It’s About Making Babies!

I wrote Senator Coburn, MD, of Oklahoma today.

Senator Coburn,

I confess I am a bit confused. NBC is taking a poll, and there has been much brouhaha about “In God We Trust” on US currency, coins, and other expressions of Christian faith in and around US Government and local government property.

I thought the US Constitution forbids intermingling church and stae. I hadn’t realized that church, faith, and religion are all the same thing.

I had thought that faith was a person’s understanding and beliefs about matters of the spirit. I had thought that religion was the general practice of worship and expression reverence for a chosen spiritual guide, God. And I had thought that a church was a secular organization of people expressing a communal faith.

How, then can the US Constitution have anything to say about faith, or religion? It is only the organizations we call “church” that is barred from participation in our government.

If a state or official wants the ten commandments posted in a courthouse, that is mere ornamentation for the public, even if an expression of faith for the individual. If that same posting of the Ten Commandments were commissions – or imposed – by the Roman Catholic Church in America, by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (The Mormons), the Southern Conference of the Baptist Church – that would be an illegal conflict, since churches are barred from interfering with Government.

NBC is running a poll, asking if “In God We Trust” should be removed from currency. Since there is no church affiliated with our currency, I can see no conflict. Consider the phrase traditional or religious, as you will. Without the context of church, the phrase is a choice – one bound in history and tradition, and to many, a guide for the future.

Unless POTUS Barack Hussein Obama believes that America demands the statement on their currency as a back-handed slap, an expression of *dis*trust in government. Then I would think the challenge would be to restore trust, not ban the criticism.

The phrase on currency, “In God We Trust” actually implements the Constitutional ban on state religion. By stating that the trust is *not* in organizations of men, the message is clear: Personal faith is honored and encouraged. Government, currency, will not be bound to any church, i.e. organized religion.

From The Chambers Dictionary (2003):

Dignity: n. the state of being dignified; elevation of mind or character; gradeur of bearing or appearance; elevation in rank, place, etc.; calmness and self-control; degree of excellence; preferment; high office; a dignitary.

Beneath one’s dignity: degrading, at least in one’s own estimation.

Stand on one’s dignity: to asseume a manner that asserts a claim to be treated with respect.

Today on Baggage Reclaim, I noticed one comment that seemed to nearly miss the point of the article, “Can you stay friends with Mr Unavailable’s & Assclowns after you break up?- Part One.”

I think it is really important for us women to understand that we have to be very, very selective. . . . That’s really powerful. If they don’t live up to that, they can’t have a self-respecting, quality woman. And it also makes sure, that we put our energies into that goal too: e.g. self-confidence which really draws men toward us. Well, to set the right tone what cool phrases come to mind in the sense of “dignity preservers”? . . .

[Emphasis added.]

Part of my reply:

You shouldn’t have to be very, very selective. Start with looking for a good man interested in making a home for you to share with him, and don’t let the others distract you from your goal.

Assume you will be changing to adapt to whomever you pick. And, please, do pick someone that is trainable, that responds appropriately when a need for change arises. What you need to be careful of, is that you pick someone that will only need you to change for the better: Disciplined; Honest; Respectful; Frugal; Compassionate; and Joyful.

Very, very selective

Part of what I noticed was that the quest seemed to be for an “ideal” man, instead of someone that would make a good partner.

There is no ideal companion. It would be extreme hubris to consider that oneself was ideal, for nearly anyone (or anything!). Instead, we want someone suitable, that we are willing to adapt to, to cherish in our lives, and that will accommodate our needs and joys as well. This is a much simpler search, in a way, than looking for that one particular ideal mate. Frankly, most of us haven’t been around that many people that actually are close to ideal, so we would be unlikely to recognize such a person. In addition, few of us have the native experience, background, or values to tolerate, let along treasure, an “ideal” person.

Desired characteristics: character

For my part, I think there are some constants to look for, deal breakers if they are not there. Honor, honesty, discipline (the will to complete a task). An understanding of teaching/training, an understanding of helping others grow and flourish, compassion. Trainable, the self-confidence to accept criticism and adapt, to correct mistakes and admit errors, to strive to not repeat errors, responsible in their words and actions.

The person should be interested in a home and shared life.

Not well suited to the home: daters

Daters treasure skills that focus on sexual attractiveness, winning new bed partners. These values and skills are not suited to a content and happy family life. The sex adventures and social recreation of the perpetual dater threaten the stability of a long-term relationship. Because one will be tempted, life-long, to dust off those skills, to feel that “new partner” thrill, to search out that “more exciting” encounter. Cheat, that is, after one has made promises.

The comment – and dignity preservers.

The comment above was made with regard to an unsuitable (former) companion. Which makes the entire focus of the comment an issue. Her question about “dignity preservers” – cool quips to put him in his place – seems to be about either punishing him, or humiliating him to make herself look/feel better, or simply to publicly display her ability to put him down.

If he was unsuitable, then there is nothing that he can say, that will reduce her hurt or increase her comfort or well-being. If she wants a sense of closure, for him to say, “Golly, you were right all along and I really messed up.” – she is waiting for him to give her permission to end the relationship. She still doesn’t feel it is over. And that is wrong. She should instead be taking ownership of leaving the relationship regardless of what he has to say or do. She should be directing her own life – and letting the remaining ties and bonds to him fall by the wayside. By reliving communication with him, she maintains her ties to the relationship and to him; she delays her own healing and finding a healthier way to move on.

If she is looking to punish him (for trying to renew acquaintance), she is focusing on hurting him – which harms her, delays her healing, prolongs her investment in the failed relationship, and potentially prevents her from meeting or being attractive to someone more suitable. She doesn’t have a position of authority over him that permits her to punish him – she is not his boss, nor his mommy, nor his teacher. What she might consider “corrective”, is nothing more than crass assault.

The other possibility is that she wants to maintain or build a public image, to show others (him?) that she is on her feet, capable and moving on. This is dangerous. At a time when she needs most of all to find her self worth, her own self respect – she is pandering to public consensus, looking for validation from others.

My dignity preserver

If he should encounter her, and try to renew an acquaintance – or seek a booty call – my advice: Treat yourself with respect. Remember that he has proven to be hurtful to you; he should not get the benefit of the doubt you would expect to give a stranger. He deserves respect because you owe it to yourself to be respectful; at the same time, you owe it to yourself to be wary of him.

That is, “No.” No explanation, no time of day, no nothing. “No.” Let him decide if that means, “No, I won’t talk to you.”, or “No, I don’t want you back.”, or even, “No, I won’t tell you if I am still attracted to you.” “No.” And walk away. If he pursues, that becomes harassment and assault, if not stalking. Dial 9-1-1.