Honestly, I don't know if what I am about to describe is germane to the Epilepsy Chronicles. I think it is. My thoughts, words, and descriptions deal with brain damage most directly, moreso than epilepsy per se.
I work very hard to stay as calm as is possible--humor, empathy, patience, among other attributes that elude me. These attributes may be seen as laudable, and, in one sense, they may be. Yet, there is a neurological basis that makes these attributes essential. I am not a doctor. I have not studied neurology, or any scientific discipline that might offer me insight.
I can quantify the dosages of anticonvulsants I am prescribed to tame the extra electrical activity in my brain--milligrams. I can quantify the level of anticonvulsants in my bloodstream, which are determined by a blood test--a therapeutic blood level range. Based on my weight, at least, there is a numeric scale established. If the therapeutic blood level is too low, my experience has been that more medication is prescribed. The opposite is true, too. In my experience, blood levels that are too high on that scale lead doctors to prescribe a higher dosage of medications. Sometimes, an altogether different anticonvulsant is prescribed.
Yet, I cannot quantify the threshold I have for anger, and frustration, which leads to shakiness of my whole body--I cannot quantify it for myself or for others. I recognize it myself. All I know to do is to cry, and then, isolate myself until my jangled nerves are tamed, and my body is steadied physically. The crying is the cleansing agent essential to taming the extra electrical activity in my brain.
Compounding my own response, I know that the apologies of other people, well-intended though I know they are, only exacerbate my initial response. Trying to be rational long enough to isolate myself for my necessary cry, and quiet time is extremely difficult. I know that a part of that quiet means removing any activities that I know will involve further neurological agitation. I try to be rational, so as to explain that I can withstand some tension, frustration, and anger. Yet, my rational efforts are useless. My nervous system has been hijacked such that being physically steady is next to impossible.
What I have just described is not a seizure, as I understand it, after having lived with epilepsy for more than 40 years. My description today is fresh to my life--fresh to this moment. After anticipating a personal training session for several weeks--a session to identify further efforts I may take to strengthen my arms, hands, and legs--I met with tremendous disappointment, frustration, and anger that a perfectly understandable mixup in appointment times occurred. Not knowing precisely what to ask for to reschedule--what specific terms to use (a neurosis of mine)--my neurological response is intensified.
I need peace--inner peace, calm, perspective, and determination to reclaim goals I know have been strengthening me, irrespective of reliable help I expected, and hoped I would be given today. I need insight. Am I merely making an excuse for unnecessary, irrational behavior, or is there some credibility to my thoughts--my descriptions?
Showing posts with label disrespect. Show all posts
Showing posts with label disrespect. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Monday, May 16, 2011
A Universalist Catholic
I am a Universalist Catholic. Being raised as a Universalist informs my Catholic being.
In 29 years, my understanding of being Catholic has evolved. Raised as a Universalist, more commonly referred to as a Unitarian, my basic orientation was different than it is now--not in opposition, but different.
Catholic means universal. For many years, I was timid in admitting, "I am a Catholic." That proclamation was ladened with many stereotypes. To say, "I am a Universalist Catholic," sounded as a contradiction of terms. It is not.
Just now, I am able to articulate a distinction that has been elusive to me. By external terminology, the name Universalist-Unitarian Fellowship identifies the religion.
Faith is a term anthetical to many Universalists, or Unitarians. I was raised to believe that intellect and faith were mutually exclusive. I continue to discover how faith is informed by the intellect, and how the intellect is informed by faith.
I did not know any Unitarian individuals by name. Yet, I had a sense of a distinction between the two. I am willing to be challenged as to my claims. Yet, I resent attempts to engage in "gotcha" discourse in which my knowledge is challenged as a means of discrediting me. The first is possible. The first is enlightening. The first is engagement that broadens everyone involved. "Gotcha discourse" begins when someone asks what you know about a given person, term, or basic tenet central to faith and religion without any interest in broadening anyone's understanding.
Being raised in the Universalist tradition, I was raised to believe that there is good to be found in all world religions--in all traditions. Although I identify myself as Christian, and Catholic now, my belief that there is good to be found in all world religions--in all traditions--is strong. It is alive and well within who I am, and how I pray I live in communion with family, and friends.
