luke:

He told them this parable: "The ground of a certain rich man produced a good crop. He thought to himself, 'What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.'

"Then he said, 'This is what I'll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I'll say to myself, "You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.'"

"But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?'

"This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God." [Luke 12: 16-21, NIV]

What's the message of this parable? That this man, who horded things without stopping to consider the needs of others, didn't get to use what he had horded as soon as he died. If you can't take it with you when you leave this earth, why not live simply and give excess to those who have nothing?

All of this, of course, counts as "spreading the wealth"— Jesus believed that if one man had a lot of money and another man had very little, the man with lots of money should give some of his money to the poor man. This was just obvious to Jesus, and obvious to his followers: the rich have a responsibility to the poor, just as the healthy have a responsibility to care for the sick, or parent has a responsibility to watch out for a child. Those who are up must care for those who are down— and nowhere does Jesus suggest that you ought to "keep what's yours." That statement has no place among Christian people.

So if John McCain and the Republican Party truly believe this, then that's fine by me— I've never been one to say that everyone must believe what I believe. But if they want to preach this selfish mantra, then they can't do so while attempting to be the "moral" party, the "traditional" party. They can't sit around and pay lip service to Christianity if they're going to stand in direct opposition to Christian values.

Jesus wanted us to spread our wealth. That's just how it is, guys. If you don't like that, then you need to shop around for a different religion.

The Religious Case For Gay Marriage

Finally: Newsweek published a story entitled Our Mutual Joy: The Religious Case For Gay Marriage.

AT LAST. I'm not the only one who has actually studied the entire Bible! I'm not the only one who thinks it's hypocritical to claim that you interpret the Bible literally and that homosexuality is an abomination and then turn around and do all sorts of things that Leviticus says are also sins! I can't tell you how many people are willing to keep gay people from marrying, but not willing to stop eating pork and shellfish, or to wear garments made from only one kind of material, or to sell their daughters in order to pay off their credit card debts.

The Old Testament is exactly that, folks— OLD. God gave us Jesus because he wanted to change the way we thought about the idea of God, the way we thought about spirituality and our place in the world. Just as society changes on earth, just as animals evolve and change, so God watches us and gives us new information, new teachings, as we become ready for them. He gave us Jesus because, as an omnipotent God, he knew that we were about to change, to move away from a lawless, nomadic society and become capable of new heights of justice, kindness— even greatness.

Feel free to comment, but ONLY if you've read the whole Newsweek piece. I hate it when people read the subject line or the first few sentences of my posts and then comment with points that have already been refuted either in the linked article or in the post itself.

So please— if you want to comment, do read the article above! :)

The "Battle" Over Christmas?

I really cannot think of a sillier thing about which to be concerned than whether or not a sales clerk says "Merry Christmas."

Apparently there are people— people who claim to be Christians but who can't have ever actually read the Bible or paid attention to Christian history— who become severely irritated if people say "Happy Holidays!" instead of "Merry Christmas”. There are even, it appears, women who raise thousands of dollars each year in order to put up billboards saying, "I miss hearing you say 'Merry Christmas' —Jesus".

This is silly, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is this: Jesus was Jewish, so he wasn't likely to say anything other than "Happy Chanukah!" back in the day. Of course, he also would have probably wanted those women in the above article to put all that money towards feeding the poor instead of towards putting up exclusive billboards that pretty much seek to make certain people feel bad during the holiday season.

It is also silly because Christmas is one of the youngest Christian holidays, and most certainly was never celebrated by early Christians. When they DID begin celebrating the birth of Jesus, they did it in September, anyway, even though Jesus was most likely born in April or May. In fact, many Christians refused to even celebrate Christmas in the early days of Christianity, as it was 1) eventually moved to December only so that it could co-opt an ancient pagan solstice ritual called Saturnalia (and thus many Christians felt Christmas to be much too rooted in paganism), and 2) because people just didn't celebrate birthdays back then. Death days were what people celebrated— the birth of Jesus was always considered to be less important than his death. To this day, in most denominational Christian churches, Christmas is definitely less important than Easter, or even than Pentecost.

