I am so very confused about California's recent law:
"Gov. Jerry Brown on Monday signed AB 1266, which says schools must allow a student to participate in sex-segregated programs, athletics and to use facilities 'consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil's records.' "  [source:  http://www.mercurynews.com/education/ci_23861258/california-law-protecting-k-12-transgender-students-gets]


So if you are transgendered, you have, lets say boy parts, but you wish you had girl parts.  Because you wish you had girl parts you get to shower with all of the other people who have the girl parts you wish you had?

Won't that cause jealousy because the girls with girl parts have girl parts and you wish you had girl parts.

Aren't transgendered people already dealing with enough confusion and difficulty?

I am sure I am missing something here.

Also from the story:  "In July, the federal civil rights offices settled a case forcing the Arcadia School District in Southern California to protect transgender student rights. The district barred a middle school student who identified as a boy from using a boys bathroom and a boys cabin on an overnight field trip."

So a young lady who believes she should be a boy needs to pee.  She wants to pee with the boys.  Why shouldn't she be able to pee with the boys?  Well, she doesn't pee like the boys do.  Most females I know have at one time or another wished they could pee cleanly standing up.  It just doesn't work.  Even animals pee differently depending on their gender.

Will the boy's restrooms have to have Kotex dispensers in them now?  Did anyone actually think this through?

I know I am rowing against the tide here, but what is next, someone feels like they are the wrong specie and they get to run around with the skunks, bears or lions.  My guess is they wouldn't survive long.

I don't see myself as a prude, I just do not see the wisdom in this decision.  Sure it makes a segment of the voting public "feel good".  It is also an infringement on other people's rights.  Maybe we are moving toward what exists in other countries.  Public toilets out in the open.  What difference does it matter anyway...

Lets just put troughs in the middle of the school and everyone can toilet the way they see fit.  That way there is no distinction and no 'discrimination'.

I am now looking for an island to buy.

Reply to Andrea Morisette Grazzini

This is my response to the following blog post.  It is copyrighted, so I cannot directly quote the whole piece like I wanted to, nor can I insert my responses into the post without permission.  I tried to post this reply on the blog, but, alas, the blogger didn't want my reply. 

Oh well, that is why I have a blog. 

Read this first to make some sense of what I wrote, or read what I wrote and then read the other blog and see why I wrote it.  Your choice, or you can "move on, these are not the droids you want".

Passion Play: Will ‘We the People’ be Ashamed or be Saviors?

By Andrea Morisette Grazzini

http://dynamicshift.org/archives/the-passion-of-people-shameful-or-saviors

My reply to Andrea Morisette Grazzini's above referenced blog post
 

Interesting perspective equating the death of Jesus (which he knew he had to do to fulfill the law) and the murder of 20 children and 6 adults by a mad man.  I don’t know of ANY Christians who support the actions of the mad man as could be inferred by this essay.

I think it is important to realize that the reason the religious leaders of the day wanted Jesus gone is because they were afraid that their power base would be taken away if people continued following Jesus as a Rabbi.  They didn’t want to lose all that came with being the leaders.

It was the frightened leaders who whipped the crowd into a frenzy to free a known killer and insurrectionist, not the “citizens”.  Jesus had many, many followers and they were afraid of what the government would do if they spoke up to defend him.  The frightened religious leaders got “witnesses” (or experts) to testify that Jesus had said things he didn’t say, or to twist what he did say to fit THEIR agenda.

The religious leaders were also cowardly as they used the government to do their dirty work.  They had laws that would have allowed them to stone Jesus to death.  They chose instead to use the “greater power” to put Jesus to death (remembering that Jesus chose to die for the sins of the world as part of God’s plan for redemption).

I will admit I struggle with the picture of Jesus as a not violent activist.  That fits a particular religio-political agenda, but it isn’t totally square with Jesus asking his disciples to bring a sword with them to the Garden on the Mount of Olives.  Yes, the Jews and in particular the Pharisees wanted the Messiah to come and be a great military world leader.  That is from their incorrect interpretation of the Torah and prophesies regarding the Messiah.  Jesus didn’t come to rule with a iron sword, but with God’s message of love.

