What I think of those who believe homosexuality is a sin

Yesterday I promised "more on that later" when I mentioned that I may or may not respect someone's beliefs about homosexuality and/or same sex marriage which differ from my own--so I figured I better come back and clarify.  Besides, it is a topic that seems to come up fairly often, more than I would have expected.  Generally, somewhere in a debate about Supreme Court decisions or a discussion about a bakery someone plays the "so, if I do not agree with you, I am close minded or a bigot, but if you do not agree with me I am just supposed to respect that?!   It should be a two way street!"  And, if it really were that simple I would probably agree, but like most things in life, it rarely is.

So pondering a bit, trying to clarify for myself why I feel the way I do about different people and the attitudes they have and how they present things, I have come to realize that most people who see homosexuality as immoral, a sin if you will, against their moral code or religion fall into one of three groups and how I feel about that person and their beliefs is largely shaped by which group they are in.

I have plenty of respect for the first group.  These are the people who see the rules of their faith as applying to themselves and their church and no one else.  They don't expect others to come to the same conclusions about what the Bible or the Koran, etc means, or even expect others to believe in the same religious texts or god(s). In other contexts, that might be a Jewish person keeping Kosher, but not expecting other Jews and certainly not Christians, Hindus, Muslims or Atheists to stick to those same dietary guidelines.  Or it might be a Muslim women who wears a hajib but does not expect all the other women she encounters to do the same.  Or an atheist who does not attend church (or attends a UU church) but doesn't look down upon those who do attend or believe.  In this case, it means the person might well seek out a church which does not perform same sex marriage, and would not date someone of the same sex them-self, and can articulate their reasoning for believing as they do if there is a discussion about beliefs, or what the church should do, or what not---but the topic probably doesn't come up all that often--certainly no more often than someone who keeps Kosher bringing that up (and that can come up from time to time when needed: to order a special meal, or explain why they are not trying the cake someone brought into work, etc).  More importantly, when it does come up, it is in the context of "this is what is right for me" not in the context of "this is what is right for you."

The second group is a lot less okay with the idea that others have different beliefs than they do.  They tend to see their beliefs as not only true for them but as superior to the beliefs of everyone else around them, and therefore feel they should point out "arbitrary sin" (by which I mean "sin" as defined by a religion or even an "ick" feeling but which is not something that is actually harmful to other people) to others, somehow proving or at least pointing out that they are better, or right, and others are bad, or wrong.

These are usually the people who get very upset at being told they are "bigots" or intolerant, etc.  The Oxford dictionary defines a bigot as:

A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

So, yes, I do believe that if you set your beliefs up as superior to those of others and insist on insulting people who believe differently, you are in fact acting as a bigot in those times.  When you start flinging insults at those who do not share your interpretation of the bible, or do not believe in your holy book at all, you are not respecting  the beliefs of those people you are talking about and to.  To then turn around and demand to be respected for insulting others is kind of ridiculous when you stop to think about it.

If you are one of those people, I respect your personal belief that homosexuality is a sin but I do not respect your mean spirited and condescending attempts to foist that belief onto others.  To go back to prior examples, I doubt you would respect someone who frequently posted and said that eating cheeseburgers is sinful, or that all women who go outside without covering their heads are an abomination, or that people who attend church have been duped by their religion which is not real, etc.. 

Sometimes posts and comments from people like this make me angry, but mostly I just find them deeply hurtful.  Even more so when the person is using a particular religious dogma to justify posting and mentioning often their negative opinion on this particular topic while ignoring many other topics given equal weight in that dogma.  As a Catholic, why post weekly reminders that homosexuality is a sin, but not do the same about divorce or pre marital sex or birth control?  As a Mormon, why these posts but nothing about working on Sundays?  Why choose to be hurtful at all, and if you do, why to only this one group (which just makes it all the more personal and hurtful)?

The last group does not just hurt me, they infuriate me.  These are the people who have decided that their "arbitrary" religious rules (again, meaning not rules designed to protect others from harm) should be the law of the land.  Some want to rewrite the history of a nation founded largely on religious freedom and pretend it was founded on Christianity. Furthermore, they want their own particular brand of Christianity to prevail, not that of the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Evangelical Lutherans, etc.  

I will be honest here, if you are one of these people, I do not look kindly on you.  At best you are ignorant and have been misled and refuse to do your own research from valid sources for fear of having your world view invalidated.  At worst, you are deceptive and misleading others to try to change history to suite your desires; a dangerous force that needs to be stopped.  

