Rosalynn and Jimmy

It was with great sadness that I received the news that Rosalynn Carter died last week. While never achieving the popularity of Jackie or Michelle, Rosalynn was as avid an advocate for the everyday American citizen as any first lady, especially in the area of access to mental health support. And, of course, along with her husband, she helped create and run the Carter Foundation, as well as working with and expanding the reach of Habitat for Humanity.

Her life story, and Jimmy's as well, demonstrates that success does not preclude service, for both of them placed service above grasping for money or power or influence. Their lives and example are in stark contrast to those we see splayed out on the internet, on Tic Toc, on X, on virtually every media outlet where clicks and hits are far more important that improving the lives of others.

I have written twice in the past about former president Jimmy Carter, but never mentioned Rosalynn in those posts. (See links below).

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/02/jimmy-carter.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/08/jimmy-carter-and-donald-trump.html

Why? Certainly not because Jimmy didn't say over and over again how Rosalynn and her were a team, and that she was an equal partner in all he did. More likely because she stayed in the background, sacrificing any personal acclaim, knowing that Jimmy's success were hers as well. And, of course, like most men, we rarely acknowledge the contributions a wife makes for a successful man. 

Since February when it was announced that Jimmy went into hospice, I thought it gratifying that he was still alive. Once or twice, I even thought it odd that he was still with us, as my own experience with people entering hospice resulted in those loved ones passing fairly quickly. Now, with the passing of his dear wife Rosalynn, I understand why he did not leave us right away. He didn't want her to be alone. 

While Jimmy certainly didn't want to experience life without his beloved wife, he knew it would be harder for her, especially in light of the dementia diagnosis that was just made public. He sacrificed his own upcoming loneliness to spare her from even a second of time without him by her side.

Sacrifice.

It is not a very popular word these days. Not a concept that is taught all that much, nor displayed by our leaders, whether they be political, social or economical. Ask what you can do for your country seems to have been replaced by ask what is in it for me. With the passing of people like Rosalynn Carter, and, with his life partner gone, soon to be Jimmy Carter, our world will have two less examples of what it means to be an elected official, and what it means to be a Christian. 

Sadly, their lives, while they will be remembered, and even praised in the weeks following their passing, will also be forgotten far too soon, and emulated far too in frequently.

They say that talk is cheap, and perhaps so too are the words that have preceded. I am far from selfless, far from having lived my life in the service of others. One might even say that it is worse to know better but not do better, than not to know better at all, and so do worse. 

If, on Judgement Day, there is a simple tally displayed, random acts of kindness on one side of the ledger, acts of cruelty or simple neglect on the other, I have no doubt that Rosalynn and Jimmy Carter's tally will be very one sided, and that they will be welcomed with open arms.

I am less sure about myself, although I have been holding more doors open for those behind me, reaching for groceries for people who find them just out of reach, waving other drivers to go first at intersections with 4-way stop signs, and other such small acts of kindness. 

I know those ticks on the positive side of my ledger are small, but small ticks on the positive are better than no ticks at all. And, like all muscles, as we execute even the smallest of helpful acts, as we work our sacrifice muscle more and more, and as it grows stronger and more confident, bigger and bolder acts of kindness will result, and our ledgers will begin to tilt even more to the plus.

Just imagine how much more peace, how much less suffering there would be if we all began to work on our own ledgers, if we all looked to Rosalynn and Jimmy for how act human, and humane.

 

Elections 2023

In case you missed it, there were elections in America earlier this week. I say in case you missed it, because voter turnout was light. Most races produced turnout in the 30-40% range, which is the percentage of registered voters who voted, not the percentage of the voting age population (VAP). The percentage of VAP is usually 10-15% higher. In other words, a 30-40% turnout is another 4-6% lower when one considers the actual number of people who could vote.

I had an interesting conversation with one such person, someone who does not vote, does not even pay attention to elections, or so he claimed. I suppressed my desire to berate him for his nonchalant attitude, instead describing to him my interpretation of the shenanigans that were involved in the lead up to Tuesday's Ohio vote to enshrine reproductive rights in that state's constitution. 

This was all news to him, so I tried to impartially convey how there had been a vote during the summer for Ohioans to change the rules for amending the constitution from 50% plus 1, to a 60% level. Now, it was common knowledge that the hope of those sponsoring this change was that by raising the threshhold, it would effect the ultimate vote on abortion that was scheduled a few months later, since they figured that while pro-choice voters would be able to achieve the 50% plus 1 level, they might not make 60%.

