What was supposed to be Christmas dinner sat on Karen Morin's kitchen floor Thursday. The disabled single mother of seven didn't know what to do with the canned, wrapped and boxed food she received in a Salvation Army Christmas hamper this year.
[...]She eagerly awaited the hamper's arrival on Wednesday.
But this year, she says she received food from someone's "root cellar."
Inside the boxes that arrived was an assortment of non-perishables that were way beyond the expiry date.
"Mom, this expired before I was born," one of her kids, who is 12 years of age, said after pulling a can of soup out of one of the boxes.
There were 15 Halloween candies, a medium-sized ham, 10 packages of macaroni and cheese, 10 lbs of pasta and nine boxes of Pop Tarts -- not what Morin calls Christmas fare.
Read the rest of the article here, where it also lists what else was included in the food box.
I was intrigued by this article and the responses that Wendy and some others had to the woman complaining about the food donation. Who's really the "grinch" in this story?
Some would say the role of the green-eyed monster belongs to the woman who received the charity. After all, why is she complaining about a gift? Shouldn't she be thankful for what she's received, and in turn, be resourceful with whatever her food hamper contains? By her complaining about the contents of her food donations, is she diminishing the charitable acts of the givers? Is she too busy acting entitled to better material goods rather than being grateful for what she received?
I don't think so.
I'm not out to lambaste the efforts of community organizations and groups that work together to produce these Christmas hampers of food. I'm sure none of the organizations would willingly condone this type of donation, and would also work to rectify any wrongdoings to the recipients.
However, I do think that this woman had a right to be disappointed and complain about what she received, despite the fact that the hamper was considered "charity." (I'm still not sure that going straight to the presses was the most ideal way of resolving the issue -- but at least this way the issue would get some public attention and hopefully wouldn't be repeated again for another family next year)
I don't think that complaining about the contents of her hamper shows a materialistic dark side to her or her family -- I think the "grinch" role is more deserving to whoever or whatever group put this hamper together and allowed dented cans and expired food to be included within its contents. Those contents alone send a message not of love and giving, but one that is both insulting and uncaring.
I don't think that any charity is necessarily good charity. If I give money to homeless people, knowing that they'll use it solely to buy drugs and/or alcohol, then I'm not really helping them out of the situation they're in. If, instead, I buy them a meal, work in a soup kitchen, or financially support a local help agency, then my giving of charity is doing what it's supposed to -- help, not harm.
The woman who complained about the contents of her holiday hamper had some legitimate concerns about the contents of her "gift" -- and because she had received this type of service before, she knew what type of standards to expect in whatever was included in her food collection.
I think the fault here lies not in the protesting woman and family (who some may label "ungrateful") but rather in the people who put this basket together. What's the point of helping someone out if you're only willing to give them your leftovers (or worse yet, items that even you wouldn't consume)?
I think this could be a really good learning opportunity for different groups who do take the time to donate items to the community. Rather than painting this scenario in an ungrateful, grinchlike light, I think we should talk about what it means to give to someone else in need -- and discuss what authentic giving looks like.
For the last few months I've been reading an interesting blog called Leaving Eden. It's written by an atheist student who is finishing up his/her degree at Wheaton College, a popular evangelical school in the states (and also, I think, where Billy Graham is an alumni). The student's identity is incognito on the blog, as he/she hasn't decided to be publicly outed in the Christian environment.
I've enjoyed reading her blog (from now on I'm calling the author a "her," because I'm tired of his/her), mainly because I can remember my school days at the two Bible colleges I attended, years ago. Whenever I revisit those days in my head, I try to position myself (ideologically) as I am now compared to where I was then. Somehow I don't think I would have been able to play the part as well as Leaving Eden is (in writing papers from a Christian perspective), if only because I didn't necessarily fit the part of Bible college, even when I was still a Christian! There were always issues of doctrine and theology that I could never fully embrace, all of which helped to shape my eventual lack of belief.
Anyway, Leaving Eden recently posted a FAQ to answer some of the same questions that often get asked about her deconversion. As I read it, I was reminded of the fact that these are often the same questions/attitudes that are directed toward me and my own unbelief.
Were you turned away from Christianity because of the Christians you encountered? Christians are sinful and don’t always represent Christ, you know.