And y'know, Christmas was actually outlawed in most places in America in the 17th and 18th centuries, and who did the outlawing? THE PURITANS. In fact, in 1600s Boston, anyone caught exhibiting Christmas spirit was fined five shillings. Christmas only became a popular Christian holiday in the early 1800s.

I say all this to illustrate that saying "Happy Holidays" in no way defies Christian tradition. In fact, "Happy Holidays" is far more inclusive of the Christian calendar; when I say "Happy Holidays!" to a Christian friend, that statement can include Christmas, Epiphany, and the entire season of Advent. It can also include other, more secular American holidays, like Thanksgiving and New Year's, which makes my greeting more festive; and of course, it can also include holidays of other faiths, like Chanukah, which makes my greeting more appropriate to the season, as it wishes merriment to everyone, regardless of creed.

In fact, that is the real point of Christmas. Yes, it's a celebration of Jesus' birth, but as Jesus wasn't actually born on December 25th, I think we could afford to allow Christmas to also be a celebration of the birth of Jesus' MESSAGE: that everyone is equal in the eyes of God, that everyone is loved by God, that everyone is welcome in the Kingdom (or Republic!) of Heaven.

And I think saying "Happy Holidays!" conveys that sentiment well enough.

Anyways, my fellow Americans: the next time you get miffed about something silly like this, read this opinion piece and distract yourself from your misplaced indignation by remembering how relatively happy and comfortable we all are. The true meaning of Christmas is love and contentment, and has nothing to do with stores or shopping or what the salesperson says as you walk out the door.

And say whatever you like by way of a holiday greeting— but don't get pissy when I wish you a heartfelt "Happy Holidays!" I hate to be the kumbaya girl here, but can't we all just smile and say, "thank you!" when someone says something nice? Be thankful that anyone is offering you a cheerful wish at all, and be polite enough to respond in kind.

EDIT: Actually, this is the silliest thing to be thinking about this season.

More Whiny Anglicans...

And in my ongoing engagement in the current schism splitting my church apart...

Before now, the dissidents who split from the Episcopal Church joined up with Anglican dioceses in Africa and South America. Now, it appears, they want to set up their own rival North American diocese.

I just don't get it. If you don't agree with the principles and values of the Episcopal Church, then don't be an Episcopalian. There are about a million different denominations of Christianity— pick a new one, and leave. And if you don't want to leave because you love the Episcopal Church, then stay and make your voice heard in the Anglican communion. But how can you justify leaving the church and then trying to create a NEW EPISCOPAL CHURCH?! Either you're an Episcopalian, or you're not.

It's so childish to say, "Well, we disagree, so I'm going to go take my toys and play over there." What mean-spirited people. The Episcopal Church sometimes interprets scripture differently than I do, but I don't go off in a huff about it, do I? Why whine about this stuff? Why not just talk it out and explain how you feel and see if you can't persuade others?

Sheesh. If they're going to act like this, then I say good riddance to bad congregations.

First On the List Of Stupid Things That Don't Matter

How hilarious is this: a Kentucky legislator is apparently freaking out because the state's Homeland Security department forgot to credit God in its last report.

Are you kidding me? Can you think of something that God cares about less than whether or not his name is mentioned in a bureaucratic report? I can't.

I'm pretty sure that God cares about suffering and poverty and physics and watching how the universe is unfolding— stuff like that. And I'm also pretty sure that the only person who cares about the 2008 Kentucky Homeland Security report is the guy complaining about the absence of God in said report.

And if I were God, I'd be laughing at that silly idiot right about now.

Ten Things For Which I Am Thankful...In No Particular Order

1. My family— my awesome husband Adam, my kind and wonderful parents, my great sisters Tati and Sarah, my grandparents, my in-laws, and my aunts and uncles. I love them like crazy!

2. My friends. They are all so smart and beautiful and nice and sweet and I love them all so much!

3. My kitty, Charlotte Brontë. She is oh so cuddly and cute, and makes for excellent company!

4. My...well, my whole self, really. I mean, I'm thankful for who I am— that I'm smart and relatively okay-looking and not a complete spaz.

