The fear of free speech

I'm an emotional person. I wear my heart on my sleeve. I can overreact. I can take things personally that don't need to be taken personally.

Because I'm so emotional, I am susceptible to making permanent decisions based on temporary emotions. I can run my mouth. I want to be opinionated. I want to be outspoken. I enjoy the attention of discussing controversial topics, except what comes out of my mouth is the same propaganda I read and see online and on TV. I can run my mouth as if I'm speaking factually about any given topic I'm passionate about, but if I'm challenged in my thinking, I shut down.

Because I like to share my thoughts and enjoy debate, I like to post my opinions on social media, only later it can end up biting me in the ass because I end up putting my foot in my mouth. A lot. I've had more "Why did I say that?" moments than I care to count.

I started this blog as a venue to express myself freely, because I'm starting to limit myself on Facebook. I have a Twitter account, but I really don't tweet. I pretty much just keep up with the news and current events on Twitter, though you can do that with Facebook too.

Lately, more and more stories have been surfacing online where someone makes a sarcastic comment, the comment goes viral, and then they're whisked away by the authorities because someone took what they said seriously and reported it...the whole "You shouldn't even joke about that" idea.

Despite wanting to maintain a blog (on which I now rarely post) to vent and let loose, I'm seeing more and more that sometimes silence is safer and speaking out. Social media is LOUD with opinion and commentary. If I speak out about anything I'm passionate about, I'm just joining the BILLIONS of other voices that are doing the same thing. Everyone wants to be heard, and I think people feel validated when they have an audience to read their thoughts. Some may take pride in being uncensored in their postings.

Even I, at various points, have started blog posts, and left them in draft mode, not bothering to post them. Because when I post them, I share the link to the post on Facebook. And from there, I watch to see how many LIKES or comments I receive about the post. It gives me a false sense of being a writer with thoughts others love to read about. When in reality, I have a medium to share thoughts, but when it comes time to click that button, I refrain, because I've become increasingly timid about sharing my thoughts with the world.

I think the one place where one's voice needs to be heard the most is in politics. And when it comes to that, it's easy to get an emotional response from anyone...especially social issues. And most of the time, the most emotional social issues are marriage equality and women's heath. I've heard the saying that "The only thing worse than an evil man is a good man who does nothing." And so many choose to do nothing because they may feel jaded that nothing they can do can fix anything for the better. They may figure it's a waste of their time.

And then you have those who refuse to stay silent about anything. Because they're so emotionally passionate about certain issues, that passion motivates them to take it to the streets, get the community involved, and start a movement to help make a change for a cause they believe in.

And then you have rare instances like in the case of Edward Snowden who leaked a bunch of information about the NSA's practices. He saw something that violated his conscience, brought it to national attention, and is now a federal fugitive.

See, I greatly admire people like stand-up comics who "tell it like it is" or "say what the rest of us are thinking". They get applause, some criticism, but they're hailed as heroes to those who really agree with their observations. I find myself wanting that support sometimes. I find myself wanting to tell it like it is, except they have one skill I lack: wit. If they're challenged by anyone, they can fire back; I can't. I don't know how. But also, if someone doesn't like what they have to say, all that happens is they don't buy tickets to their shows. The comic doesn't get arrested or end up on tabloids for what they said. Rather, they may just end up having their comments going viral on social media, burning it up in the blogosphere, where everyone and their cat puts in their 2¢ about what they said.

All that being said, I have (I think) many sides to my personality. My husband has seen them all and chooses to stay with me. I have moments where I'm vulgar and others when I'm prudent. I have moments when I'm very "toned down" and others where I get so flamboyant, those around me might look around for a fire extinguisher in case the need should arise. Basically, whichever side shows itself depends on my mood and my social environment.

I do my best to be myself, and regardless of what comes out of my mouth, or to whom it's directed, one thing remains the same: I don't want to offend anybody. If I've done that, then I've made a mistake, which is hurting or disrespecting someone. And if I do hurt someone, my emotional response is dwelling on that mistake. And many times, that dwelling can last for days. I end up feeling horrible about myself, even wanting to rectify the relationship back to the level it once was...if that's even possible.