Think about where Jesus brought about changes.  It was in people’s hearts, minds and behaviors.  He didn’t legislate behavior.  That had been tried with just 10 laws/commandments, and people kept working to find ways around the those 10.  That is what the Pharisees were, is students and teachers of the Law.  The Pharisees were so “righteous” that they gave 10% of even their spices to the Temple so they could be known as following the law to the letter.  That didn’t make them right.

Jesus on the other hand said, here are two simple principles which will fulfill everything written in the Law and by the Prophets:  “Love God and Love your neighbor.”  That is it, that was all.  It is still true, if we Love God and Love our Neighbor we will not do bad things.  The murderer of those 26 people didn’t know that love, from anything I am aware of.  He certainly didn’t practice it in this instance if he did know it.  [Note:  The Greek word for love here is the sacrificial love, the unconditional love that Jesus showed by willingly giving his life on the cross to take our place, for our sins.]

I don’t think we have a theology difference in what we are saying.  I am just concerned that using theology to whip people into a frenzy is dangerous.  I could even draw a parallel between doing that and what the Pharisees did with Jesus.  Guns are not the problem.  The lack of the knowledge of God’s love is the problem.  The presence of HATE and lack of meaning is the problem.

Most of the people who have murdered others in these mass killings have ended the situation by killing themselves.  To me that means, they do not see any meaning in their own life and their own presence.  They also see no value in the life of others.  Their life has no meaning therefore, your life has no meaning.  This then often leads me into talking about the “crowd’s” view on abortion, which kills way more children annually than all of the mass murders with firearms.

Again, the problem is the heart, mind and soul.  It is the value that is placed on one’s own and other’s lives.  God loved/loves us so much he sent his one and only Son that none should perish but have everlasting life.  I don’t think that Dillon/Klebold, Holmes or Lanza knew this or understood it.  That is the real problem with America.

I could have stopped there and maybe I should have, but I believe you jumped the shark here: 

This modern day Calvary coming to life here in America, in the image of gun advocates who seek protection for their rights to own unregistered assault weapons above all, including above the rights of all American children to be protected in ways both Jesus and authors of the American Constitution would surely agree with.

You are making an assumption that all gun owners or gun rights (2^nd amendmenters) have unregistered assault weapons.  This is a fallacy that is perpetrated and propagated by the Pharisees of our time.  I am sad that you threw this red herring in to your thought provoking piece.  The founding documents of this country include the 1^st and 2^nd amendments.  If you wish to throw out one, then let’s throw out the other.  I appreciate my 1^st amendment rights as much as I appreciate my 2^nd amendment rights.  If we are throwing out the baby with the bathwater, why stop at the 2^nd or the 1^st.  Let’s just throw them all out.

While, I am at it, you misquoted the document, it is not the “right to Happiness”, it is the right to the PURSUIT of happiness.  I have to disagree that “God died for our right to ‘life and liberty’”.  I am not sure which translation of the Bible you are using, but I do not find that to be the case in any translation I have read.  Jesus died to take away the punishment for our sins against his standards.  Not life and liberty here on earth.  The liberty is from the consequences/punishment from breaking his laws in His Kingdom.

I was surprised when you stated that, Obama said that “The entire Country made a pledge not to forget…”, yes and there was also a pledge to not forget 9/11/01 and the 3,000+ who died there too.  Nor do we forget those who died on 12/7/41 or during the “Civil War” which freed the slaves in America.  Again, the answer is not taking away anything.  

The real answer is about ADDING something, and that is the worth of human life in the eyes of God.  I do wonder how in good conscience this President or any other President can talk on about the value of children’s lives any continue to fund MILLIONS of abortions every year.  There is some kind of disconnect here.  

I have listened to women who grieve for their dead child.  You know, the one who was aborted because they were told by people paid with government money that it is “best”, and it is really no big deal.  Again, the answer is understanding God’s LOVE and His plans.  It isn’t about how we “feel”, it is about what is real.