Fortunately, enough voters saw through this trick, and voted down the measure to increase the percentage needed to pass a constitutional amendment. As a result, the amendment to guarantee reproductive rights for women in Ohio passed, 56.3% to 43.7%. One its face, the vote was fairly definitive, yet indicates just how insidious was the summer vote to raise the level to 60%. Had that vote gone the other way, reproductive rights would not be the law despite the majority of voters preferring it. Can you say tyranny of the minority?

But I digress.

Today, leaving the grocery store, I saw a headline on the front page of one the newspapers displayed at the exit, asking the question, what is the next move for the GOP on abortion.

Isn't it obvious?

The party needs to abandon its unpopular attempts to ban abortion. Regardless of how it is phrased, telling women, who make up a bit over 50% of the electorate, that they must cede control of their bodies to the state, will never be a winning strategy, not to mention going against the GOP long held beliefs of less government intervention in citizens lives. 

Interestingly, the second issue on the Ohio ballot was to legalize recreational marijuana for those over 21. That passed 56.8% to 43.2%. It too would not have passed had the summer vote to raise the threshold not been rejected. And, again, reflects the GOP contradiction about government involvement in our lives. 

(In case you haven't noticed, the GOP ONLY cares about getting government out of our lives when it has to do with guns and money.)

Other proofs that abortion restrictions are a losing platform for the GOP, occurred in the Kentucky governor race, and the judicial races in my home state of Pennsylvania.

In Kentucky, Andy Beshear, the Democrat incumbent governor, won reelection, partly due to his differentiation of his approach to abortion compared to that of his rival who advocated for a 6 week ban. Add to his win, in a very red state, with the Ohio abortion vote, also a very red state, plus the rejection of abortion restrictions in previous state wide elections in Kansas and Montana, and the trend is clear.

And not just for referendums. In Pennsylvania, every state judicial race on the ballot was won by a Democrat, most who referenced the possibility that a judge from the GOP would rule against reproductive freedom, especially the race for PA's vacant Supreme Court position where the majority was in the balance.

I have categorized this post under the heading Religion and Government, as I firmly believe that these attempts to restrict freedom is the result of a certain brand of religious people who prefer a theocracy to a democracy. Who advocate for their religious beliefs to be the law of the land. Who gain power by dehumanizing certain groups of Americans, then couch their prejudice in righteous words and cherry picked phrases from out of date religious tomes.

You also see this in action with the recent anti-trans legislation that is flourishing in certain areas of our country, along with the push to ban books by Nazi-like groups such as Moms for Liberty. 

Fortunately, at least in this past week's election, the voters are seeing through these attempts to deny freedom, and have booted out those who fooled them with their fake support of parents' rights and protecting children. When one parent has the power to decide who is safe at school, and which books all children can read, it reflects a desire for power and control. And who to ostracize from society.

Towards that end, I was happy to see the candidates endorsed by Moms for Liberty lose in my current school district, and the one from which we moved a few years ago which my children attended. Fortunately, the aphorism, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, did not hold for those who voted in those school districts. Now, all the parents and children in those two school districts will have school district leaders who believe in advocating for all parents and students, not just those who agree with their far-right agenda.

Original Sin

Something I read in "The Dawn of Everything" book I mentioned in a previous post, reminded me that a few times in my writing past I had a tickle of an idea concerning original sin. I say tickling, because I can recall thinking about it, perhaps while driving, or in the shower, but hadn't pursued composing a post about it. 

But, as I said, something about reading a perspective of history that attempts to explode all the interpretations that have been so thoroughly interwoven within our shared beliefs about humanity, has prodded me to embark on this post.

If you google "original sin", you will see many variations of the same theme. 

Webster defines it by referring to it from a Christian perspective:

The meaning of original sin is the state of sin that according to Christian theology characterizes all human being as a result of Adam's fall.

This is basically what I was taught in the 8 years I spent in Catholic elementary school. Of course, there is the part about how Eve ate from the apple first after being tempted by Satan, then tempted Adam to do the same. I always considered that the ultimate blame-someone-else excuse for poor behavior, but, over time, have associated that part of the story with the misogyny that is embedded in Catholic teachings.

But I digress.

Researching the concept of original sin, is not an easy, or straightforward endeavor. Some assign its creation to St. Augustine of Hippo, who was born about 350 years after Christ, after Augustine's conversion to Christianity. Some disagree with the idea that original sin is solely associated with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, but just reflects man's tendency to do wrong. Others reject the concept of original sin, preferring to acknowledge that we are born imperfect, with a tendency to sin, but that we did not inherit the sin committed by Adam.

Then of course, there are other non-Christian religions that do not believe in the concept at all.

It is hard for me to imagine not having learned and been indoctrinated by the belief that man is sinful, and so needs saving from his indiscretions, and that Jesus was born to die for our sins so we can have the chance to live in heaven with God. The whole idea is almost like breathing itself, it is so much a part of what I was taught. 