I do test boundaries to see how much of "me" I can get away with. With which side(s) of me is this person comfortable?

I see plenty of people who share and share and share. They insist they don't give a shit about what others think.

But I do.

And that might be my problem. Does one have to care about what others think? It depends.

There's the adage: Better to remain silent and have others think you're an idiot than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Yeah, I don't want to be that person. But then again, what's good about speaking up? What's good about staying silent and keeping your opinions to yourself?

What's good about sharing your thoughts? The good I find there is when someone shares a thought they're shy about sharing, and several people express relief, thanking that person for sharing because now they feel less alone.

I think it's okay to share one's thinking. But it's also important to filter what or how you say it. Will it piss off someone? Okay, it will. Fine. Are you okay with that? No? Then STFU.

Maybe you're like president Donald Trump whose words always gets mixed reactions: anger from his critics, cheers and praise from his supporters.

Some would argue it's best to play it safe and not overshare, or only share your thoughts if they won't put you in jeopardy in some way. But what about those people out there who feel so alone and feel less alone when someone else thinks like them?

I think anyone would say,  "It depends on what they're thinking."

And that's absolutely true. Otherwise with much of what Trump has said, we probably wouldn't have a reinvigorated rise in neo-Nazis coming out of the woodwork.

When all is said and done about "free" speech, one must look to the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech."

Your free speech is violated if you're arrested, that is, if the government comes after you.

Your free speech is NOT violated if you share on social media and you receive a backlash. That's simply a consequence of you sharing what's probably a stupid, ignorant thought.

Interesting, huh? We live in a country that prides itself on freedom of speech. But how to imperfect people manage imperfect people?

Good luck with that. Whatever you say, try to be smart about it. Otherwise, you will remove all doubt.

Just a dance

I love dancing, especially intimate dances where the partners hold each other, turn each other, and especially that dip. That brings out the hopeless romantic in me!

One of the places where my heart starts to race is at a wedding reception. Well, for starters, attending a wedding with my partner is bittersweet enough. I mean, we're watching a straight couple become a recognized couple by community, church, and local, state, and federal law. Their union is recognized. Those moments make me happy for the couple, but jealous at the same time, because we want the same thing.

And yes, it's legal in a number of states, but Texas won't recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, which is technically illegal according to the equal protections clause of the 14th amendment of the US Constitution.

But I digress.

Besides getting legally married to my partner, one of the other dreams I have is to dance with him as a couple, in a public place, and enjoy that moment. Typically, that public place is a wedding reception, where I'm around many familiar faces. Dancing with someone at such social occasions makes a statement that you came together, and as one, you're sharing the newlyweds' joy by moving intimately to music. As married couples enjoy their love again on the dance floor, it makes a statement that says, "You're one of us now, married for life." Besides the just plain fun that comes with dancing with a partner, there's a lot of symbolism in these activities.

There are 2 reasons why I don't dance with my partner at receptions:
1. He's not fond of dancing
2. I have a horrible feeling that if we danced on the dance floor, it'd be viewed as a scandal, an attention-seeking stunt, when in reality, I just want to dance with my partner the same way everyone else is dancing with their spouse.

It's such simple hypothetical scenarios like this that make me tread that line of Do I care what they think or not? 

I want to not care. I want to not care soooo badly. And yet, the fact that I'm dedicating a blog post to this proves that I do care, and I can't seem to stop caring. 

I shared my feelings with other friends once, and they recommended that in the future, I simply ask the bride and/or groom if it was a problem for me to dance. As much as I appreciated their input, it got me to thinking, Who the hell else would ask such an inane question?