Although I never knew an individual who identified themselves as Unitarians, I had a militant sense of what it meant to be a Unitarian. Part of that sense was in the context of the time--the end of the 1960s in the midst of the Vietnam War. I do not know if there was a Unitarian church in my area that was engaged in a vociferous protest of the Vietnam War. The sentiment was certainly the same in the Universalist church community in which I was raised. The distinction I sense may be Uni tarian versus trinitarian. There was no way to intellectualize the Holy Spirit. The notion of Holy Ghost was still alive and well casting white shadows over any understanding that may have existed.
My return to my Universalist roots is inspired by a change in pastors, where I belong. My approach to any announcement was cautious patience. I wanted to wait until I met, and worshipped with the priest before making pronouncements about those in leadership, who are responsible for the naming.
I am encouraged by what I have read and heard. I do not want any excitement I feel cloud my experience of his preaching--of his pastoral care. I want a keen ear, and an open heart to greet him--to greet how we come together in communion.
Much has changed in 29 years.
I entered the Catholic Church with clear values, and instructions. Be intellectual. Obey my admonitions. "Don't keep your mind outside the door of the church." "Know the meanings of the words you utter them."
Twenty-nine years later, different values guide me. I have not abandoned my intellect.
I am guided by different voices. Although the voices have no human faces visible to me, the message is clear.
Don't let your mind consume awe--swallow wonder.
Treasure each moment.
Life is a gift.
For better or for worse, life is a lesson to be learned--answers to be lived.
In 29 years, my understanding of being Catholic has evolved. Raised as a Universalist, more commonly referred to as a Unitarian, my basic orientation was different than it is now--not in opposition, but different.
Catholic means universal. For many years, I was timid in admitting, "I am a Catholic." That proclamation was ladened with many stereotypes. To say, "I am a Universalist Catholic," sounded as a contradiction of terms. It is not.
Just now, I am able to articulate a distinction that has been elusive to me. By external terminology, the name Universalist-Unitarian Fellowship identifies the religion.
Faith is a term anthetical to many Universalists, or Unitarians. I was raised to believe that intellect and faith were mutually exclusive. I continue to discover how faith is informed by the intellect, and how the intellect is informed by faith.
I did not know any Unitarian individuals by name. Yet, I had a sense of a distinction between the two. I am willing to be challenged as to my claims. Yet, I resent attempts to engage in "gotcha" discourse in which my knowledge is challenged as a means of discrediting me. The first is possible. The first is enlightening. The first is engagement that broadens everyone involved. "Gotcha discourse" begins when someone asks what you know about a given person, term, or basic tenet central to faith and religion without any interest in broadening anyone's understanding.
Being raised in the Universalist tradition, I was raised to believe that there is good to be found in all world religions--in all traditions. Although I identify myself as Christian, and Catholic now, my belief that there is good to be found in all world religions--in all traditions--is strong. It is alive and well within who I am, and how I pray I live in communion with family, and friends.
Although I never knew an individual who identified themselves as Unitarians, I had a militant sense of what it meant to be a Unitarian. Part of that sense was in the context of the time--the end of the 1960s in the midst of the Vietnam War. I do not know if there was a Unitarian church in my area that was engaged in a vociferous protest of the Vietnam War. The sentiment was certainly the same in the Universalist church community in which I was raised. The distinction I sense may be Uni tarian versus trinitarian. There was no way to intellectualize the Holy Spirit. The notion of Holy Ghost was still alive and well casting white shadows over any understanding that may have existed.
My return to my Universalist roots is inspired by a change in pastors, where I belong. My approach to any announcement was cautious patience. I wanted to wait until I met, and worshipped with the priest before making pronouncements about those in leadership, who are responsible for the naming.
I am encouraged by what I have read and heard. I do not want any excitement I feel cloud my experience of his preaching--of his pastoral care. I want a keen ear, and an open heart to greet him--to greet how we come together in communion.
Much has changed in 29 years.
I entered the Catholic Church with clear values, and instructions. Be intellectual. Obey my admonitions. "Don't keep your mind outside the door of the church." "Know the meanings of the words you utter them."
Twenty-nine years later, different values guide me. I have not abandoned my intellect.
I am guided by different voices. Although the voices have no human faces visible to me, the message is clear.
Don't let your mind consume awe--swallow wonder.
Treasure each moment.
Life is a gift.
For better or for worse, life is a lesson to be learned--answers to be lived.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Geography of Respect for Life
I am perplexed by the geography of "respect for life."
