2015년 7월 7일 화요일

동성애와 개신교

얼마전 교황 프란시스코가 이혼과 함께 동성애까지 포용하는 전향적 태도를 보여주어, 천주교는 배제 하기로 했다.  천주교나 개신교나 나 한텐 도토리 키재기지만, 그나마 이 이슈에는 진보적인 태도라도 보여주려고 노력한데 대해서는 고무적이다.

슬쩍, 개신교 위주로 난 기사들을 봤다.
뭐, 항상 일부론으로 부정하려 하지만, 상당수의 교단 우두머리들을 비롯한 성도들의 악행과 추악함이 개독교란 신조어를 만들어낸 상황에서, 똥묻은개가 겨묻은개 나무르듯 악플과 댓글들이 풍성했다.

가족의 정통적 가치와 아이들의 성정체성에 대한 우려를 싸이드로 하고, 교리를 앞세워 동성애와 합법적 동성결혼을 반대하는 개신교의 핏켓 문구들이 재미있다.

인정하라는 거 아니다.  그냥 사회에서 정상적으로 살수 없는, 성적 소수자들에게 결혼하면 혼인자들과 같은 해택을 주는 것이다.  동성애건 장애자건 흑인이건 여자건 싫어하고 하대하는건 자유니깐 계속하든 말든 상관 안하는데, 벌건 대낮에 가족과 아이들의 미래를 위한답시고 항문섹스니 호모니 해대는건 좀 거슬린다.  신본주의가 인권을 말한다.  그냥, 바이블대로 돌로 쳐서 죽이는게 훨씬 신실하신게 아닌가 싶다.  본성을 들어내시지들 못하니 저리 천박하고 악랄해지는거겠지?

2015년 2월 4일 수요일

[펌글] Godless Parents Are Doing a Better Job


펌글



By Tracy Moore

Illustration by Jim Cooke.






Hate to break it to you, Bible thumpers: Parents who raise their kids without religion are doing just fine, studies say, possibly even better. Overall, not believing in God seems to make people and their offspring more tolerant. Less racist. Less sexist. Enviro-friendly. And their kids care less about what's cool, which—say it with me—only makes them cooler.


In an op-ed at the Los Angeles Times by sociologist Phil Zuckerman, you can read about a swath of studies that support what everyone who is "between churches" has known forever: Not believing in God isn't synonymous with being amoral. If anything, it can give you a greater clarity about right and wrong, because you're more likely to base it on empathy and decency than a guaranteed spot upstairs come Judgment Day.


In the 1950s, only 4 percent of Americans indicated they'd grown up in a secular household; today, 23 percent say they have no religious affiliation, Zuckerman writes, citing Pew research. They're called "Nones," or, you know, heathens, and that number is even higher (30 percent) among the 18- to 29-year-old set. So with more people than ever eschewing a reflexive belief in God, it seems as good a time as any to ask how that's working out for us. Zuckerman writes:


So how does the raising of upstanding, moral children work without prayers at mealtimes and morality lessons at Sunday school? Quite well, it seems.


Far from being dysfunctional, nihilistic and rudderless without the security and rectitude of religion, secular households provide a sound and solid foundation for children, according to Vern Bengston, a USC professor of gerontology and sociology.

Bengston has supervised a 40-year study of religion and family life across generations—the largest ever coordinated—called the Longitudinal Study of Generations. He recently added atheist or agnostic families to the mix alongside the rise in their self-reported numbers. And rather than discovering families unbound by the glue of God, performing nightly Satanic rituals in lieu of a nutritious dinner, he found… functional families with actual ethics and values and shit.


He was surprised by what he found: High levels of family solidarity and emotional closeness between parents and nonreligious youth, and strong ethical standards and moral values that had been clearly articulated as they were imparted to the next generation.


"Many nonreligious parents were more coherent and passionate about their ethical principles than some of the 'religious' parents in our study," Bengston told me. "The vast majority appeared to live goal-filled lives characterized by moral direction and sense of life having a purpose."

Zuckerman's work, and the work of other sociologists he compiles, backs this up. You don't need God to be good. He and his colleagues have found, time and time again, "sustaining moral values," and "enriching ethical precepts" among those who dare not to pledge allegiance to the Big Kahuna:


Chief among those: rational problem solving, personal autonomy, independence of thought, avoidance of corporal punishment, a spirit of "questioning everything" and, far above all, empathy.