5. My apartment. It's cozy and warm and in a fairly nice neighborhood.

6. My health. I'm so lucky to be healthy and happy and trim and fit.

7. My skills. It's nice to be good at writing and good at meeting people and good at figuring stuff out.

8. My material goods. I have food and clothes and a TV and blankets and lots of stuff that other people don't have.

9. The random acts of kindness that have befallen me. My benefactor, Shelby Davis, didn't have to send a complete stranger to boarding school and give her $10,000/year to attend Vassar, but he did. Those Vassar people didn't have to give me all that financial aid, but they did. People are so nice sometimes!

10. My life. I'm so thankful to be alive right now, living when and where I do.

Religion, Community, and Niceness

Since it's Sunday...let's talk about atheists!

Courtesy of Olivia, here's an article about the scientific correlation between religion and niceness. Basically, there's this weird dual nature within that relationship. See, studies show that when people think about God, they assume he's watching them, and so they're more likely to do things like give money to poor people or donate blood; the article explains this as an "evolutionary imperative to care about one's reputation." So somehow, religion can make people behave nicely.

But this doesn't quite correlate to what we know about religious countries as a whole: Sweden and Denmark, which are highly atheistic nations, are also societies with lower rape and murder rates than our insanely religious nation, and have a strong commitment to social equality with their health care and welfare programs. The article even exhibits a 2005 study that shows that countries that are more atheistic have lower violent crime rates and lower rates of abortion and teen pregnancy than more religious nations.

So the conclusion that the article draws (and with which I must agree) is that it is the community aspect of religion that benefits society. After all, the Swedes and Danes mostly do identify as "Christian" even though they don't believe in God: they marry in churches and have church funerals and feel close to their local church communities and all that jazz. In fact, the article likens Scandinavian Christians to "American Jews, who are also highly secularized in belief and practice, have strong communal feelings, and tend to be well-behaved."

The conclusion is the best part:

"The sorry state of American atheists, then, may have nothing to do with their lack of religious belief. It may instead be the result of their outsider status within a highly religious country where many of their fellow citizens, including very vocal ones like [Laura] Schlessinger [who said that morality requires a belief in God], find them immoral and unpatriotic. Religion may not poison everything, but it deserves part of the blame for this one."

I'm sure I've been guilty of this a few times. While I try never to shove Christianity at anyone who doesn't want it, I do often write these articles on the assumption that the majority of my readers are interested in Christianity (at least from an anthropological standpoint) and are familiar with basic Christian tenants. I don't ever assume that atheists can't be moral (after all, most of my extended family is atheistic, and they're all very moral people), but I *do* assume that a lot of my readers will want to read about my interpretation of Christianity, and I hope that this hasn't made any of my atheist readers feel left out or ignored.

As an attempt at some level of reparation, I will feature some atheistic thinkers and websites in my posts this week. Sound good, guys?

Pastor Preaches Sexy Time

WARNING: Explicit discussion of sex and marriage is contained within this post.

This video from CNN caught my attention: the pastor of a non-denominational Baptist church in Texas (I know, I know, you can see where this is going already, right?) is preaching that his married congregants should have more sex. While you'd think I'd be all about this sort of preaching, I have incredibly mixed feelings about this video, particularly regarding our society's attitude towards both sex and marriage.

First off, I'm disturbed by the dual nature of our sexual views. Listen to the way both the interviewer and the preacher discuss sex: it must be sensual and loving and deeply emotional (involving "looking deeply into one another's eyes") or else it's somehow not right. Both the entertainment media AND a large percentage of religious institutions in this country promote this view; sex in films and television these days is either loving and gentle and sappy (the "moral" kind of sex) or rough and dirty and quick (the "immoral" kind of sex). We hardly ever see people in films or TV shows enjoying sex without pouring their hearts out or without having already fallen in love with one another. The latter kind of sex is the kind we see characters having when they feel bad about themselves, when they have self-esteem issues, when they're cheating on a spouse or having sex before they're ready.

Is this really the only way we can think about sex? I'm married, and I'm not always in the mood for candlelight/bubble bath/scented massage oil type sex. Sometimes I like to have some fun, and I don't see that there's anything wrong with lighthearted sex.