I am sorry, to me,  you jumped the shark again with this:

Obama, too, is calling on citizens to speak their minds. He, too, knows what they want. Only Obama, unlike his early Roman predecessor, agrees with the people he serves. Because unlike those who called for the death of Jesus, the vast majority of Americans are not buying the gun propaganda that mostly just supports manufacturers’ sales revenues via the violent means their products promote and achieve.

It is your opinion that you are stating above.  If it is true that the majority of the American citizens want guns MORE regulated, then why not put it to a vote?  Let it be ratified by the citizens, instead of those in power.  The manufacturers of guns are not wanting people to commit murder with them, if they did, there would be blood in the streets all of the time.  Most guns are used for target practice, self -protection and hunting, not to commit mass murders.  To take the freedoms away from all because of the misbehavior, criminal behavior, evil behavior, unloving behavior of a very few is not God’s way either.  God’s way (through what Jesus said) is for the individual to suffer the consequences of their own behaviors.  To master their own behaviors and to demonstrate Jesus in their life.  Jesus didn’t need to make laws.

Love your neighbor as your love yourself is what Jesus said.  You can love yourself and your neighbor when you know God loves you.  The government is the power that has taken speaking about God and His love from the schools.  Children (who then become adults) need to know that someone greater than themselves really LOVES them.  That power filled message has been removed from schools on the basis of not letting the church be involved with the state.

Please, please, tell me that you are not equating the words of President Obama with the words of Jesus.  President Obama has ordered the murder of thousands of people using our military and its drones.  Some of those people have been children.  Some of those people have been Osama bin Laden.  Jesus didn’t order the death of anyone.  I reject that Obama’s words carry the same weight and meaning as Jesus the Christ’s words do.  When Jesus said, “It is finished.”  He meant that the plan to bring salvation to all humans was complete.  He also meant that the practice of living by laws and loopholes in those laws was finished.  He didn’t mean, “Make more laws so the people feel safer.”

Dear author, “…the full liberty and redemption Christians believe was painfully achieved three days after Jesus died…” is not the freedom from earthly death.  It was the freedom from the consequences/punishment due each of us from breaking God’s laws and standards.  It was freedom from the punishment of sinning/rebellion against God.

Jesus died for all sins and all sinners, not only for, “… sins of power and greed in their most violent and life-draining expressions.”  To say that cheapens the cost of the sacrifice Jesus made on our behalf.  He left all of the power and glory in Heaven to suffer for you and for me.  This is what people need to know to change their lives.  To help them see that there is value to their and other human lives.

I too wish we could protect all children from all harm and all violence.  I tried to do that with my first daughter.  I was doing well until she was running down the dirt driveway, at age 2, stumbled and fell.  She scraped up her elbow.  I realized then that I could not protect her from every harm that would come.  She still has a scar from that incident.  A reminder to ME that hurts happen, and that hurts heal.   

I am not saying throw your children down on the driveway, nor am I saying that there aren’t things which can be done to slow down gun violence, or violence of any kind.  [By the way, do you know how many children are killed annually due to drunk drivers, or drunk enraged parents or are killed in Foster Care?  The answer would surprise you, I know.]

I am saying that putting MORE restrictions on law abiding citizens, who by the very nature of their group, follow the laws, is NOT going to stop people who break the law from finding a way to break the law.

I appreciate your passion.  I would love to see it directed in a truly productive way, like infusing all around you with the love of Jesus, instead of infusing the hatred for guns and law abiding gun owners.  I wish President Obama would do that too, but he is more of an agitator than a problem solver.  He is in a quest for power and a legacy.  Preaching God’s love isn’t as popular as preaching about “gun control”.