I recently had a conversation with a work colleague who was adamant in her belief that she was saved due to her belief in the redemption of Christ. She was openly aghast at my having turned away from the idea that Jesus was the Son of God. She quoted the bible as proof that her beliefs were right, which, of course, didn't prove anything to me since she was also convinced by her faith that none of the other great spiritually advanced beings from history provided that door to heaven that she believed was hers through the sacrifice of Jesus.  

Of course, I respect her beliefs, am glad that she believes she is saved. I mentioned the short group of essays that I combined in An Atheist for Christ, but she just made a face and didn't really want to pursue that topic. Here is a link to the post containing information about that effort if you are interested.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/02/an-atheist-for-christ.html 

After thinking about Augustine, and original sin, I wonder if perhaps, Augustine felt that he needed to create a narrative whereby people would be compelled to believe in the words and actions of Jesus of Nazareth. Perhaps he thought that just teaching that we should emulate Christ might not sway people to be kind to others, but by tying Christ's sacrifice to the concept that humanity needs a way to earn eternal life due to our fall from grace, our original sin, Augustine felt more secure that Christ's teachings would be followed. 

Maybe Augustine was just being realistic, or perhaps honest in his evaluation that men needed the stick as much as the carrot. He may have concluded, perhaps rightly so, that without the threat of eternal damnation, humanity wouldn't be motivated enough just to follow the lessons from the Sermon on the Mount. So he linked Christ's death on the cross to our imperfect nature, thereby giving us all the chance to spend eternity with God. It's a nice, tight circle. Man is born pure, becomes stained, God sends his son to provide redemption, man is "saved". And all we have to do is have faith in the story.

But what if we sever that link by eliminating the need for redemption? Does that change the need for us to listen to those who are more spiritually advanced? Does that change the importance of the message of Jesus, to love one another? Can someone live their life following the lessons of Christ, without believing he was the Son of God?  Again, that is the thinking behind my compilation An Atheist for Christ.

If we assume that literally millions, if not billions of people have been born, are alive, will be born sometime in the future, and have never, or will never be instructed about the life of Christ, yet will have been, or will be taught lessons very similar to those taught by Christ, are we to also assume that those who spend their lives in words and actions that resemble Christ's, while never having recognized that He died for their sins, will be denied entrance to heaven? 

Or perhaps it is all relative, those who live spiritual lives will go wherever it is they believe reflects the reward they have earned, whether it is heaven, nirvana, or just a place with a warm bed, an interesting book, and a nice soft light to read by.

I have always struggled with the possessive nature of organized religions, the belief that their dogma and structure is the one and only way to a return to God's grace. It seems steeped in arrogance. As if the Creator would spend eternity thinking about creation, providing us with an incredibly diverse range of plants and animals, enabling us to think and feel and imagine, and then would tie it all together with a restriction that there is only one way to feel Her presence. 

And then there is the phrase religious war, as ridiculous a concept ever created, yet the driving force behind so much pain, suffering, and death in our history, not the least of which is the ongoing violence between Israel and Hamas.

It all sounds like control, not love. Original sin, the need for salvation, the quest for the one true path. Control, not by the Creator, but by men over other men. After all, what stronger foundation for controlling the thoughts and actions of humanity is there than to link it to a divine origin?

If, at the end of the day, the only reason for one's compassion towards others, or the only justification for following a specific ideology, is to avoid eternal damnation, perhaps the true intent is being missed. Perhaps the message of all the advanced spiritual beings that have spent time on earth is being lost in a morass of rules created less to help achieve happiness, eternal or otherwise, and more to advance the ability of people who seek power and control over the masses.

We all have vices, faults, weaknesses which result in actions that hurt others. I would be fine with the concept of original sin were it to be a concept that helped us acknowledge our imperfections. Perhaps even to point out that despite our flaws, we are still capable of wondrous acts of kindness and compassion. 

But when the concept focuses on our need for salvation, followed by a need to believe in a specific set of doctrines and dogma to attain that salvation, followed by the declaration that anyone who does not follow that specific set of beliefs is not saved, cannot expect eternal happiness, I turn away. 

Again, it all seems more like men controlling other men, and it makes me seriously wonder if Augustine (or whomever created the concept of original sin) was wrong to link the teachings and sacrifice of Jesus to our need for salvation.  