Secondly— okay, this is something that has always bothered me, but the video finally helped me articulate it a little bit more clearly than before. It seems like it works like this: the religious right doesn't want people to have sex before marriage, and then they're surprised when two married people who didn't try one another out before marriage find that they don't enjoy sex with one another because they're not sexually compatible. I just don't get this mindset. The best way to ensure that you have a happy, healthy sex life during marriage is to MAKE SURE YOU ARE COMPATIBLE BEFORE MARRIAGE. Hey, you don't have to have sex before marriage if you don't want to, but then you don't get to complain about not having sex when you ARE married.

Honestly, while I think stress and business can account for a little bit of this lack-of-marital-sex thing, I don't think that's really the problem. Adam and I are busy and stressed, and, well...it's not like we're frigid on the sex thing. I think part of the problem is that telling people that it's virtuous to wait to have sex until after marriage ensures that plenty of married people run headlong into marriage without knowing a thing about how well the other person will be able to satisfy them.

I've seen all kinds of evidence of this on The Nest, where we have a name for people like that: SRVs (self-righteous virgins). About 40% of the people on the site waited to have sex before marriage, and every single one of them seems to follow the same trajectory: when they first start posting on the boards, they say things like, "While it's your choice if you want to have sex before marriage..." or "I don't judge people who didn't wait..." and then proceed to ramble on about how THEY chose to do the bidding of the Lord, how THEY are going to be entering marriage as "pure souls," and how they're SO GLAD they waited because "now sex will be truly special for us."

About two months later, they stop talking about sex altogether.

About three months after that, the questions start to come in. They leave multiple messages on the Sex and Relationships board: "How come I can't have an orgasm?" "How do I give a blow job?" "Why can't my husband have an orgasm without watching porn?" "I don't understand how to put on a condom." "Is this normal?"

About three to four months after that, they leave messages on the Trouble in Paradise Board: "My husband doesn't understand how to turn me on." "I never want to have sex anymore." "My libido is too high or something, because I totally can't get enough and he always acts like he doesn't want to do it."

Now, I don't advocate sexual activity for people under 18, because most of the people I knew when I was a teen were barely ready for their driver's licenses, let alone for sex (although I suppose it depends on the individual, because nothing is right for everyone). But I don't advocate marriage for people under 18, either— and I think once you're old enough for marriage, you're old enough for sex. If you can't handle one, I dunno if you can handle the other.

If sex isn't that important to you, that's fine! I think different couples have different priorities. But I think that if sexual satisfaction IS going to be a factor in your marriage, you should know something about your partner before you move forward. It's perfectly fine to wait until marriage, but if you do, you should be aware that you may not click sexually, and you should be prepared to encounter surprises and difficulties. A lot of people seem to think that if they love someone, sex will be great, no matter what; they seem incredibly surprised (and dismayed) to discover that sex can be more or less satisfying based on your partner's physical and emotional characteristics. Don't complain about the product if you CHOSE not to test drive it beforehand.

In short: if you want to try out your mate before you're married, do it. If you don't want to, that's cool, but be prepared to encounter fetishes or techniques or sexual mindsets that you might not enjoy or feel comfortable with.

My motto? Be prepared. :)

Monk Fight!

It's the battle of the monks!

Apparently, Greek Orthodox priests clashed with Armenian Orthodox priests at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem today as the Armenian priests attempted to march around in honor of some 4th century cross they claim is the actual cross upon which Jesus was crucified. Of course, this totally makes sense considering how many Christian relics are TOTALLY BOGUS. Sheesh.

Six different sects control the Church, and according to the above article, they never seem to get along:

"The Israeli government has long wanted to build a fire exit in the church, which regularly fills with thousands of pilgrims and has only one main door, but the sects cannot agree where the exit will be built."

C'mon, guys. This is the stuff that makes sensible people say, "See? Religion is just a force for violence and division." Jesus doesn't care who owns some stupid piece of wood, folks. He DOES care when you punch someone in the face over said piece of wood, and I don't think he likes it very much. Whatever happened to turning the other cheek?

EDIT: Oh, and since I brought up the silliness that is the Shroud of Turin...here's a fabulous paper by my uncle, Dr. Steven Schafersman, one of the world's foremost experts on the Shroud. It's a detailed account of why the Shroud is totally and completely a big fat fake!