If my partner and I danced at a reception, I can already imagine the questioning that might follow:

Attendee: Why were you dancing with him?
Me: Because I wanted to dance with my partner of almost 7 years.
Attendee: Do you realize how many people you made uncomfortable, watching you dance?
Me: We didn't hurt anyone. We were enjoying ourselves. If they were offended, that's their problem, not ours. They need to get over it. Do you know how unfair it is to me to watch them dance, and not feel like I can't do the same thing with the person I love?
Attendee: You took attention away from the newlyweds. That's not cool!
Me: What's not cool is letting a couple of guys dancing together distract attendees from the main celebration.

Despite my concerns, there is also the complete possibility that if we were to dance, no one would say anything to our face, or even behind our backs. It wouldn't be of great enough importance to even bring it up.  

Yeah, they danced. So? They've been together forever.

Later, I could imagine someone coming up to us and complimenting our "courage" in being ourselves.

My partner's and my 7th anniversary is coming up in just 3 months. We're still not allowed to get married, and we've faced many challenges as a couple, and have survived each one, growing in deeper love and commitment as we go through our lives together.

Just once...

Just once I want to be in his arms, and he in mine, as we glide along the dance floor together as the loving, committed couple we are.

Because when you're fearlessly being yourself, you become free.

When it's time to get a new fence

Central Texas recently suffered from a day of VERY strong wind gusts...well, not like hurricane or tornado winds, but pretty damn close. I was at school the same day, outside in the morning and afternoon getting kids out of cars, and putting them back in. The gusts were so strong, I wouldn't have been surprised if one of the kids flew away. In a more comically sad note, a friend of mine has a Chihuahua. She took him outside to pee, and when he lifted his leg, he was knocked over from the gusts.

Hubs and I live in a Homeowner's Association (HOA) community where the houses are models in a series, you pick the model that best fits you with the trimmings you need/want, they build it quickly, and it looks all purdy and stuff when you move in. Now don't get me wrong. We LOVE our house. It's beautiful on the inside and out, spacious, and has a great floor plan. I swear, when I first saw the model, I thought I was on the set of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.

Two problems I have with these houses is that neighbors' houses are, like, 10 feet away, and the fences are made from cheap wood, and consequently don't last very long. 

That being said, we share our fence with 3 houses: 1 on either side, and 1 behind us. So far, it's the back part of the fence that is standing strong the best. Our house faces north, and lately, when it's windy or gusty, the winds have been blowing east or west, with nothing but our fences "containing" them. Part of the problem with the fence construction is that the posts themselves are stuck 2' directly into the ground, without cement or anything. Further, the fences have 2 crossbars, a lower and upper, and then the planks that actually go along the fence are probably 3" wide, and maybe ½" thick, but 6' long. And they're cheap wood. 

Now, we moved into our home back in June 2008, and it's now March 2013, so nearly 5 years later, and one side of our fence is essentially dead, thanks, in part to the gusty winds, but mostly because of cheap materials and installation.

My dream fence would be a wall made of those heavy, gray cinder blocks, but that would cost easily $10K. And a teacher can't afford anything like that unless we made it into a 4-year loan finance deal.

On the plus side of all this homeowner drama, the neighbor on the other side of my dying fence is a gardener/landscape artist, that, from what I can tell in his back yard, is pretty damn good at his job. So we made a deal: he'd cover the labor if we paid for the materials. So as bad as it looks out there right now, in a few days, it'll be the BEST part of the fence. We're getting metal posts (likely in cement) to make the fence stand longer than a single digit number of years.

To return to the aforementioned HOA, I remember attending a meeting for homeowners, and I asked why the fences were so...well...crappy. The answer I was given is that the fences were meant to define property lines, not built to last. So MY question is, how will they continue to define property boundaries if they DON'T last? 

My house is great. My fence is crap, and Mother Nature can be rude sometimes. So my advice to anyone interested in buying a home in the future, ask about your fences, and make sure you invest in them whatever you need to make them last. If you signed your life away for 30 years like we did, you want something pleasant to welcome you home. Take care of it, and it'll take care of you.