The reason of course, is obvious. Morality comes not from a book, or a guy up in the sky, but from the idea that how you treat people matters, because how people feel matters. The Golden Rule. Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, is, Zuckerman writes, "an ancient, universal ethical imperative. And it requires no supernatural beliefs."


I would like to take this time to say directly to the small town I grew up in and its endless youth groups and Bible studies and Baptist churches and even grosser fundamentalist Church of Christ churches, and all the prayers before games, and Fellowship of Christian Athletes and the fear-mongering attitudes and pervy youth group leaders and gross, self-righteous, hypocritical, sexist, homophobic, racist, shallow, anti-intellectual, anti-questioning, anti-books, anti-music, anti-art, utter crass consumerism in place of actual Christian-ness: FACE. Big, stupid FACE in your FACE.


But that petty jab aside, seriously: I'm not one of those people who think anyone who is religious is dumb, or narrow-minded, or any such thing. Mad props. Even kinda jealz. I'd love for God to be something I could catch. It'd be like how I am with football: If only I could like it, I'm sure I would if nothing else have way more friends.


I'm not even someone who even had that bad an experience with religion, all considered, mainly because I was never forced into it. I just grew up in the over-saturated South, and for every truly genuine, kind, accepting person who drew on strength from God to do good in this world (I almost exclusively grew up with Baptists and Church of Christ nutjobs) that I ever met, there were easily a hundred who used it as a shield to judge and shun everything that didn't look like them, which was usually a white guy in a button-down oxford, Dockers, and a piece of UT football insignia somewhere. Who got shitfaced on the weekends. And was a racist. But who was somehow, inexplicably, considered a "good person" from a "good family." (I came from a broken home, and didn't go to church, and this was all you needed to know.)


Small-town Southern religiousness can take so many hideous forms, but the worst is this Upstanding Good Citizen who attends church and gets a free pass to be a terrible terrible bigot. Belief was assumed of everyone, too, and not believing was something you kept to yourself, and the accusation of witchcraft and Satanism were real things that happened to people I actually knew, and involved visits from law enforcement. (There was also a rash of suicides one summer that fueled the suspicions of Satanism even more.)


Once, in eighth grade, I researched and read about religions and went to different churches to find out more about this God thing. I told a youth group leader at one denomination known for being more laid back that I was genuinely unsure what I believed, but was interested in learning more. "Well, now, if you don't believe, there's only one thing that can mean," he said. "You're going to hell."


Okie doke.


I've known wonderful people who believe in God, and wonderful people who don't. But what I really prefer is that people don't need religion to figure out why it's worth being a good person. Who do good things because it's what makes a community better, an existence better, and not because it's how you get your salvation points.


I know it's more complicated than that, and I have no desire to prove to anyone that God does or does not exist or oversimplify the nature of one's own belief system. But uh, hoo boy have I had Christians do that to me my entire life! Funny thing. that. I have always found that it is much much easier for nonbelievers to accept that multiple viewpoints exist and can coexist without animosity than it is for someone whose entire belief systems is required to believe or else suffer. Which is a longwinded way of saying that this op-ed is a big no-duh.


But it's SOOOO satisfying so don't take it away from us.


As for the real point of this op-ed—how actual kids turn out when their parents don't go to church—it's just doubly nice to read facts backing up the God-given truth (heh). We don't need Bible verses to tell our children how to be good or nice or kind, or how to give back to others, to help those less fortunate, to accept people who are different from them. When you tell your kid that you're on earth for as long as you're on earth, and no one really knows what happens after, it can be liberating. It can be simple to explain that the most important thing you can do with the time you've got is make it count, and try to leave things better than you found them.


Plus, that means it's OK to question things, to explore how you feel, what you believe, to CHANGE YOUR MIND, to respect that all these different approaches make the world wonderful, not scary. When you tell a child that's it OK to form their own opinion, that they can create their own values as they get older and don't even have to totally accept yours, that fitting in isn't all it's cracked up to be, then it's not hard to see why that would help them face teenage peer pressure later on. The kids who drank the most and rebelled the hardest in high school were always the preacher's kids.