I hope you accept this in the spirit it is written.  Out of the box thinking, not mob mentality thinking .  Iconoclast thinking.  Protect children through many means, not just passing new laws which will be ignored by criminals.   Dillon/Klebold, Holmes and Lanza all broke over a dozen laws by their behavior.  Laws don’t stop criminal behavior, laws just tell what the consequence will be IF you break those laws.  If Dillon/Klebold, Holmes or Lanza had known that God loved them so much that he sent his Son to die for them, I seriously doubt they would have carried out their heinous acts.  That is what the Resurrection is about, God’s love for all.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

 

Institutional Bullying

     I have finally realized that there is a plethora of institutional bullying related to political positions.  I may be blind to it in my political persuasion.  It has smacked me in the face in the last couple of days.  In retrospect, it was present during and after the 2012 election.  Others have commented on the viciousness of the political rhetoric.  The way that real issues were ignored and emphasis was placed on whether a candidate put their dog on a crate on the roof of a car, or cut the hair of a classmate.
     I have had several "friends" on Facebook who attended the same High School I did.  The level of vitriol which has continued to come from those individuals has finally hit the fan for me.  I quit receiving the posts from one after the election because of the "na-na-na we won the election" immature posts.  This week another one has posted two depersonalizing and bullying photos.  One saying "You might be a 'teabagger' if you support the Keystone Pipeline...", the other stated that questioning the sitting president's vacation schedule was a "racist" activity.
     Both of these posts have photos or charts which have been created by left/progressive/democrat websites and sources.  That is the reason I call it Institutional Bullying.  These groups like MoveOn.org, WeSurvivedBush.com and many others spend time developing these propaganda items which are meant to depersonalize anyone who does not accept what they believe.
     This has damaged actual discourse and the ability to discuss topics and issues.
     I looked at Bullying behavior, which is ironic, because the people who are acting in bullying ways are the very "tolerant" people who support liberalism and progressive-ism.  They are the ones who demand acceptance of any and every behavior.
    One of the major characteristics is to depersonalize the victim, whether the victim is an individual or a group.  Using terms like "teabagger" or "racist" is very effective at doing that, just as using the "N" word or the "Q" word.  Liberals/progressives/democrats seem to be most proficient at this behavior.
     I have taken the liberty of adapting an article from the UK regarding work place bullying.  The original article can be found here: 

http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm

The serial Liberal/Progressive/Democrat bully:

