WHAT DOES "PRO-LIFE" MEAN?

In the confirmation hearings of very recent memory, the candidates basically took the position that Roe v. Wade was a matter of established law and, as such, it would not be touched. But as soon as they locked down the job, they immediately began working to set Roe aside. We know this because of the draft position paper recently leaked. 

Wild controversy has ensued. There is a nagging feeling in the back of my mind that the leaking of this document may have been meant to distract from something ELSE of even greater import, but I do not know what that may be, at this point, and can't speak to that.  The first thing that aggravated me, of course, is that the candidates LIED during the hearings. They manipulated the process in order to gain power - always a terrible sign. 

Lying bugs me, no matter where I find it. Satan is a murderer and the father of all lies, according to scripture. Wherever we find lies, something evil is present, to one degree or another.

Some people think that the ends justifies the means, but it is strictly against Catholic theology to use lies to gain a "holy" purpose, and probably every other religion as well. This is NOT a good start, but what can we expect from a political party, the GOP, that is always shrieking about the Democrats supposedly "packing" the court when it is they who have done it instead. The cognitive dissonance makes my head hurt.

Anyone familiar with my political perspective, by the way, knows full well that I am not a tribal devotee of any political party. I vote according to my spiritual values, my logic and my common sense, keeping in mind the predominately secular nature of our government that was created by people who had a horror of the theocracies of Europe. I can just as easily criticize democrats, and have done so in the past, but it is the GOP that is filling the air waves with conspiracy theories, lies and insurrection nonsense at the moment and, whatever defects exist in the Democrat talking points, the Republicans are currently FAR worse. Their talking points are just bizarre. 

I mention my lack of tribal affiliation so that my comments about this topic can be absorbed with the understanding that I actually do not have a dog in this fight and my position is not strictly elephant nor jackass.

First, let me say I am "pro-life." What I mean by that will be made clear.

Making abortion illegal is only one method of attempting to support life and avoid death. "Pro-life" is not encompassed by this one method. When I say I am "pro-life" I mean that I am a believer in a consistent, global approach that takes into account all aspects of creating and maintaining a culture that encourages and supports life! Life is wonderful, but not simple. 

Abortions were illegal but routinely available before Roe v. Wade, but they were dangerous and not only killed the baby but sometimes the mother as well. At times, the mother's future fertility was affected. If they are made illegal once more, they will revert to being done in less ideal conditions, as before. The only people who may not be able to have abortions will be girls who are too young to travel to a place where an abortion may be had, and/or women who are too poor to afford it.  

I well remember the years before ROE, and this is the way it was then, and is probably the way it will shake down after ROE is put down. BUT there is one fairly new element in the mix that was not in place before Roe. The "pro life movement" has become hyper organized. They are laser focused on making it illegal and do not appear to be interested in any other method. To them, making abortion illegal IS the sum total of what "pro life" means. When I have engaged in conversation with any of the self-proclaimed "pro life warriors" about other methods, I get attacked and called names. People pile on in a frenzy of fury. It is really quite something. Obviously, not everyone is like this. I have close friends who are convinced that making it illegal is THE thing to do, but they know I am pro-life in my own way and they don't resort to calling me names or harassing me about this topic. They recognize that I disagree about method and not about the goal.

I don't have to be psychic to accurately predict that the FIGHTING will continue, because people who are NOT pro-life and people who frame this issue as one of bodily autonomy are not going to stop fighting against the illegality. The "pro-life" crowd that has wedded itself to ONE failed method of supposedly supporting life will not stop EITHER. The whole thing is pointless. I have watched the controversy swing back and forth over the last 60 years in which I have been aware of it

It is distressing that few people seem prepared or interested in understanding the point of view of the opposite side. And they are pretty nasty about it on social media com boxes, calling one another names and insinuating awful things about the other.  The caustic and sometimes vulgar rudeness is intolerable. Also useless, since no progress can be made without coming to some understanding.

Because I am a convert and because my point of view has developed over the years, I have been on both sides of this debate and I feel I understand and sympathize with both with regard to the discussion about whether or not abortion should be legal. What I do NOT feel is hostility for either "side" because I see the immense suffering that persons on each side are feeling. I wish there was something I could do to help, so that LIFE could actually be supported and everyone could stop fighting about a method which, historically, has limited to no benefit.

People who gravitate toward the "force and punishment" model of government behave as if making abortion illegal is all they need to do to create a "pro life" culture in the U.S. and then they can just kick back and act like the job is done. When I point out that abortions will go on anyway, they typically devolve into angry litanies of resentment-filled rhetoric that makes it clear that they are much more interested in punishment than in the actual results. Yesterday, when I mentioned that women would get abortions ANYWAY but that they would be dangerous and may risk their lives, a pro-life warrior told me that "abortions are not supposed to be safe." This person did not care that the woman might die. He was much more interested in punishment. OBVIOUSLY not a "pro life" point of view.