New year: new thoughts, new choices

NOTICE: This post will examine controversial topics including marriage equality, church dissent, and abortion. The opinions herein are strictly my own, including explanations about how I arrived at these conclusions. I am not telling others how or what to believe, I'm just explaining what I believe and why.

Wow. I haven't posted anything since October, and that was in defense of "the essential profession", that being education. I'm going to let this post finally declare some things I hadn't openly declared the way I typically declare stuff...like on facebook.

The main thoughts I've had recently have made me a draw some conclusions that I feel best suit my life.

RELIGION

I was born and raised Catholic. I'm 31 and for the vast majority of my life, I've been a devoted Catholic, following all church and faith teachings. However, once New York passed marriage equality back in 2011, I started witnessing church leaders doing horrid things against God's gay children. I realized I could no longer spiritually invest myself in a church that didn't love me the way I know God does.

So I stopped attending church. I've become fed up with listening to men on pulpits judging others' lives when they serve an institution infamous for sexually abusing children. Now, are all priests and bishops bad people? Of course not. But that doesn't change the fact that there are many priests who abused kids, and whose bishops helped them avoid accountability. Having done that, they have NO room to judge the sins in my life, of which being in a long-term, monogamous, gay relationship isn't one of them.

After much discussion, reflection, and deep scrutiny, I no longer see my formerly beloved church as a home of unconditional love, but rather an exclusive club for boys who think they have a closer connection to God than the rest of us, and therefore believe they have the authority to tell the masses how to live. So to make my relationship with God front and center, I've omitted my church's involvement in it, and I frankly feel very liberated! I hold no grudges or ill will towards any of my Catholic friends or family who still choose to abide by what the church teaches. But my perspective of it all has changed...possibly permanently...unless the glacier-slow-to-change church can admit and ask forgiveness for its trespasses. But for the many who see the church as an infallible institution guided by the Holy Spirit, I think they need to reflect on whom they follow: a bunch of guys managing a building known as the headquarters of a global church, or the deity that church serves? Because according to Scripture, if you find THAT inerrant, you can't serve two masters.
My biggest complaints with the church is that it focuses so much two things:

-abortion/contraception
-marriage equality

Abortion/Contraception
Like in most social debates, there are two sides; for this, you're either pro-life ("Lifers"), or pro-choice ("Choicers"). Lifers believe abortion should be outlawed, and that life begins at conception, an idea the the Catholic church affirms. Choicers - and let me make this CLEAR - Choicers do NOT advocate abortion. Choicers advocate CHOICE to carry a pregnancy to term, or to terminate the pregnancy. Lifers say "You have a life in there, and it has a right to LIVE!" Choicers say, "It's my life, my body, and I'll make my own decisions with the help of my doctor!" Lifers believe they're speaking for those without a voice (i.e., the unborn baby). Choicers believe in people's privacy in making delicate, sensitive, personal decisions.

My opinion is that reproductive choice opinions should only be had by the ones it affects: women. And who runs the Catholic church? Men...men who'll never have to be in that position. These men will never, in their positions of power, have to deal with the social stigma that an unwanted pregnancy brings. Now, if you want to prevent unwanted pregnancies, there are two ways to do that:

-abstain or only have sex with the intention to procreate (as the church instructs)
-use contraception

If you're going to have sex for pleasure, the church only approves of that if you're married and use natural family planning, thereby completely avoiding the use of any artificial contraceptives. And if you get pregnant anyway, well at least you're married. Now you have to have this baby because clearly it was God's plan.

This brings me back to this fact: the church invades privacy by telling women how to live their lives, going so far as being in the bedroom with their rules about something none of them will ever do. I just think that when it comes to issues of such a private, personal matter, no one should have any say in how you live your life. Everyone (i.e., believers) will come to judgment on their day. When a woman makes a choice to keep or terminate a pregnancy, that's between her, her doctor, and her deity of choice. 