Were you really a Christian?
A few of my own questions/sentiments to add:
You've never truly experienced God/You're unable to know God/That isn't MY God you're critiquing
Why are you so angry?
Why do you keep talking about religion and faith? You've got no right to criticize. Just get over it (read: shut up) and leave us alone.
If you don't believe in God, what is your basis for hope and/or morality?
So, you must think I'm stupid for having belief.
You shouldn't celebrate Christmas if you don't believe in Christ.
These are just a few of the questions and attitudes I've run into since I've outed myself as faithless. However, what I find even more interesting than above is how some of my past friends have completely dropped our friendship after my personal revelation. It's almost like I'm now some type of enigmatic pariah, where some friends (and even some family) are afraid to personally broach the subject of faith with me. Which is sad, but I suppose understandable?
Regardless, the freedom and authenticity I've personally felt since "outing" myself is something I would never turn the clock back on -- no matter what questions, attitudes, or lost relationships I've experienced as a result of it.
"On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'"
Compare Goldwater's attitude with the religious pandering of the Grand Old Party these days, where all of the candidates are bending over backwards to appease the Dobsons and Robertsons of the day.
(1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world;
(2) expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide;
(3) acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith;
(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;
(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and
(6) expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world.
I'm not against people who believe, but I am against my government -- which supposedly has a separation between church and state -- proclaiming these types of edicts. Now I realize this resolution is pretty much useless, and is done more for pandering than for anything else, but I still feel sick that my government is willing to spend their time passing these types of resolutions than ones that may actually make a difference in the lives of the citizens they supposedly represent.
CARACAS (Reuters) - A video of a Gucci- and Louis Vuitton-clad politician attacking capitalism then struggling to explain how his luxurious clothes square with his socialist beliefs has become an instant YouTube hit in Venezuela.
Venezuelan Interior Minister Pedro Carreno was momentarily at a loss for words when a journalist interrupted his speech and asked if it was not contradictory to criticize capitalism while wearing Gucci shoes and a tie made by Parisian luxury goods maker Louis Vuitton.
"I don't, uh ... I ... of course," stammered Carreno on Tuesday before regaining his composure. "It's not contradictory because I would like Venezuela to produce all this so I could buy stuff produced here instead of 95 percent of what we consume being imported."
It's all over the internets, a recording studio digitally enhanced the last scene in Lost in Translation to find out what Bill says to Scarlett as they part ways. Some have expressed disappointment that it wasn't gibberish or a sentence about ham sandwiches -- me? Well, that movie has always had special meaning and now knowing what Bill says at the end doesn't spoil it at all.
Here's the scene, if curiosity gets the better of you:
Remember how I said in an earlier post that my visit to the States last month made me feel like a stranger in a strange land?
Here's some photographic evidence of why I may have felt a little outta place in Virginia -- what do you think of this combination of merchandise wares?!
Between Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, Santa Claus's route around the planet includes stops at 2.5 billion homes, assuming that children of all religions receive a present from the jolly man in the red suit, Anders Larsson of the engineering consultancy Sweco told AFP.
"We estimated that there are 48 people per square kilometer (120 per square mile) on Earth, and 20 metres (66 feet) between each home. So if Santa leaves from Kyrgyzstan and travels against the Earth's rotation he has 48 hours to deliver all the presents," he said.
More Americans believe in a literal hell and the devil than Darwin's theory of evolution, according to a new Harris poll released on Thursday.
It is the latest survey to highlight America's deep level of religiosity, a cultural trait that sets it apart from much of the developed world.
It also helps explain many of its political battles which Europeans find bewildering, such as efforts to have "Intelligent Design" theory -- which holds life is too complex to have evolved by chance -- taught in schools alongside evolution.
The poll of 2,455 U.S. adults from Nov 7 to 13 found that 82 percent of those surveyed believed in God, a figure unchanged since the question was asked in 2005.
It further found that 79 percent believed in miracles, 75 percent in heaven, while 72 percent believed that Jesus is God or the Son of God. Belief in hell and the devil was expressed by 62 percent.
No, this isn't a headline from The Onion, though Jerry and I had a little snicker at the headline.