Zuckerman:


Studies have found that secular teenagers are far less likely to care what the "cool kids" think, or express a need to fit in with them, than their religious peers. When these teens mature into "godless" adults, they exhibit less racism than their religious counterparts, according to a 2010 Duke University study. Many psychological studies show that secular grownups tend to be less vengeful, less nationalistic, less militaristic, less authoritarian and more tolerant, on average, than religious adults.

If you don't believe in God, it's much easier to say that "An eye for an eye is a dumb concept," because acknowledging that it's irrational and petty doesn't contradict my worldview in the slightest. And when nonbelievers grow up, they are, I don't even know how else to put it, simply Better People™:


Secular adults are more likely to understand and accept the science concerning global warming, and to support women's equality and gay rights. One telling fact from the criminology field: Atheists were almost absent from our prison population as of the late 1990s, comprising less than half of 1% of those behind bars, according to Federal Bureau of Prisons statistics. This echoes what the criminology field has documented for more than a century — the unaffiliated and the nonreligious engage in far fewer crimes.

And the countries with the lowest crime and highest reports of well-being (Sweden, Denmark, Japan, Belgium and New Zealand)? They are the ones with the lowest religious engagement.


That said, Christians make a mean potluck, and they can organize a blood drive like nobody's business. In spite of the research against their character, criminality, and ability to reason through a complex idea, I would still totally let my kid be friends with one. Isn't that how that whole open-mindedness thing works?

2015년 1월 23일 금요일

나이 사십에 이래도 되나?

나이 사십에 20대 여자가 끌려도 되나?
나이 사십에 배나오고 망가져도 되나?
나이 사십에 궁궐같은 집사고 부자되는 상상해도 되나?
나이 사십에 양말 신는데 신음소리 나와도 되나?
나이 사십에 노후대책 안세워도 되나?
나이 사십에 강아지 좋아해도 되나?
나이 사십에 무릎나가게 축구해도 되나?
나이 사십에 황혼이혼 생각해도 되나?
나이 사십에 혼자사는 상상해도 되나?
나이 사십에 수염길러도 되나?
나이 사십에 머리길러도 되나?
나이 사십에 엄마 무릎베고 누워도 되나?
나이 사십에 엄마한테 돈받아도 되나?
나이 사십에 존나 존나해도 되나?
나이 사십에 싸움해도 되나?
나이 사십에 현실에 충실하고 안주해도 되나?
나이 사십에 위험한 모험해도 되나?
나이 사십에 ...

2014년 10월 28일 화요일

내 아이돌, 많이 보고 싶을 꺼에요, 마왕.

형, 중딩때 마이셀프 앨범 LP로 사서 첫 여자친구에게 선물준 기억이 나네요.  전 테이프로만 있었는데, 꼭 그 앨범은 제대로 들려주고 싶어서...
불알친구랑 넥스트 홈 앨범 함께 들으며 흥분해 잠못 이뤘어요.

해처리형,
이제 형의 새로운 음악을 들을수 없다는게 너무 슬퍼요.
형의 시원하고 솔직한 독설을 듣지 못하게된것도 슬퍼요.
내 유년시절부 터 쭈욱 함께한 나의 우상을 이제 더이상 이세상에서 볼수 없다는게 슬퍼요.

   

2013년 8월 30일 금요일

한국식물들을 영어로? (펌)

달래 (Korean) wild chive
부추 garlic chive G N
미나리 water parsley
냉이 shepherd’s purse W
쑥갓 garland chrysanthemum, crown daisy N
쑥 mugwort, wormwood W
사철쑥 tarragon G N
백리향 thyme G N
수영 sorrel N
감초 licorice G N
월계수 bay (true laurel) G N
갓 leaf mustard G N
깻잎 green perilla N
아욱 curled mallow N
근대 spinach beet, chard, perpetual spinach, leaf beet G N
명이나물, 산마늘 alpine leek, victory onion
취나물 *no common English name
순무 turnip, rutabaga, swede turnip G N
고사리 bracken fiddlehead W
녹두 mung bean G N
칡 kudzu, japanese arrowroot W
뚱딴지, 돼지감자 jerusalem artichoke, sunchoke G W
우엉 greater burdock N
도라지 balloon flower, chinese bellflower N
더덕 bonnet bellflower N
진달래 azalea N
두릅 Japanese angelica tree (이 나물이 실은 나무의 새 순이었다.)
개암 hazelnut, cobnut, filbert G N
대추 jujube N
뽕, 오디 mulberry N
까치밥 currant N
딱총 elderberry N
모과 chinese quince
무화과 fig G N
금귤 kumquat N
귤 satsuma mandarin (흔히 보는 cuties라 불리는 clementine은 귤과 매우 비슷하지만 종이 다르다) N