With contraception, that's against church teachings because those are artificial solutions as a method of pregnancy prevention. This goes back to the church teaching that all sexual activity must be open to procreation. So, again, the church is micromanaging your sex life. The church can preach and teach about sexual ethics all it wants (though it doesn't have room to talk, really). In reality, this one institution cannot keep every woman or every man from only having sex under such structured circumstances. Further, contraceptives like "the morning after pill" are in the church's cross hairs. But they also discourage the use of condoms for men, as that prevents semen from fertilizing any egg that the woman may have ovulated. But if all this anti-contraception warfare is happening, why are church leaders not advocating that men get vasectomies? I get the feeling it's because since men run the church, they can easily vilify women.

Marriage Equality
The church supports and advocates for the "traditional marriage" which is one man, one woman, and at least one child. When Catholics take their marriage vows, one of them is to "accept children willingly from God", to which the couple is expected to reply, "We do." Among the church's arguments, marriage is strictly for procreation that is supported by a life-long commitment to a spouse. And the church most often refers to a verse in the Bible that reads "and for this reason, a man shall leave his mother and father, be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

Side note: I may not be able to tell exactly where certain verses are, but I can make plenty of accurate plot references. 

Now, Jesus, in all four gospels, never says a thing about gay people. The only places any reference to homosexuality is mentioned in in Leviticus in the Old Testament, and a few letters written by St. Paul in the New Testament. Many who've supported traditional marriage typically cite Leviticus 18:22 about how "Man shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination".

Another side note: I know THAT verse because I've been attacked with it repeatedly.

My thing is this: You want to make a biblical point? Fine. Did you realize that Leviticus also condemns wearing mixed fabrics, eating pork or handling pig skin, working on Sundays, or eating shell fish?  Did you know that in Deuteronomy (I forgot where), if a woman isn't a virgin upon marriage, she must be stoned to death?

Moving on, what about straight couples who get married, but don't have kids? Should their marriage be annulled? What about all the straight couples who are NOT good parents, or the woman who carried her pregnancy to term, but chose to gave the baby up for adoption? So, since the church opposes marriage equality partly because of the procreative aspect, would it be so bad if an abandoned child grew up with two loving parents who happen to be the same sex?

What about women who want to be mothers, but don't want to be married?

Another common argument is that if kids have gay parents, they'll likely turn out gay because that's the example of a relationship they see before them. Well, I'm the product of a straight marriage, and *I* turned out gay. Every person in existence was, is, or will be brought into this world because of a sperm that fertilized an egg: most likely through male-female sexual intercourse. Some of the offspring of these unions turned out straight, some bisexual, some lesbian, some gay, some transgender, but mostly straight. So if straight couples are the ones having kids that turn out gay, how on earth will two gay parents turn their non-biological children gay as well? Maybe straight couples should be the one to stop having kids. With all their procreating, one of them is bound to turn out gay because it's IN them. Sexual orientation is a gift from God. I believe some gifts He gives us are for serving Him through helping others, and other gifts He gives us are to humble us. 

Further, if being gay was a choice, the gay rights movement wouldn't have a leg on which to stand. We chose to be gay the same day you, dear presumably straight reader, chose to be straight. I sure as hell didn't choose to be gay, not that it's bad, but because it's extremely inconvenient. Thankfully, with more minds and hearts changing in favor of recognizing that gay people are only different by how they love, marriage equality is advancing around the country. Even in conservatives states like mine, Texas, the popular opinion is shifting to a more socially progressive one. Back in 2005, Texas passed an amendment to its constitution outlawing marriage equality. Eight years later, minds have changed simply because who someone loves is nobody's fucking business. As a result, some law makers are working to repeal the discriminatory amendment. And now, in the next few months, even the U.S. Supreme Court will possibly give a ruling on marriage equality!

