Tuesday, July 31, 2012
christians hate-mongering and calling themselves christian; response to owners of NJ BnB
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians for they are so un-Christ-like." -Mahatma Gandhi
info courtesy of John Fugelsang and article at http://
another letter/email to Doug Lamborn, who should be FIRED from politics in CO:
Another splendid example of how you prefer to proselytize
and ignore the First Amendment rather than be responsive toward your
contituents' voices. "LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION"??? (Just as an
aside: How many times now have the voters in
Colorado already voted down the "life begins at
conception/personhood" initiatives?)
First, I grew up in the
Catholic church, and have questioned its doctrine my whole life because I see
the pain it inflicts on others. I, therefore, honor everyone for their beliefs,
and subscribe only to the Constitution for governing authority over the general
citizenry.
Amendment 1 of the Bill of
Rights:
“Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances.”
This also includes freedom from religion. In other words,
you do not get to force your beliefs, which work for you, on others. You words
in your letter state that you are “dedicated to protecting the sanctity of
human life from the unborn to the elderly, the terminally ill, and all whose
lives are threatened by euthanasia. Life begins at fertilization.” But what you think, your definition, based on
your RELIGIOUS beliefs, you do not get to force on others.
I've been told that this
country is not truly a melting pot, since we are in many ways, separated by economic
status, culture, religion, and race. Never the less, All peoples of all
cultures, religions and races and belief systems make up this country, and no
one religion or religious belief system can dominate everyone else. Live and
let live.
The issues of contraception and abortion are a political
football, and strong moral issues, but issues hotly steeped in RELIGIOUS
BELIEFS. Neither you, nor anyone else, get to define these things for others.
You get to define those things only for yourself.
Regarding contraception and your “conscience” rights, the
government does not get to define these things for me, nor will an employer. If you choose to live by your religious law,
that works for you, but neither you, nor your church, get to force those
beliefs on others in a country that not only is a melting pot of different
cultures, races, religions, belief systems, and even varying degrees of belief
and observance within the established religions.
Women’s reproductive freedom is not a war against
religion; it is a war against religion imposing its will on the tribe of women.
To say that the battle for women’s rights and women’s reproductive freedom
isn’t about religion, though would be a lie. It is about a religion; an
extremely loud and rich group of men and women are using their God and the holy
texts from which He sprang as sacred and moral reason for their actions and
that is persecution. The witch burnings of the middle-ages come to mind.
In the words of our President, “No, you can’t deny women
their basic rights and pretend it’s about your religious freedom.” If you don’t like birth control, don’t use
it. Religious freedom doesn’t mean you can force others to live by your
beliefs.
This last letter from you, in addition to other
correspondence I’ve received from you state what YOU STAND FOR, completely
forgetting that you are MY EMPLOYEE-I AM ONE OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS. Hence, I am
your employer and you are supposed to be representing ME, as well as every
other constituent/employer member. And
let it be known that many of your employer/constituents are unhappy with your
job performance. As far as I am
concerned, you are fired. I hope that
your other employer/constituents step up and let their voices be heard as well.
The bottom line is that your beliefs, to which you hold
yourself accountable, do not govern others. No one religion’s laws govern this
country, as it should be.
Reverend
Renee L. Ten Eyck
Fountain
citizens hired a politician, not a preacher.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
message to Renfro and Lambert re: CO Blunt Amendment, Senate Memorial 3
Dear Sirs,
The
deceptively named Senate Memorial 3 would put the Colorado Legislature
on record as opposing health insurance coverage of contraception.
For millions of us (including more than 90%
of Catholics) birth control is a deeply personal and serious issue. It allows
us to have control over our lives, bodies, financial security and health. During a time when employment and
unemployment are already difficult, even distressing, republicans want to
introduce MORE employment problems by allowing employers to choose what health
coverage we should have. It is not simply
a matter of finding an employer who offers the health coverage that we
desire. For those with jobs, it would be
a painstaking task to try to find another job, and for those of us without
jobs, this would be one more frustration, fear and obstacle to finding suitable
employment. This is not just about
women’s health. This is also about family income, wellbeing, and survival. My family has two children because we do not
want more. We already have one child with special and medical needs that are a
health coverage issue.
I use
birth control, which my husband and I both agree on, not only to keep my family
stable with two children, which is very important to us financially, but a
specific birth control was prescribed to me to control hormone issues that my
body does not control on its own. In
addition, birth control has contributed to reducing the severity of cycles,
which is not only convenient to me, but which my husband also benefits from! These are standards of living and well-being
that neither the government nor employers should interfere with.