Affirmation seems to come too easily--what is one's positions on abortion, the death penalty, commitment of military forces to quell upheaval, and wars against humanity, as well as support for killing a despot, who orchestrated those wars? Less immediate, although no less important are those who engage in the birther movement, and political rancor over so many issues--health care, and the federal budget, most notable to me.
Cries for support of "respect for life" are usually singular proclamations, "I am pro-life," or "I am pro-choice." Little more needs to be said, or so it seems. I have never been faced with that question in my own life. I have not known anyone closely, who has been faced with that situation.
The death penalty. I have known no one, who has confronted the death penalty.
Most poignant to me seems to be the unabashed affirmation of killing despots--Osama Bin Laden, and Gadhafi come to mind. There seemed to be great satisfaction, and accomplishment felt, when Saddam Hussein was killed. I may be wrong, but in each of these cases, the satisfaction felt is an affirmation, "By the death of this individual, we have rooted out all evil from our lives. We shall live in paradise from this day forward," or something to that effect. This unabashed affirmation is the plateau of Respect for Life's Geography.
Was there a birther movement prior to the presidency of Barack Obama? If so, when? Who was, or were the individual(s) targeted? If birthers were to prove their accusations, how would their priorities regarding the future of our society be changed--advanced? I am of two minds.
I have my own beliefs regarding the birther movement. I shall share them shortly. Yet, before I do so, I must be clear. My questions are meant to imply no cynicism. Are there more constructive means by which to address the doubts as to whether Barack Obama was born in the United States? Is anyone, who is in the birther movement, proclaiming "respect for life" as one of their values? Do they offer their thoughts as to how these two are reconciled within their value system? With all due respect, I have not heard the juxtaposition of these beliefs expounded upon, or explored.
The health care debate is one that I hope has ended. I believe essential issues, and questions were at stake. Yet, the tenor of the debate was not conducive to thoughtful, deliberative discourse. The decibel level of the debate exceeded my tolerance level. Guilty though I felt as someone who values my citizenship, my mental health was more important. I needed to value my own mental health, if I expected anyone else do so. I needed to respect my own life, if I had any hopeful expectation that others might respect their own lives, and the lives of other human beings.
I do not look forward to the Medicare debate. Discourse regarding its future--how to strengthen it--is essential. Yet, I fear that the decibel level will rival that of the health care debate.
I shudder to use "respect for life," for fear that I am corrupting the phrase to bring integrity to my beliefs.
I pray that my affirmation, "I have a commitment to "respect for life," is understood with the full complexity with which it is lived.
If profiled in traditional terms, I would be identified as a woman raised as a Universalist, who is now a Catholic. I am a pro-choice woman, who opposes the death penalty in regard to any criminal offense. I am a pacifist. I take no satisfaction in, nor do I understand why it is thought that killing any despot will eliminate evil. Yet, that profile of my beliefs does not reflect the texture---the complexity--of my commitment to "respect for life."
I pray each of us who utters, "respect for life" does so with thoughtfulness--with reverence. May we respect the convictions of others', whose convictions differ from our own.
Affirmation seems to come too easily--what is one's positions on abortion, the death penalty, commitment of military forces to quell upheaval, and wars against humanity, as well as support for killing a despot, who orchestrated those wars? Less immediate, although no less important are those who engage in the birther movement, and political rancor over so many issues--health care, and the federal budget, most notable to me.
Cries for support of "respect for life" are usually singular proclamations, "I am pro-life," or "I am pro-choice." Little more needs to be said, or so it seems. I have never been faced with that question in my own life. I have not known anyone closely, who has been faced with that situation.
The death penalty. I have known no one, who has confronted the death penalty.
Most poignant to me seems to be the unabashed affirmation of killing despots--Osama Bin Laden, and Gadhafi come to mind. There seemed to be great satisfaction, and accomplishment felt, when Saddam Hussein was killed. I may be wrong, but in each of these cases, the satisfaction felt is an affirmation, "By the death of this individual, we have rooted out all evil from our lives. We shall live in paradise from this day forward," or something to that effect. This unabashed affirmation is the plateau of Respect for Life's Geography.
Was there a birther movement prior to the presidency of Barack Obama? If so, when? Who was, or were the individual(s) targeted? If birthers were to prove their accusations, how would their priorities regarding the future of our society be changed--advanced? I am of two minds.