HEALTH

I love animals, and for a number of months in 2012 I started eating less and less meat, which is a bit of a feat from someone who grew up in a Texas-Mexico border town! I gradually weaned myself off in baby steps, starting with simple choices at the grocery store; instead of buying hamburgers, nuggets, or cold cuts, I started replacing them with their vegetarian equivalents. The scale was finally tipped when I saw a documentary called VEGUCATED, about 3 carnivores going vegan (completely plant-based diet). This documentary also included slaughter house footage, and I could no longer justify loving the cow, chicken, or pig, and eating the burger, nugget, or bacon strip. So I'm now a complete vegetarian.

While there are many reasons one might be vegetarian (health, environment, animal ethics), my main reason is my love for animals. But studies have indeed shown that vegetarians have a reduced risk of heart disease, among other fatal ailments. Having seen the documentary also changed my perspective in the grocery store. When I walk by the deli section, I no longer see the main dish at a party, or get recipe ideas. Instead, I simply see dead animals who very well may likely have been treated inhumanely before being dismembered, processed, placed in those packages, and slapped with a bar code waiting to be scanned at checkout.

I'm naturally an empathetic person, and so being a vegetarian has enabled me to live a kind life by enjoying a kind diet. By the way, being a vegetarian makes Fridays during Lent so easy!

GAY ADVOCACY

I love discussions about gay rights. I work in the elementary education field, so when I get the "Are you married?" question, I respond with "That's none of your business." But because I'm not going to just go up to someone and ram my views down their throat, and because I'm a musician who loves to sing, I've joined the Capital City Men's Chorus...yes...a choir of gay men. The mission of the chorus is to uplift and promote a positive image of the gay community in the city through the performance of beautiful music. So when our straight fellow music lovers come to our concerts and hear the beautiful music we make together, discriminating against us gets ideally harder to do...thereby helping our fellow LGBT brothers and sisters finally get the equality to which we're entitled.

We've had a few concerts, and this season (2012-13) is the choir's 24th season. We've had 3 performances this year, and have at least 2 more to go. And I'm having a BLAST!

Well, now that I feel I'm more caught up after almost 6 months since my last post, I'll bid thee farewell.

Thanks for reading!

The essential profession

I took two personal days from work to do some professional development I've wanted to do for a long time. I went to the middle school into which my elementary school feeds, and spent an entire day with the band director, and the choir director. My professional goal was to get an understanding of what a typical day as a secondary band/choir director looks like, and what former students go through after I've had them for a few years.

All I can say is that I'm SO glad I took those days to see what I saw. I went there expecting raging hormones, backtalk, and some strict, hardcore classroom management, even possibly discipline.

Instead, I saw on-task kids, respect for the directors, having fun in class, doing their best to meet the director's expectations, and frequent positive reinforcement from directors seeing exactly what they wanted from their students.

On a legal pad, I took notes from everything I knew could be useful in my own teaching. And then I started writing reflections, thoughts based on how I felt after witnessing what I did. I'm so grateful to my feeding directors for allowing me to spend a day with them.

Like I said, the main reason for going was to better vertically align my curriculum to better prepare my 5th graders for middle school, whether they decide to join band or choir. At the elementary level, I teach choir as an after-school club that welcomes 3rd-5th graders. So doing that can give - especially the 5th graders - a taste of what choir is like in middle school. Except in middle school, they compete and get trophies, and have to impress judges. While I can definitely prepare kids for choir through a weekly choir "club" that culminates in a public concert, my preparing them for band involves using recorders. Yep..."Hot Cross Buns" and all that jazz.

Sidenote: I actually saw real hot cross buns at a local grocery store, and of course I had to buy them. I'll never buy them again. They were nasty. They had ginger, and I really dislike ginger. Blech!

At the elementary level, they're learning to become musically literate. But the lessons I teach, 45 minutes in length, consist of giving them a kinesthetic, aural, or visual experience to teach a new musical element, then we play a game for funsies, and then they practice reading, writing, and improvising with elements they've already learned. At the middle school level, it's about 50 minutes of solid practice. The "fun" is in meeting the challenge, and in making music itself. There are no games the way there are in elementary school.Their directors actually made practice fun.