• is a convincing, practiced liar and when called to account, will make up anything spontaneously to fit their needs at that moment
• has a Jekyll and Hyde nature - is vile, vicious and vindictive in private, but innocent and charming in front of witnesses; no-one can (or wants to) believe this individual has a vindictive nature - only the current target of the serial bully's aggression sees both sides; whilst the Jekyll side is described as "charming" and convincing enough to deceive personnel, management and a tribunal, the Hyde side is frequently described as "evil"; Hyde is the real person, Jekyll is an act
• excels at deception and should never be underestimated in their capacity to deceive
• uses excessive charm and is always plausible and convincing when peers, superiors or others are present (charm can be used to deceive as well as to cover for lack of empathy)
• is glib, shallow and superficial with plenty of fine words and lots of form - but there's no substance
• is possessed of an exceptional verbal facility and will outmaneuver most people in verbal interaction, especially at times of conflict
• is often described as smooth, slippery, slimy, ingratiating, fawning, toadying, obsequious, sycophantic
• relies on mimicry, repetition and regurgitation to convince others that he or she is both a "normal" human being and a tough dynamic manager, as in extolling the virtues of the latest management fads and pouring forth the accompanying jargon
• is unusually skilled in being able to anticipate what people want to hear and then saying it plausibly
• cannot be trusted or relied upon
• fails to fulfill commitments
• is emotionally retarded with an arrested level of emotional development; whilst language and intellect may appear to be that of an adult, the bully displays the emotional age of a five-year-old
• is emotionally immature and emotionally untrustworthy
• exhibits unusual and inappropriate attitudes to sexual matters, sexual behavior and bodily functions; underneath the charming exterior there are often suspicions or hints of sex discrimination and sexual harassment, perhaps also sexual dysfunction, sexual inadequacy, sexual perversion, sexual violence or sexual abuse
• in a relationship, is incapable of initiating or sustaining intimacy
• holds deep prejudices (eg against the opposite gender, people of a different sexual orientation, other cultures and religious beliefs, foreigners, etc - prejudiced people are unvaryingly unimaginative) but goes to great lengths to keep this prejudicial aspect of their personality secret
• is self-opinionated and displays arrogance, audacity, a superior sense of entitlement and sense of invulnerability and untouchability
• has a deep-seated contempt of clients in contrast to his or her professed compassion
• is a control freak and has a compulsive need to control everyone and everything you say, do, think and believe; for example, will launch an immediate personal attack attempting to restrict what you are permitted to say if you start talking knowledgeably about psychopathic personality or antisocial personality disorder in their presence - but aggressively maintains the right to talk (usually unknowledgeably) about anything they choose; serial bullies despise anyone who enables others to see through their deception and their mask of sanity
• displays a compulsive need to criticize whilst simultaneously refusing to value, praise and acknowledge others, their achievements, or their existence
• shows a lack of joined-up thinking with conversation that doesn't flow and arguments that don't hold water
• flits from topic to topic so that you come away feeling you've never had a proper conversation
• refuses to be specific and never gives a straight answer
• is evasive and has a Houdini-like ability to escape accountability
• undermines and destroys anyone who the bully perceives to be an adversary, a potential threat, or who can see through the bully's mask
• is adept at creating conflict between those who would otherwise collate incriminating information about them
• is quick to discredit and neutralize anyone who can talk knowledgeably about antisocial or sociopathic behaviors
• may pursue a vindictive vendetta against anyone who dares to held them accountable, perhaps using others' resources and contemptuous of the damage caused to other people and organizations in pursuance of the vendetta
• is also quick to belittle, undermine, denigrate and discredit anyone who calls, attempts to call, or might call the bully to account
• gains gratification from denying people what they are entitled to
• is highly manipulative, especially of people's perceptions and emotions (eg guilt)
• poisons peoples' minds by manipulating their perceptions
• when called upon to share or address the needs and concerns of others, responds with impatience, irritability and aggression
• is arrogant, haughty, high-handed, and a know-all
• often has an overwhelming, unhealthy and narcissistic attention-seeking need to portray themselves as a wonderful, kind, caring and compassionate person, in contrast to their behavior and treatment of others; the bully sees nothing wrong with their behavior and chooses to remain oblivious to the discrepancy between how they like to be seen and how they are seen by others
• is spiritually dead although may loudly profess some religious belief or affiliation
• is mean-spirited, officious, and often unbelievably petty
• is mean, stingy, and financially untrustworthy
• is greedy, selfish, a parasite and an emotional vampire
• is always a taker and never a giver
• is convinced of their superiority and has an overbearing belief in their qualities of leadership but cannot distinguish between leadership (maturity, decisiveness, assertiveness, co-operation, trust, integrity) and bullying (immaturity, impulsiveness, aggression, manipulation, distrust, deceitfulness)
• often fraudulently claims qualifications, experience, titles, entitlements or affiliations which are ambiguous, misleading, or bogus
• often misses the semantic meaning of language, misinterprets what is said, sometimes wrongly thinking that comments of a satirical, ironic or general negative nature apply to him or herself
• knows the words but not the song
• is constantly imposing on others a false reality made up of distortion and fabrication
• sometimes displays a seemingly limitless demonic energy especially when engaged in attention-seeking activities or evasion of accountability and is often a committeeaholic or apparent workaholic

 

Responsibility

The liberal/progressive/democrat bully appears to lack insight into his or her behavior and seems to be oblivious to the crassness and inappropriateness thereof; however, it is more likely that the bully knows what they are doing but elects to switch off the moral and ethical considerations by which normal people are bound. If the bully knows what they are doing, they are responsible for their behavior and thus liable for its consequences to other people. If the bully doesn't know what they are doing, they should be suspended from duty on the grounds of diminished responsibility and the provisions of the Mental Health Act should apply.

     I know this will change nothing in the liberal/progressive/democrat because they lack personal awareness.  They believe their cause is so just that the end justifies the means.  They are more than happy to act like bullies.  This behavior causes a loss of credibility, and it causes people like me to stop listening to them or taking the seriously.  I will also drop you as a "friend" because I don't support or hand around with bullies.