Single men and women will
not be the only ones to suffer if this republican, religious-fanatical agenda
succeeds. The personal sexual lives of
many married couples will also suffer if they don't want more children, or if the
health of wives suffers due to inability to obtain simple birth control which is
known to help with many female medical issues.
No one is calling for an end
to coverage for hysterectomies or vasectomies, both of which prevent pregnancy,
but are more costly and invasive, OR Viagra.... Men want to take Viagra, but extremists
want women to "put an aspirin between their knees," as recommended by
Santorum supporter Foster Friess and our nation’s embarrassment, Rush Limbaugh. This is a contradiction, and women are not
property for whom religious law is needed to make decisions.
Here are two excerpts about
Dr. John Rock, a devout Catholic who pioneered contraception:
"Another opponent of the Catholic ban was John
Rock, a devout Catholic doctor who taught at Harvard Medical School and who
would become one of the leading clinical researchers responsible for developing
the pill. Rock held that contraception was sometimes medically necessary and
often personally desirable for maintaining happy marriages and well-planned
families. He also believed that birth control was essential for those who could
not afford many children. Rock was by no means a radical. He was a solid
Republican and didn’t approve of sex outside of marriage. But he openly defied
the Catholic Church and state laws."
“Today, according
to the Guttmacher Institute, more than 99 percent of
sexually experienced women report having used contraception. But we are once
again debating whether women should have access to birth control. Fifty years
ago, John Rock, the socially conservative, Catholic, Republican doctor,
insisted that birth control was consistent with church teachings. He believed
that contraception was essential for women’s health and well-being, family
happiness, and the good of society. The vast majority of Americans of all
faiths and political parties agreed with him at the time. And they still do.”
“Rock
had witnessed the suffering women endured from unwanted pregnancies. He had
seen collapsed wombs, premature aging, and desperation caused by too many
mouths to feed. The experiences of his patients had a profound impact on the
man. Despite his faithful Catholicism and the church's opposition
to contraceptives, Rock came to support contraception within the confines of
marriage. Although he never went as far as to endorse birth control purely as a
woman's right,
Rock believed in the power of birth control to stem poverty and prevent medical
problems associated with pregnancy.”
Banning or otherwise
limiting birth control because someone might
use it outside of marriage is like prohibiting Sony or Panasonic from
manufacturing recording devices because someone might abuse them and fraudulently record movies and music
they are not authorized to record. That
does not make good economic sense.
·
Consider a $10 per hour wage-earner,
anyone you know: that's $1600 per month (before taxes), at best. The
house/trailer payment is $800 per month, car $200 per month, insurance,
utilities, two kids, groceries, and gas in the car is $200 per month right now.
The family qualifies for health coverage from the state of Colorado because the
wage-earner doesn't earn enough from his/her job to cover the kids. At the end
of the day, you and I, TAXPAYERS, are paying for those children to have health
coverage and food assistance. And there are things that employer’s coverage and
the free health
coverage don't cover; as we all know-there are some prescriptions health
coverages won't cover, and that family can't afford to pay out of pocket. This
whole thing is not as simple as it seems on the surface. Should we let that
family continue procreating, so there are more kids for us to pay for their food
and health coverage, or might it be prudent for us to ensure that the employer
doesn’t interfere with that wage-earner’s personal health coverage, that HE/SHE
pays for, so he/she doesn't keep making babies that you and I have to pay to
feed and provide state sponsored health coverage? The Guttmacher Institute
states that “Nine in 10 employer-based insurance plans cover a full range of
prescription contraceptives…” This is an economic as well as a
survival and well-being issue.
·
How married couples view their intimate life
is not yours, or anyone else’s business. The intimate lives of other couples do not
have to fit yours or your religion’s definitions.
The bottom line is that your beliefs, to which you hold
yourself accountable, do not govern others. No one religion’s laws govern this
country, as it should be.
Senate Memorial 3 is out of touch with the majority of Coloradans, who support coverage of contraception and other basic health services. All women should have access to contraceptive coverage, regardless of where they or their spouses/partners work.
The Department of Health and Human Services heeded the findings of an independent panel of experts, the Institute of Medicine, which recommended that birth control be included as a preventive health care benefit. Forcing women to pay out-of-pocket for contraceptives puts an unfair, discriminatory cost burden on a certain segment of society, and women may choose not to use the most effective form of birth control due to cost concerns.
Colorado already requires the coverage of contraceptives in our health insurance markets. Furthermore, Colorado citizens support coverage of and access to contraceptive services.