Personally, I feel it is a violation of the most basic of human rights to be forced to live by someone else's religious precepts.  I find it wrong and rather sickening in countries with deep religious roots in the government, such as Saudi Arabia and Burma and egregious when such attempts are made in a free country such as the USA.

Maybe you can call me a bigot here:  I do whole heatedly believe that people's rights to choose their own religion and religious beliefs takes precedence over your belief that your religion should trump all others and be made law.  I am not ashamed to admit that I am intolerant of your attempts to do so.  At this point you have moved beyond having personal beliefs that affect only yourself and are using your beliefs to inflict harm on others, and I feel justified in standing up to that.  Then again, you would probably not tolerate a movement to make it illegal to eat foods that are not kosher, or one to force women to wear burkas in public, or one forbidding church attendance.  It's really the same thing--but a lot less palpable when you are the one being forced to abide by someone else's religion.

--Hadley

Tired of hearing about how marriage has been "redefined"

Well, it has been an awfully long time since I managed to get a blog post up.  This is primarily because I have simply been very busy with an increasingly large amount to juggle--some of which should be tapering off soon as Marika moves off to college (a very bitter sweet feeling for this mom).  It is also because I am having an issue getting photos stored on my Chromebook uploaded into Blogger.  If I hook a camera up to the Chromebook it opens a folder where all of my photos of places like Amsterdam, Estonia, St Petersburg, etc can be found--but if I try to upload a photo to Blogger, or Facebook or an email that same location appears to no longer exist.  So I have been resisting the urge to post more and more soap box rants and trying to get up a handful of fun and light posts about pretty places to visit.  Today I am throwing in the towel and posting a bit of a rant (but I will keep trying to solve the photo issue).

Why?  Well, partly because I don't want to abandon the blog altogether and partly because I am tired.  Yes, TIRED.  On June 26, 2015 the Supreme Court of the USA ruled on a landmark civil rights case that greatly affects a lot of my friends and some family.  I was giddy with excitement all weekend and well into the following week.  I reveled in my skittles colored facebook feed and the influx of wedding and engagement announcements.  I was proud of my country for no longer lagging behind in the issue of civil rights for same sex couples.

Along with all that happiness and pride and, quite honestly, simple RELIEF that there is one less obstacle out there in the world for my child and for so many others, was that tinge of sadness and HURT from some of the posts that people I cared about, who disagree with this ruling, were making, and continue to make now, nearly three weeks later.  This meme, or one of basically the same message, or words to this effect is one I am particularly tired of seeing:

There are so many things wrong with this, that I am just tired of seeing it as an excuse to disagree with the Supreme Court ruling at all--so I am going to just refute it right here, right now, and maybe I'll just post a link to this blog post every time I see this message from now on (OK; I probably won't, but at least I will feel better having put my refute out there somewhere).  

First and foremost:  The Supreme Court did NOT "redefine" marriage.  Marriage today is, to quote the Talking Heads "same as it ever was" OK, OK, not really.  Women long ago ceased becoming essentially the property of their husbands in our country, thankfully.  It is, however, the same today in the USA as it was on June 25, 2015.  The Supreme Court ruling did not suddenly confer additional tax benefits or strip away inheritance benefits, etc.  NOTHING about marriage itself (in the legal sense) changed with the ruling.  Not one thing.  All that happened was that the Supreme Court said that legal marriage within the USA cannot be denied to a couple based on their sex.  That's it.  

Saying that the Supreme Court redefined marriage on June 26, 2015 is like saying it redefined "voting" on February 27, 1922 when it ruled that states could not deny women the right to vote, or saying that the Supreme Court redefined "education" when it ruled that black students could not be denied being taught in the same schools, by the same teachers as their white counterparts (a ruling which took far too long to implement across the board).  I have yet to see anyone point out any way in which the legal status of "married" has changed for any married couple since the ruling came out--which is probably because it has not changed.  The only thing even close to this is now couples married in states which had already realized denying marriage to same sex couples was not right, can move to other states and their marriages will be recognized there--just like every straight married couple has been able to do pretty much forever.  That is not a change to marriage itself--moving across state lines and still being recognized is one of those legals things already in place which is simply no longer being unfairly denied to one small group of citizens.  

OK, so now that it is clear that marriage has NOT be "redefined"--let's look at the rest of that meme, shall we?  You support the "Christian definition of marriage," which we can infer means "one man and one woman" or "straight" based on the tone of the meme and the recent supreme court decision that is apparently being referred to.  