Aside from all the wonderful things I witnessed, I had a special moment that nearly made me cry. During the choir director's planning/conference period, the band director came into the choir room to do a sectional rehearsal with the upper brass section (trumpets, cornets, French horns, etc.). A couple of my former students were in this group, and I had a good relationship with one of them. This particular kid played the trumpet, and when he was in 5th grade last year, he was learning recorder like all the rest. He sat down to the director's far right in the front row. There was an empty seat next to him, so I requested permission from the director to join his ensemble, which he granted. I sat right next to him, and he was thrilled.

As I sat with him, the director made some really fun things happen. While the director made some really boring activities seem militarily fun, he had the choir director's electronic keyboard at his disposal, so he used it to give some synthesized drum beats as the horns practiced their notes. As I sat next to my former student, rarely did he ever look at me. He was always watching the director, his trumpet, or his lesson book. He raised his hand at every opportunity to play anything the director requested. I just sat there, watching him scrutinizing the book, completely engaged and serious about his success. At one moment, he saw the double bar lines at the end of an exercise. He pointed to them and looked at me.
"What do the double bar lines mean?" he asked.
"What did they mean when you played recorder with me last year?" I replied.
"That it's the end?" he concluded.
I nodded. 
At this point, the director saw he had his hand up. The director acknowledged him, publicly praised him for seeking out answers on his own, and reminded the class that many of their basic answers are found in the book they were using.

I couldn't have been prouder of this kid. In that brief moment, in his time of uncertainty that led to conclusion, it was as if I was there in spirit, in the back of his mind, and he was there trying to figure out the answer to his own question. He had left my guidance, and had a new teacher to continue his growth where he had left off with me. The big difference, though, was that I was physically there, right next to him, ready and willing to support his learning.

It was powerful, inspiring, and so humbling!

Particularly after experiencing this, the old statements I've heard for years in education returned to my mind: "It's all about the children," and "They are the future." For years I'd heard these statements, and for the first time, I fully understood them. 

When children are given chances to perform in school, that exposes them to the stage, to rehearsal, to performance, to applause, to pride in themselves, and a sense of accomplishment. It's a cycle. Give children a program of some kind, whether Christmas or Veterans' Day or whatever. Give them songs to sing, teach them how to stand on risers, how to watch the director, how to get on and off the stage. Then give them an instrument, and have them join an ensemble where everyone else is learning and making mistakes as they get used to something new that is the next step up after what they've already done. Give them a goal to reach, and coach them along the way to reach it. Give them a chance to shine through a solo opportunity, and watch that self-confidence build. Teach them to relish in compliments, and accept constructive criticism, to learn from it.

Though my argument is biased towards the performing arts, this applies to all types of professions. Children want to become scientists, veterinarians, doctors, mechanics, and engineers through exposure to the sciences and math. They want to become authors through exposure to literature and language arts. They want to be historians or soldiers when exposed to social studies. They'll want to become artists, dancers, actors, musicians through exposure to the fine arts. They'll want to become business owners when exposed to math, social studies, economics, and taught to use them to learn to make money.

My point in listing all these professions is that they all begin with one thing: learning something from a teacher. And this brings me to the whole point of this post, a quote from David Haselkorn:

Teaching is the essential profession, the one that makes all professions possible.

Oppressive freedom

As long as anyone is oppressed, no one is free. -Unknown 

With the presidential election looming in just a few short weeks, there's a lot of talk, and a lot of hypocrisy going around.

I'm going to get right to the point here.

Too many people believe America is a Christian nation.

It isn't. And this is coming from someone born and raised Catholic: to have any laws passed reflecting religious beliefs is unconstitutional. How? Well, read the 1st amendment of the Bill of Rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There you have it. As much as you want to claim that America is a Christian nation it's not; it's just that Christianity is the predominant religion practiced here. Remember that the people who founded our country came here fleeing religious persecution. They came here, in part, because where they were from, you had to worship a certain way, and if you didn't, you were screwed. Here, they made sure that no one had to worship the way the government told them to. You could worship anyway you wanted to, or not at all. The 1st amendment gives us freedom of religion, not to protect religion from government, but to protect government from religion. The government, through this amendment, cannot impose religious beliefs on the country.