I have my own beliefs regarding the birther movement. I shall share them shortly. Yet, before I do so, I must be clear. My questions are meant to imply no cynicism. Are there more constructive means by which to address the doubts as to whether Barack Obama was born in the United States? Is anyone, who is in the birther movement, proclaiming "respect for life" as one of their values? Do they offer their thoughts as to how these two are reconciled within their value system? With all due respect, I have not heard the juxtaposition of these beliefs expounded upon, or explored.
The health care debate is one that I hope has ended. I believe essential issues, and questions were at stake. Yet, the tenor of the debate was not conducive to thoughtful, deliberative discourse. The decibel level of the debate exceeded my tolerance level. Guilty though I felt as someone who values my citizenship, my mental health was more important. I needed to value my own mental health, if I expected anyone else do so. I needed to respect my own life, if I had any hopeful expectation that others might respect their own lives, and the lives of other human beings.
I do not look forward to the Medicare debate. Discourse regarding its future--how to strengthen it--is essential. Yet, I fear that the decibel level will rival that of the health care debate.
I shudder to use "respect for life," for fear that I am corrupting the phrase to bring integrity to my beliefs.
I pray that my affirmation, "I have a commitment to "respect for life," is understood with the full complexity with which it is lived.
If profiled in traditional terms, I would be identified as a woman raised as a Universalist, who is now a Catholic. I am a pro-choice woman, who opposes the death penalty in regard to any criminal offense. I am a pacifist. I take no satisfaction in, nor do I understand why it is thought that killing any despot will eliminate evil. Yet, that profile of my beliefs does not reflect the texture---the complexity--of my commitment to "respect for life."
I pray each of us who utters, "respect for life" does so with thoughtfulness--with reverence. May we respect the convictions of others', whose convictions differ from our own.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Belittlement. Respect for Life.
Once again, this afternoon, belittlement reared its ugly head, or so it felt. I try to live with respect for different religious perspectives than my own--there is good to be found in all world religions. I try to resist temptation--the temptation to be defensive--to say, "don't you know me well enough to know the serious reflection I bring to living a life of faith?"
Ironically, a discussion of "respect for life,"--mutual sadness that the breadth of the term does not seem to be a part of its use--led to the derivation of the story of Maundy Thursday, and the actual events of the story.
Our agreement regarding the narrow use of "respect for life" in some discussions was missed. A precious opportunity was missed.
Taking biblical stories literally, or symbolically became a "gotcha" moment. My antenna went up. "Quick, an attempt of entrapment is forthcoming."
I succumb to defensiveness. "Many Catholics take a broader view. Not every Catholic view 'respect for life' narrowly." A defensive volley was lobbed back at me--reference to those who do have "a simple faith--a simplistic Catholic view."
I grieve. I mourn. Three people of integrity. Trapped in different ages of the same Church. Pushed away...Drawn into...a Universal Church. Different faces. The same heart.
There is good to be found in all faith traditions. "Affirm, defend and promote the supreme worth and dignity of every human [being]. I mourn. All three are members of the Universal church.
"Support the free and disciplined search for truth..." Though packaged differently, at the core, Universalist, and Catholic search for truth with the same depth of commitment.
There are differences--important differences. I mourn. Yet, in my mourning, I question--do important differences preclude unity? Do important differences preclude a unified pursuit for truth made the stronger by the diverse perspectives of the same truth? Do the important differences preclude embracing the truth in Paul's words to the Corinthians?
"So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love."
Ironically, a discussion of "respect for life,"--mutual sadness that the breadth of the term does not seem to be a part of its use--led to the derivation of the story of Maundy Thursday, and the actual events of the story.
Our agreement regarding the narrow use of "respect for life" in some discussions was missed. A precious opportunity was missed.
Taking biblical stories literally, or symbolically became a "gotcha" moment. My antenna went up. "Quick, an attempt of entrapment is forthcoming."
I succumb to defensiveness. "Many Catholics take a broader view. Not every Catholic view 'respect for life' narrowly." A defensive volley was lobbed back at me--reference to those who do have "a simple faith--a simplistic Catholic view."
I grieve. I mourn. Three people of integrity. Trapped in different ages of the same Church. Pushed away...Drawn into...a Universal Church. Different faces. The same heart.
There is good to be found in all faith traditions. "Affirm, defend and promote the supreme worth and dignity of every human [being]. I mourn. All three are members of the Universal church.