The first problem with this is that marriage, in the legal sense (which is all this ruling is about) is not about Christianity in the US at all (and it should not be, remember that pesky little thing called separation of church and state?).  Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Agnostics, etc have all been getting legally married (yes, by that name, no civil union mumbo jumbo)  in the US for well over a century.  It is positively silly to insist that the legally joining together of two spouses has been reserved for only one faith in our country up to now or should suddenly become so.  Beyond the USA and our specific laws, some people seem to have the misguided belief that marriage is a Christian invention; simply not true.  Legal marriage, in some form, has existed at least since Hammurabi's Code--long before the time of Christ.  

Then there is that little issue in which not all Christian churches agree on how "holy matrimony" or religious marriage should be defined anyway.  It would seem that the meme makers and meme posters have decided that, among others, the Presbyterians, Evangelical Lutherans, Episcopalians and members of the United Church of Christ and are not actually Christians after all.  Hmmmm.  Hardly seems right, does it?

So, basically, if you believe that your church should not perform same sex weddings or should preach that homosexuality is a sin, while I do not agree with you, and depending on how you handle that belief I may or may not respect it (more on that later), I do support your right to hold such a belief and will fight for you to always have that right.  

However, I have absolutely no tolerance left for the spreading of lies and myths about definitions somehow being changed, or continuing any sort of fantasy that there is only ONE Christian view on same sex marriage or that ANY religious view on the topic is, has been in semi recent history or should be part of, the legally binding law of the land in our free country.  

--Hadley

Spider-man and racism, or dinner with my kids

I have thought about writing another post dealing with some of the issues, as I see them, with racism in the US many times over the past few months as riots have broken out in St Louis and Baltimore, and more and more news reports of deaths of unarmed black men at the hands of police surface (at least a few of which seem to very, very clearly show an officer behaving entirely the wrong way).  I never could decide quite how to go about it, or what of the myriad of things in my head to put down in one little blog post, and I do not want to necessarily repeat the same things being said over and over by so many (though I am sure this post will also rehash what at least some have said, I am not vain enough to think my thoughts on this are totally unique).

It was a conversation over dinner with my kids tonight that has finally given me a starting point for something I want to say and that I think is limited enough in scope to cover in a blog post.  So I hope you do not mind if I jump on another soapbox and rant today, instead of posting pretty pictures.

It all started innocently enough with my teens obsessing over the Marvel Cinematic Universe, as they so often do.  Disney, who owns the rights to make and distribute films involving The Avengers and several other Marvel characters, has recently obtained the film rights to Spider-man as well.  And so it was that tonight my kids were discussing who they would like to see play Spider-man in a reboot.  None of us had any trouble naming many young male actors who might be considered for such a role.

Then Marika said she'd love to see a reboot center around Miles Morales, rather than Peter Parker--which has been done enough already.  So we started trying to think of young male actors who might be cast in that role, which is of a black, hispanic character.  WOAH!  it is a dang lot harder to think of anyone.  There simply are not that many very well known actors who qualify.  Even trying to think of just a hisapnic or just a black actor of the right age who is known was tough.  Jaden Smith was the only name we could confidently come up with (and none of us think he is really all that right for the role).  It just feels wrong that there is such a lack of diversity in the big names in Hollywood, doesn't it? Gina Torres was the only actor at all, of any age or gender to quickly spring to mind otherwise when thinking of a black, Hispanic name that appears on the big screen.  And it is about as hard to think of young actors of Asian decent as well.  Not that there are none, but so many fewer overall, much less than makes sense given our population as a whole.

This got the kids to wondering why is it that in the Marvel Cinematic Universe all of the major characters, all of the big time super heroes, are white?  There is plenty of diversity in the supporting cast (and among the villains), but the top players are all one color, hardly representative of New York City, where many are from and most of the action takes place.  (or so I understand from listening to the kids tonight).  Funny thing is, the Marvel cast is considered diverse when compared to DC, which doesn't even have one female as a major lead in one of their motion pictures (there is a lot of fan desire for a Wonder Woman film, but so far that has not happened).

I doubt that anyone, at any point, made a decision to intentionally portray all of these heroes as only white or even as mostly male.  Similarly, I doubt anyone in Ferguson intentionally decided to create a police force that was much whiter than the population it represented.  We, as a culture, are just so very used to that being the picture we see, to whites guys as the good guys and as the leads and the main characters, that time and time again we continue to cast movies, and hire police officers and teachers, and so many other things with this slant in favor of one race, that the story just continues to be slanted and this insidious and almost unnoticeable and mostly unintentional racism is allowed to stay put and keep festering.