So, that being said, when you have crazy social conservatives who want laws passed that reflect their religious beliefs, they're becoming the very obstruction to freedom the founding fathers opposed.  They're using religion to oppress others, and when non-religious people protest them, religious people hypocritically claim their religious freedoms are being violated when, in fact, it is they who are violating others' freedoms by wanting laws passed that align with their religious beliefs, thereby imposing them on others, hence oppressing anyone who doesn't subscribe to their faith.

Take bullying for example. When anti-bullying legislation had been considered being put into law in several states, it was religious people who protested it saying their religious freedoms were being violated. They claimed THEY were victimized through this legislation because they thought such legislation would prevent them from expressing their beliefs towards others in the event of a disagreement over a hot topic issue. It could've been a Christian student harassing a Muslim student. More than likely, it could've been a Christian student harassing a gay student.

Jews can't eat pork. Mormons cannot consume caffeine or alcohol. Catholics are to abstain from eating meat on Fridays during Lent. All of these are beliefs each individual faith practices, and yet, we have no laws from either of them being passed forcing others to live the way they do. Southern Baptists baptize new members through full-body immersion while Catholics baptize with simply pouring holy water over the baby's head. Neither practice is being legislated.

Given all these examples, WHY are these same religious group protesting anti-gay bullying, or marriage equality? Whatever happened to "live, and let live"? If you want someone to believe the way you do, invite them to a church service. If they're not interested, respect that. Everyone's journey of faith is different, and should be respected.

You can't support religious freedom unless you support ALL TYPES of religious freedom, including freedom FROM religion. 

I'm going to conclude this post with two different quotes, both of which I saw on Facebook, one wittily funny, one irreverently funny:

Being against gay marriage because of your religion is like being angry at someone eating a doughnut because you're on a diet. 

Religion is like having a penis; it's okay to have one, it's okay to be proud of it, but there's no need to display it in public, or shove it down other people's throats. 

A short, non-partisan, polite, political rant

Besides my mind being saturated in music education, being gay has caused me to be saturated in and follow politics closely. Being gay is only a small part of me, but it affects MANY aspects of my life. Here are 2 of those aspects:

Because I'm gay, I can be fired from my job; there is no employment protection for gay people in many states, including Texas.

Because I'm gay, I can't legally marry the one person I want to marry. Back in 2005, Texas became one of many to put discrimination into the state constitution, passing an amendment that turned me into a 2nd class citizen, stripping me of one of my basic civil rights, which, in turn, affected many other protections and benefits I could've automatically received had I just gotten a marriage license.

Consequently, I've had to hire an attorney to grant me and my 6-year partner a small handful of rights a marriage license automatically grants, like hospital visitation rights, medical power of attorney, and financial power of attorney, and it cost us almost $1,000. So I am now passionate about politics, because unlike church laws and teachings, I actually have a say in politics -- it's called a vote. Politicians have the power to make and change laws, and because laws have been passed that have made me unequal under the law, I keep a close eye on politicians, because I don't want them passing laws that hurt my well-being.

All that being said...

I can understand why many people don't care to follow politics; they feel there's no point, that politicians are just crooks, only in it for money or publicity, they can be bought. It doesn't help that politics can get childish, messy, and so on. Despite the negatives of politics, we need to pay attention to what's going on. We need to learn who's running, and what they support and oppose, because the people in office sponsor and pass laws that affect your daily life and/or the lives of those around you. This is why it's so important to vote, regardless of whether or not you think your vote "counts", you have the right to do it, so EXERCISE IT! If you don't like the job the elected official has done, you have no right to complain if you didn't exercise your right to vote.

Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -The Boondock Saints