"Support the free and disciplined search for truth..." Though packaged differently, at the core, Universalist, and Catholic search for truth with the same depth of commitment.
There are differences--important differences. I mourn. Yet, in my mourning, I question--do important differences preclude unity? Do important differences preclude a unified pursuit for truth made the stronger by the diverse perspectives of the same truth? Do the important differences preclude embracing the truth in Paul's words to the Corinthians?
"So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love."
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Suffering From...
My jaw throbbed. Rubbing it with my hand seemed to have no good or bad effect: the pain was deep and untouchable. Because the pain was genuinely unanticipated, there was no residue of anxiety to alter my experience of it. Anxiety and anticipation, I was to learn, are the essential ingredients in suffering from pain, as opposed to feeling pain pure and simple.
Autobiography of a Face, by Lucy Grealy, p. 16
Lucy Grealy describes the initial feelings she had shortly after seriously injuring her jaw in an accident. Lucy told me why I have responded to "suffering from" out of the mouths of other people in reference to individuals with disabilities.
Was I being fierce? Was I being defiant? Maybe. Yet, that has never satisfied my response, living with cerebral palsy, and epilepsy.
My response to my cerebral palsy has evolved. By nature, cerebral palsy has been my intimate since birth. My umbilical cord was wrapped around my neck five times at birth. Oxygen was deprived from the left side of my brain, which controls the right side of my body.
For the first forty years of my life, I presumed that I would have the same capacities I had had since birth. I anticipated no changes in my capacities as I aged, much less that my capabilities would be diminished at an accelerated rate. Yet, that accelerated diminishment is precisely what I am living.
I would divide my response to my cerebral palsy into two time periods--1960-2000, and 2000 through the present time. Up until I was 40 or 45, I resisted reference to anyone with a disability as suffering from their respective disability. Lucy Grealy just explained to me why I responded as I did.
Anxiety or anticipation regarding a condition which has always existed is not possible. I resisted "suffering from," because I was not anxious about how to live my life with full use of my left hand only.
Different from living with the conditions I have had from day one, recent years have called for different adaptations. Suffering from was an amplification for pity in my early understanding.
Within the past ten years, I have come to a different understanding.
Suffering from is not a sentence to be served.
Suffering from is a journey to be navigated.
Autobiography of a Face, by Lucy Grealy, p. 16
Lucy Grealy describes the initial feelings she had shortly after seriously injuring her jaw in an accident. Lucy told me why I have responded to "suffering from" out of the mouths of other people in reference to individuals with disabilities.
Was I being fierce? Was I being defiant? Maybe. Yet, that has never satisfied my response, living with cerebral palsy, and epilepsy.
My response to my cerebral palsy has evolved. By nature, cerebral palsy has been my intimate since birth. My umbilical cord was wrapped around my neck five times at birth. Oxygen was deprived from the left side of my brain, which controls the right side of my body.
For the first forty years of my life, I presumed that I would have the same capacities I had had since birth. I anticipated no changes in my capacities as I aged, much less that my capabilities would be diminished at an accelerated rate. Yet, that accelerated diminishment is precisely what I am living.
I would divide my response to my cerebral palsy into two time periods--1960-2000, and 2000 through the present time. Up until I was 40 or 45, I resisted reference to anyone with a disability as suffering from their respective disability. Lucy Grealy just explained to me why I responded as I did.
Anxiety or anticipation regarding a condition which has always existed is not possible. I resisted "suffering from," because I was not anxious about how to live my life with full use of my left hand only.
Different from living with the conditions I have had from day one, recent years have called for different adaptations. Suffering from was an amplification for pity in my early understanding.
Within the past ten years, I have come to a different understanding.
Suffering from is not a sentence to be served.
Suffering from is a journey to be navigated.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
A Convergence of Ages--Family Ages
This weekend three generations spanning sixty years converged. An evening gathering. I sat, and listened as an aunt, and a daughter. Though old enough to be so, I am not a mother. My daughter's eyes were clarified. No one may defy age forever. My head knows this truth. My daughter's eyes saw what the youngest in our gathering did not see--did not want to see or hear of his elders.
Though I have been blessed with a strong bond with my nephews, life circumstances do not give me the vehicle necessary to convey the importance of working. I am a poor example to my nephews of the commitment to the less glamorous parts of life--the substance of the working life. Rarely am I speechless. Rarely am I at a loss for how to communicate what needs to be said in a gentle, but diplomatic manner.