Yes, yes, of course I know many of these comic book characters have been around for decades and were from a time when white heroes were the only heroes that would sell.  But we do not live in that time any more, and it is well past time that our movie heroes, our police officers and our CEOs reflect the full diversity of our nation.  In an ideal world this would happen without thinking about it.  It would just be natural to cast a range of characters with no bias (for or against any race or gender or sexual orietnation at all), but in practice it does not occur.  At this point we have not moved far enough along the continuum to simply not think about it and have things work out as they should--which means we (all of us) need to consciously watch out for this and work at balancing things out, until it DOES become the norm.

This is not the only solution to many of the problems (especially as they relate to high incarceration rates and police brutality) but I think it would go a long way--and it is something that every single one of us can do to be a part of the solution.

--Hadley

Neuschwanstein and Hohenschwangau castles--fairy tales come to life

So, the reason for my little jaunt south last week was that we had a couple of visitors out from the states, and they had requested a chance to see the most well known of German attractions, the castle that inspired Disneyland's castle and the company logo: Schloss Neuschwanstein.

Neuschwanstein, as well as the lovely Hohenschwangau are in the tiny little town of Schwangau, which really only contains the castles, gifts shops and restaurants which go with it.  Nearby Füssen is the nearest town which feels like a town and where many people stay overnight when visiting these Bavarain gems--it is also, by virtue of being next to this huge tourist attraction, a pretty pricey place to stay--which is why we stayed an hour away in Garmisch the night before.

The castles, which are still privately owned by the Duke of Bavaria and his family, are run very smoothly and more business-like than virtually any other attraction in Germany.  Arriving in town, tourists who drive themselves are first directed to whichever parking area is currently being filled.  Parking is a one time fee of 6 Euro which is good all day.

From your parking lot, follow the crowds or signs towards the centralized Ticketing Office /stopping along the way to ooh and aah and take some photos of the castle sitting up on the hill if you have the same good fortune we had and are there on a clear day).

We arrived at the ticketing office around 9:45 and there was already a line of about 100 people.  It moves quickly though: there are several stations and they have a good system.  We were at the ticketing window by 10:00.  We bought tickets which included English language tours of each castle (you can only go inside as part of a guided tour) and all day access to the Museum in town for a total cost of 28€ per person.  We were given a 10:55 tour of Hoheschwangau, and a 12:50 at Neuschwanstein.  

This was just about perfect timing, allowing us to walk at a comfortable speed from one castle to another. There is normally a shuttle bus up the hill to Neuschwanstein, but it is not running right now due to construction on the road, so you need to walk about a mile and a half up a steep hill to get there.  Access to Hohenschwangau is always via a short 5-10 minute uphill walk.  You do have the options to pay for a horse drawn carriage as well, lines were long.  

Hohenschwangau was the summer home of King Maximillian II and his family, built on the ruins of a much older castle.  Ludwig and his younger brother Otto spent many of their childhood days in this lovely, almost homey castle.  Unlike most castles, this one feels like a home (a huge one, but a home nonetheless).  No photos may be taken inside either castle (except for a view out the window of the guest room), the interiors are copyrighted!  So, you'll have to be content with exterior shots.  

Here is Hohenschwangau from below (in town, looking up):

Once up at the castle, we had just enough time to use the (free and clean) restrooms before our tour number showed up on the television screens and our tickets would activate the turnstile.  Tours were running every 10 minutes (as opposed to every 5 minutes for the star attraction) and can have up to 100 people in them.

Here is the one picture that I was allowed to take from inside--looking out of the guest room window.  Man, what a view the guests had!

The tour was enjoyable.  The castle is quite pretty and I really like hearing about Queen Marie of Prussia (mother of the famous Mad King Ludwig).  She was a founding member of the precursor to the German Red Cross and a big outdoor enthusiast.  The tour lasts about half an hour.

Following the tour we poked around a bit in the gift shop (which also houses the former castle kitchen, you can see the display through a Plexiglas wall, so duck in to see that even if you do not want to buy any trinkets), and then took a few photos in the small garden area around the front and side:

Heading down from the castle, you are directed to a different path than on the way up.  This more round about path has a great stopping place to take some photos of the lake:

Once down, we had just under an hour until our next tour, so we started up the longer, steeper hill to Castle Neuschwanstein.  We had just enough time to walk up, stop to grab Marika a wurst on a roll to hold her over until our late lunch after the tour (only 3.50€ right there on the road to the castle with a captive audience), and check our backpacks in the gatehouse gift shop (per signs--they give you a key to a locker for a 2 euro deposit, otherwise you may wear your backpack in front of you on the tour).