Please say NO to attacks on women's health and rights in Colorado.
Sincerely,
Reverend Renée Lynn Ten Eyck
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Citizen's Project Personal Reflection
Why does it take a crisis such as 9-11 or Katrina to bring people together?
I grew up in a Catholic household, and though I did not consider myself outgoing or confident, I was always analytical, questioning everything to the point of frustrating adults. In our small town church, it was not uncommon to hear comments from others if you missed a day at church or other church activities. As time passed, however, the scope of my inquiries grew to questions such as “Why would a truly loving God send my god-parents to hell, just because they did not believe in Him?” “Why, if we want to attract people to Christianity, was there a statement in the missalette denying invitation to participate in the Eucharist to those who were not Christian, and offering only a half-hearted invitation to those who were not Catholic?” “Why does the priest dislike children, when Jesus loved the children?” “Why do we have this rule? Who told you so? Who told that person?” “What if I don’t interpret that passage the same way you do?” When someone would criticize, I explained that it is our duty to question everything, even telling one friend’s parent that at least “I didn’t leave what I learned at the door prior to walking out of church.”
In my teens and twenties, I tried other denominations, always searching for what felt right, going to bible study groups, asking questions and trying to find answers that did not bring me back to the same uncomfortable conclusions. During my twenties when I was in the Army, I did not feel that I could find my “next chapter,” and this part of my life remained in limbo for many years; the military has traditionally provided pastoral or chaplain services only for Christians. Despite this fact, the cliché that “there are no atheists in foxholes” is untrue, and the military is acknowledging in recent years that not all of its members are Christian, and even among Christian members, beliefs and practices vary greatly.
Over the past 15 years, however, I have learned the actual history behind Christianity, which is eye-opening and includes great pagan roots, tragedies, atrocities, and incredible examples of humanity (Mother Teresa, who was a devout Catholic who never tried to convert those to whom she provided aid, and who seemed to believe that all religion leads to the same god). I have also studied other cultures and religions and belief systems and thoughts; Christian denominations, paganism, shamanism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, atheism, Judaism, and many other ideas of friends, acquaintances, colleagues, and spiritual leaders. What I have discovered is that I adore everyone in this wonderfully diverse world and all its ideas; I do not believe that any one belief system is right or wrong.
I have learned that though I do not personally believe in deities to be worshipped, anthropology and sociology explain the benefits that established religion and spiritual beliefs can have for societies. However, I have also learned that not only does religion have the ability to comfort and guide, it also has the ability to cause great harm. Similar to some politicians who, rather than representing all of their constituents, choose who they deem worthy, some religious doctrines and institutions also choose who they deem worthy. It is interesting that Ghandi and Mother Teresa, arguably two of the greatest civil rights and spiritual leaders of our time, never discriminated against people based on their beliefs, innate value or worthiness, nor does the Dalai Lama.
I have also learned that we all have more in common that most people think we do.
After watching the struggles of non-Christians over the years, their fears, I also found myself afraid when I came to the realization that, though I was still searching for answers, I had to admit to myself that I am not a Christian, and perhaps, in my heart, never was.
There are open struggles, as non-Christians seek to openly be who they are, to ensure separation of church and state, and as Christians fear “wars” on their religious beliefs. I watched in disbelief as the supposed “war on Christmas” manifested last winter, stupefied and bewildered, trying to understand how anyone was being denied the right to observe Christmas in their homes, and as groups of non-Christians struggled with long-time local, state, and federal practices of decorating for the holidays, with some politicians even trying to legislate holiday decorations and the title of the tree (Christmas tree versus holiday tree). I do not believe this is what we are paying politicians to do. It is interesting that there did not seem to be any public advocacy on behalf of those who celebrate the other December observances of Kwanzaa, Hanukah, or the Winter Solstice.
I do believe, after much pondering, that a Christmas tree is a Christmas tree, despite the fact that I celebrate Christmas only secularly, and despite its pagan origin, since there is no other holiday that uses a Christmas tree that I am aware of. But I also believe there is a deeper issue here, one that goes beyond semantics.
If I say “happy holidays,” that is my way of wishing something positive to the other person, and if the other person says “merry Christmas,” that is his/her way of wishing something positive to me. It should not matter what words we each use, if we are able to look at the deeper intentions, especially since such huge population in America celebrates a December holiday. If a person says “God bless you,” after a sneeze, it is that person’s way of wishing you positive health, in the same way that Spanish speakers say “Salud” when someone sneezes (“to your health”).
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)