Maybe this is one of the reasons why I'm discontent with all the presidential candidates (Repubs and Dems alike)? Out of morbid curiosity, last week I watched CNN's Republican debates, and I was blown away by some of the faith-basedquestions asked of the political candidates. Almost everyone on that stage was stumbling over one another to state how much more of a better Christian they were as compared to their competitors. It was almost surreal in some parts, as it sounded more like a Wednesday night prayer service testimonial than someone running for public office.
And then we've got Romney, a Mormon, who's delivering a campaign speech -- not focusing on his platform on Iraq or health care -- but concerning why his faith is as legitimate as an evangelical's. Why is this even an issue in a Presidential race??
Why? Maybe because there are people out there who label Mormonism as a "cult."
Say, if you're looking for something fun to do on a Friday night, do a survey of the various definitions for word "cult." You'll find that most definitions describe a cult as a gathering of individuals who follow "an exclusive set of doctrine or principles" (which could be said of most religious groups) -- but, because their beliefs aren't a part of the mainstream, their practices are viewed as sinister, extremist, or strange. [which of course begs the question, if Mormonism was more popular and evangelical Christianity was a minority, would it be granted a "cult" status?]
Now that I've been out of the religious scene for a while now, I'm becoming fascinated by these subtleties of religious discrimination -- while Mormons acknowledge the divinity of Christ and believe in the supernatural world, they're still viewed suspiciously as not a member of the "true" faith club -- hence, a "cult." When in fact, depending on which church community you're a part of, you could view just as suspiciously Catholics or other denominations with different doctrines than yours.
I've talked with others about friends who converted recently to a different branch of faith, other than evangelical Christianity. As we discussed the outrage their families felt at their switching of doctrines, I jokingly said, "Well, at least their current faith system isn't as 'bad' as turning atheist!" The response I got was interesting -- they said that having no faith at all could possibly be perceived as more positive than switching to this particular brand of faith.
Which makes me wonder: what if I decided to become a Mormon, rather than an atheist? Would the response have been better, or worse?
I'm sure many of you have been the recipients of forwards, Facebook group invites, and other such attempts to encourage you to boycott the "atheist agenda" of the film adaptation of The Golden Compass (which opens this week -- yay!). It's been amusing to watch the religious leaders/representatives foaming at the mouth over books that many (if not most) of them haven't even bothered to read.
But let's be a bit more specific, shall we? Because as any fan of "HDM" knows, it ain't really about God, per se. Pullman's luminous novels have nothing to do with rejecting faith or destroying the spirit or inhibiting the exploration of what it means to be divine. They are, in fact, the exact opposite. They relish spirit and the magic of belief and love, are soaked through with divine inspiration of a kind any intelligent Christian (or honest spiritual seeker of any stripe, for that matter) should crave. This is what makes them so incredible.
The nefarious thing the books aim to kill is religious authority. It's about the destruction of dogma. It's about power, about who wants to control and manipulate life on Earth, about the blind, ignorant, even violent adherence to insidiously narrow codes of thought, belief, behavior, sex, desire and love.
This, of course, is the God of organized religion. This is the false deity that promotes numb groupthink, inhibits growth and abhors the feminine divine (perhaps the books' most beautiful, inspiring theme), the same paranoid, dreadful God that votes for George W. Bush because he will smite the icky gays and protect us from vile pagans and Buddhists and Muslims and feminists and frumpy genius atheist British writers. If humanity is to flourish, to get over its addiction to war and guilt and fear, this is the false God that should - that must - die.
No wonder Dobson and Bill Donohue (and their ilk) are up in arms over the film!
I've not finished the trilogy, but I have read the first book the film is based on -- and I can't wait to see how it translates on-screen. I love the strong female character, Lyra, and am looking forward to seeing how she develops as the series progresses. As I've said before, it's probably a good thing Emma was born before I read the book, because she could have been a "Lyra."
If your ancient, authoritarian, immutable belief system is threatened by a handful of popular novels, if your ostensibly all-powerful, unyielding creed is rendered meek and defenseless when faced with the story of a fiery, rebellious young girl who effortlessly rejects your stiff misogynistic religiosity in favor of adventure, love, sex, the ability to discover and define her soul on her own terms, well, it might be time for you to roll it all up and shut it all down and crawl back home, and let the divine breathe and move and dance as she sees fit. Don't you agree?