I recognize the fallacy of the question, "What do you want to do when you grow up?" Yet, there must be some such question that is not laden with condescension, and implications of disrespect. What is the question? I believe myself to be an open-minded person, who strives to avoid the pitfalls of being judgmental. Yet, I am frightened by the cluelessness I am witnessing. Is what I am experiencing just my time for what all "older generations" of youth experience?
I guess if I am questioning what the proper question of those younger than I, then I should hardly expect to have any answers. So, I ponder.
Though I have been blessed with a strong bond with my nephews, life circumstances do not give me the vehicle necessary to convey the importance of working. I am a poor example to my nephews of the commitment to the less glamorous parts of life--the substance of the working life. Rarely am I speechless. Rarely am I at a loss for how to communicate what needs to be said in a gentle, but diplomatic manner.
I recognize the fallacy of the question, "What do you want to do when you grow up?" Yet, there must be some such question that is not laden with condescension, and implications of disrespect. What is the question? I believe myself to be an open-minded person, who strives to avoid the pitfalls of being judgmental. Yet, I am frightened by the cluelessness I am witnessing. Is what I am experiencing just my time for what all "older generations" of youth experience?
I guess if I am questioning what the proper question of those younger than I, then I should hardly expect to have any answers. So, I ponder.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Belief, Faith, and Religion
Listening to the public discourse regarding the freedom of Muslims to worship, I have been reminded of the complexity of belief, faith, and religion.
Too often, these three terms are used as synonyms. They are interrelated, yet, they need to be distinguished. We use labels to provide a frame of reference from which to proceed in human relations.
Yet, we must not use labels as a substitute for listening to, talking with, and understanding one another.
When I started to write this blog this week, I was surprised to find myself stopped in trying to introduce myself in a way that accurately describes and reflects who I am, what my beliefs, and faith are. My problem? I wanted to describe myself fully in labels, rather than express myself fully in carefully chosen words, and in temperate voice.
In 2010, I attend a Catholic Mass in communion with individuals, who challenge me to live fully--to live with integrity. I am a practicing Catholic--I am practicing so that I may affirm life, and rid my spirit of intolerance, disrespect. I dedicate myself to be in communion with individuals with whom I am in agreement, but, much more importantly, I dedicate myself to be open to individuals with whom I do not share the same practices or beliefs. I may say that I am firmly rooted in Christian teachings--in Christian living.
But...the moment I speak or act in any way that denigrates the dignity of someone whose beliefs or actions I disagree, I contradict my beliefs, disavow my faith, and lose the privilege of celebrating my religion.
I must resist any temptation to denigrate those individuals, who oppose the rights of other individuals to exercise the freedom of religion.
I dedicate myself to learn from--to be enriched by--the diversity of beliefs, opinions, and ways of living that surround me. I pray all may share in this dedication.
Too often, these three terms are used as synonyms. They are interrelated, yet, they need to be distinguished. We use labels to provide a frame of reference from which to proceed in human relations.
Yet, we must not use labels as a substitute for listening to, talking with, and understanding one another.
When I started to write this blog this week, I was surprised to find myself stopped in trying to introduce myself in a way that accurately describes and reflects who I am, what my beliefs, and faith are. My problem? I wanted to describe myself fully in labels, rather than express myself fully in carefully chosen words, and in temperate voice.
In 2010, I attend a Catholic Mass in communion with individuals, who challenge me to live fully--to live with integrity. I am a practicing Catholic--I am practicing so that I may affirm life, and rid my spirit of intolerance, disrespect. I dedicate myself to be in communion with individuals with whom I am in agreement, but, much more importantly, I dedicate myself to be open to individuals with whom I do not share the same practices or beliefs. I may say that I am firmly rooted in Christian teachings--in Christian living.
But...the moment I speak or act in any way that denigrates the dignity of someone whose beliefs or actions I disagree, I contradict my beliefs, disavow my faith, and lose the privilege of celebrating my religion.
I must resist any temptation to denigrate those individuals, who oppose the rights of other individuals to exercise the freedom of religion.
I dedicate myself to learn from--to be enriched by--the diversity of beliefs, opinions, and ways of living that surround me. I pray all may share in this dedication.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)