G 미국 식품점에 비교적 흔히 있는 것
N 씨앗이나 모종을 비교적 쉽게 구할 수 있는 것
W 잡초로 여겨지는 것

2013년 6월 19일 수요일

Psychoanalyzing

내 자신이 못난거나 모나거나 한것은 내가 지금까지 살아온 환경과 경험 그리고 기본적으로 물려받은 성품이 어우러져 만든 나만의 것이며, 내가 짊어갈 본인의 본질이다.
어떤 큰 상처에 의한 것이라고 생각하는 편의함으로, 개인에게 얹혀진 삶의 짐을 이겨내지 못한 인간으로, 치유가 필요하다고 단정짓는 사람들을 이해 못하겠다.  과연 그렇게 단정지을수 있는 지식은 어디서 나오는걸까?
내 삶 수십년을 다큐로 엮어서 본것도 아니고, 설사 봤다 하더라고 본인이 더이상 개의치 않는걸 아물지 않은 상처라고 다시 제 3자가 정의 하겠다는건 도데체 어떤 멘탈인지 궁금하다.  물론 본인도 인지 못하는 상처도 있다.  전문의도 쉽게 풀지 못하는 것들, 평생 약물치료와 상담치료를 받아야 하는 것들은 어차피 어쩔수 없잖나?  한마디로 팔자지.  어떤 예건간에, 자신의 인지와 정의 없인 말 그대로 본인 스스로 받아들여야 하는 것이고, 그것이 곧 치유에 첫 걸음이다.
그것을 어떤 종교의 힘으로 이겨냈다는 인간들이 있다.  난 절대로 그들앞에서 "당신들의 그 아픔이란것들은 치유되지 못했고, 그 증거는 당신들의 삶에서 나타나고 있다고,  다만 종교를 통해 스스로를 위안하고 위선으로 안위할뿐이다" 라고 얘기 안한다.  사실이라 할지라도.  왜냐, 이 얼마나 무례하고 불쾌한 발언인가?  아마 억장이 무너지겠지. 나한테 욕설이나 저주를 퍼부울 것이다.  아님, 아직 신을 못만나서 그렇다고, 누구도 주지않은 믿음의 무게를 재는 권리를 행사할것이 뻔하다.
치유받았다고 하는데 굳이 나 따위가 그런말 할 필요가 있겠는가?  그런데 그들은 한다.  무슨 권사를 받았는지 다들 신앙심 깊고 신을 영접한 예수의 제자이고 심리학자고 정신과 전문의인것처럼.

2013년 4월 23일 화요일

늙은이

아 놔, 이것참, 그 나이 먹도록 도데체 뭘 배웠나 할정도로, 답답하고 안타까운 사무직원이 있다.  서빙보다가 들어온 사람도 아니고, 몰라도 너무 모른다 할정도로 컴퓨터쪽으론 무뇌한 한 백인 아줌마가 있다.  아놔, 그냥 퇴직하시지, 뭘 그리 길게 잡고 끄시나 생각할때도 있었다.  그러던 어느날 정말 힘들고 바쁜날에 말도 안돼는 문제를 해결 못하고 나를 귀찮게 했다.  그때, 속으로 무심결에 육두문자로 욕을 했드랬다.  속으로나마 경박했던 나를 꾸짖으며 생각했다.

잠깐!, 이 아줌마 울 엄마보다 나이가 만치?  울 엄니는 완전 컴맹인데, 엄니도 어떤 젊은 시끼한테 이런 대접을 받으면 우짜지?  뭐 이런 생각?

나도 나이들면, 새파란 쉬끼들이 속으로 열라 씹겠지?  저 쉐리는 아는것도 없는게 자리만 꿰 차고 있다고?

그후론 나이드신 냥반들은 무조건 이해하고 넘어가며 잘해 드리려 노력하고 있다.