Our tour appeared to be the full 100 people.  It was fun though and easy enough to hear our guide.  Once again, no photos are allowed.  I have to say I get a major kick out of the "cave" Ludwig had built up on the second  floor of his fantasy castle.  This castle was built in the late 1800s but designed to look more medieval and to highlight Ludwig's power and make him seem more important (at a time when his power had waned to nearly nothing--something that greatly bothered him.  I can't help but thing that his ego would be thrilled to know that thousands of people trek to see his masterpiece every day, and that much of the world's image of what a castle should be is based on Neuschwanstein, thanks in no small part to Walt Disney).  

After the tour, we headed further up the hill towards the Marienbrücke, stopping along the way for some nice photos:

The Marienbrucke ("Marie's bridge") is the spot where all of the classic photos of Neuschwanstein are taken from.  The view is incredible.  It is also VERY high and feels awfully fragile (even the boards underfoot wobble in many places).  Do you recall me saying in the Ulm post that heights frighten me? They do.  A lot.  Open bridges like that freak me the heck out.  But there were views to be had and blog photos to be taken, so I headed out onto this (note, the photo of the bridge is not mine, it was taken from Wikimedia: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marienbr%C3%BCcke_(Schwangau).jpg)

Marika said I should show my readers what I put myself through for them, so there you have it!  And here is the payoff, oh the view is spectacular:

See, there I am on the bridge, trying hard to look like I am

NOT imagining myself plummeting to my death.

Here's the view looking back the other way:

AND, looking straight down--GULP!

Finally, something not so pretty--the "love locks" fastened onto the bridge.  This love lock thing is a trend that has gotten hugely popular.  The idea is to lock the lock on some famous bridge (or other landmark) and throw away the key and as long as the lock is not opened your love will last.  Yeah, yeah, I am sure it sounds all nice and pretty, but what people fail to realize is that the locks build up fast (in the hundreds, in some places thousands in a day in high season).  They destroy views, mar the look of the architecture of the bridges themselves, and weigh so much that they can cause significant damage.  It is nearly a full time job cutting the dang things off at many locations (based on how few were on the bridge by 2:00 pm and the number or tourists visiting and how many I saw clamped on in the short time we were there, I would guess Schwangau has them cut off daily).  It is just as much vandalism as painting your names on the bridge would be, so please, please do NOT do this at any place you may vacation.  Find other ways to express your love (Paris is asking people to take selfies instead:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11024317/Paris-asks-couples-to-post-selfies-not-love-locks-on-bridges.html )

JUST SAY NO TO LOVE LOCKS--there is nothing lovely or loving about vandalism

OK, I will jump off of my soapbox and go down from the bridge now.  

Back in town we had a late lunch, which was tasty and reasonably priced, and then headed over to the museum (stopping to take more photos of the lake first--the museum is right on the edge of it):

The museum, like the castles, does not allow any photography inside.  It was quiet, with only a few other visitors, and fairly low key.  It traces the history of the Bavarian royalty.  I enjoyed that many of the stories include Heidelberg, Mannheim and Weinheim.  If you have the time it is worth stopping in, but nothing to worry about missing if not.  Last time we were in Schwangau we hiked down on on the gorge hiking trail, which is a much better use of your time if it is open (it was not this time).  

I hope you enjoyed the photos--Marika and I sure enjoyed getting to see the castles again.

--Hadley

Garmisch in photos

After stopping in Ulm, we arrived in Garmisch to spend a night so that we'd be much closer to Neuschwanstein the next day for a visit.  We stayed at the chain hotel, Mercure at the great rate of 65€ per night for double rooms.  The rooms were nice and roomy and very clean, parking was ample and free and the location was perfect for walking into town.  My only complaint was that the internet was very slow, but that was quite minor.  We'd happily stay there again:

Garmisch is a cute little ski town, right at the base of the Zugspitze (the tallest peak in Germany).  Here is one of the early train cars that took people up towards the slopes: it was on display in town:

The town is adorable, so we walked around for about an hour before dinner, it was raining on and off but we enjoyed getting a little exercise and taking photos of the little storybook town.  I hope you enjoy them:

--Hadley