I have discussed religion in a number of past posts. Here are links to three of them.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-intermixing-of-religion.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/08/gay-catholics-and-other-odd-labels.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2010/06/following-letter-was-published-in-my.html

Nature's Beauty and Longevity

Earlier this year, Nora and I were invited to my niece's wedding in Mesa, Arizona. We had missed the wedding of her older sister, due to Covid, so we thought we might attend this one. And, since we would be flying there, we thought it might be nice to visit some national parks in the area. After some debate, we began planning a few months ago, and using the itinerary of a good friend who went west last year, we hammered out the details. 

We just returned this past Monday.

After staying at an airport hotel the night before, where we left our car for the next seven days, we flew to Las Vegas last Tuesday. Upon arrival we immediately picked up our rental car, then drove to Virgin, Utah which is near the Zion National Park. We spent a wonderful day hiking in Zion, stayed at the same hotel that night, then drove to Tropic, Utah which is near Bryce Canyon National Park.

After another full day of awe-inspiring sights at Bryce, we drove to Page, Arizona that night so we would be nearby the Lower Antelope Canyon for our pre-booked tour the next morning. Again, magnificent! After the tour, we drove the 15 minutes to Horseshoe Bend National Park, walked around a bit, succumbed to the exhaustion that the previous days hiking had created, then, after a nap, drove to the Glen Canyon Dam, which, while human created, was still impressive.

The next day we drove to Gilbert, Arizona by way of Montezuma National Park, relaxed a bit once we arrived at the hotel, then met the family for the rehearsal dinner. The next day we found a local preserve to walk through, an amazing place which seemed to house all the waterfowl that could possibly live in such a dry state as Arizona. Finally, the happy occasion, a beautiful ceremony, good food, nice toasts to the happy couple, and much conversation.

The week ended with the flight back to Philly, then the ride home with a stop at a local restaurant for some dinner.

In the movie, French Kiss, the main female character played by Meg Ryan, is riding on a train through France, and while looking out the window at the magnificent scenery, waves her hand and says "Gorgeous!"

Nora and I found ourselves waving our hands and saying gorgeous so many times last week, that it became a joke as, wherever we went, around every turn, the vista was other worldly, magnificent, truly inspiring. Nature's work at its best.

Yet it is important to remember that canyons such as in Bryce, soaring cliffs such as in Zion, incredibly colored rocks such as in the Lower Antelope Canyon, were all created over thousands of years. Natural processes such as erosion and tectonic movements need time as one of the ingredients to create such impressive sights.

It is a lesson that humanity needs to be reminded of, often, as it certainly seems that we are far more driven by short term, immediate gratifications. Perhaps it is the natural reaction to the fact that we only have, individually, 80 to 90 years at our behest. Certainly that is a fraction of the time that a river has to carve out a canyon. 

Still, do we not think of future generations, when we imagine a better world? Do we not want the legacy for our children and grandchildren to be one of hope and opportunity? 

One the flight out to Vegas, I engaged in a lively conversation with my seat mates. At one point, I repeated my lament that the promise of the baby boomers, of which I am one, did not transpire. We were given all kinds of advantage yet have fallen far short in improving the world. As it turns out, make love, not war, was just a slogan to make ourselves feel better, not a true way of life. We became just like the leaders whom we protested against, trading our aspirations for a better world for large 401K balances, gated communities, and, worse, disdain for our children who call us on our hypocrisy but whom we label spoiled, or lazy. As if children don't emulate their parents.

I previously mentioned that we stopped at the Montezuma National Park on the way to Mesa. This park houses some rock formations that were the homes of the people who lived in that area centuries ago. 

We are generally very dismissive about the true natives of our great country, preferring to glorify the Europeans who came here in the 15th and 16th century, but people lived on the lands now called America for hundreds of generations, before being "discovered" by Columbus and his contemporaries. We ignore their accomplishments, their harmonious relationship with nature and the environment. Even the name of the national park, Montezuma, reflects our ignorance of the people who lived there. Montezuma was just the European's lazy connection between all "natives" regardless of where or when they lived. Montezuma never lived in the area of this castle, but that didn't stop those invaders who came there from naming the area for him. After all, weren't all those savages the same anyway?

It makes me wonder how differently we might be treating the land and our environment if our ancestors didn't exterminate the original Americans, makes me wonder if we would have maintained the link between nature and the environment which existed for thousands of years before the arrival of the Europeans. Perhaps if less conquering and more listening had occurred, we wouldn't need to be reminded that there is nothing that can't be accomplished with time and effort. Wouldn't need to visit national parks to see how nature reminds us of this when we visit a place of natural wonders.        

I am saving this post under the title Environment, a label I use for all posts that refer to reflections about nature. Before creating this post, I read a few of my past entries; here are links to three of them.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/06/seeing-forests-and-trees.html 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2021/09/the-ozone-layer-and-other-environmental.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2020/09/cost-of-harming-nature.html