For those on the right, only the baby inside her matters, while extremists on the left behave as if only the mother's life matters. But I insist that BOTH matter and we must serve the needs of both.

My experience of this topic, personally, has led me to believe that a freewheeling lifestyle of sex outside of marriage is damaging to women, men, families - everyone, really. At some point in my life, my personal approach became one in which I avoid sex outside of marriage. It sounds antiquated to many people, but it worked for me. 

I realize our culture is adamantly opposed to restraining the sex urge, and I am not saying that my method should be forced on anyone, but I rather think that "choice" actually comes long before the woman becomes pregnant. That is how I look at it for myself, personally. It took me a long time to come to this point of view and I understand those who do not share it.

I am a pragmatic person trying to talk into a topic dominated by ideologs. Most of the people who have some investment in this topic seem to be firmly entrenched in one of two positions. Even many "religious" people whose religion demands restraint of the sex urges are adamantly opposed to obeying those precepts about restraint of the sex urge. I WAS one of those people, many years ago. It did not work out well for me. This is why it became OBVIOUS to me that you can't legislate morality and expect everyone to just obey. They are not going to do it.

Just because I think that making abortion illegal is pointless does NOT mean I am pro-abortion or that I am a libertine. Far from it. I am tired of people demanding that I defend positions I have not taken, which is why I am posting THIS hot topic today. Next time someone calls me a "baby killer" I will refer them to this essay.

Instead of trying to force into use a method that never worked, I suggest we try, instead, one of the many other methods of creating a pro-life culture, so that, even if abortion remains legal, hardly anyone would take advantage of it because America could be a resoundingly "pro-life" culture.

We could follow the examples of other, less prosperous nations that manage to give paid maternity and paternity leave to the parents, as well as paid child care and health care to call their citizens. (No, they are not "socialist" countries I am speaking of. Most are democracies and countries that operate on some sort of capitalist system.)

Paying every worker a living wage that is enough to feed, clothe, house, and medicate a family while enabling some savings toward the purchase of homes used to be the American standard. Instead, the wages of the people who do the actual work are suppressed, and the value of what they create is shuttled up the ladder so that the CEOs have become little potentates who actually take vacations in outer space while their workers who created the wealth barely have enough to put food on the table. Compound this situation with a tax structure that has become entirely unfair, protecting the rich and impoverishing everyone else, and we have a recipe for disaster  - not "pro life" by any stretch of the imagination.

If all of this were cured and we actually were doing something toward making our culture a culture of life, we could have an abortuary on every corner and the halls would be empty - or nearly so. The legal status of abortions is NOT what drives them! Women do not have abortions because they are available. They have abortions because they cannot afford to do otherwise.

Once we have done EVERYTHING we can do to create a pro-family culture, beginning with the ways I have mentioned, above, only then should we consider making abortion illegal and only if the other methods have not resulted in a radical downturn in the numbers. At that point, some version of making abortion illegal would have to be considered, and we should start first with some limitations, such as limiting them to the first trimester. BUT I say this only to "cover all the bases" because I actually do not think that abortions will remain high in numbers if and when we create a family friendly environment. There will be some, of course, but it is a better than what is happening now. 

MOST women report that they chose abortion because of financial realities. I am pretty sure we can create a situation in which abortions are rarely necessary. Rape, incest, and the health of the mother are naturally going to be situations which most people would agree would be exceptions. Also, there are medical conditions that actually prohibit the survival of the baby but endanger that of the mother if allowed to go to full term.

In any case, the use of force that impinges on the rights of women over their own bodies has to be our LAST resort - not our first. There are TWO human persons present in a pregnant woman.  We can't ignore either one of them.

Obviously, I think that this issue is a whole heck of a lot more nuanced than most people seem to believe, and that is too bad, because this is one of those issues for which we need to be able to meet one another in a calm, respectful dialog that takes into account the needs of ALL persons. I pray we can find some way to do that.

Bless us all and God save us

"NOTHING PERSONAL," YOU SAY?

Mother Mary

in my little garden

When disagreements arise in modern life, I have noticed that some people are unable or refuse to put themselves into the place of the other guy, in their imagination. Because they cannot empathize, they cannot imagine why that person on the other side of the debate has an opinion so different from their own.

When engaging in a formal debate, definition of terms often forms a preliminary phase of the debate process so that everyone involved is "on the same page" and talking about the same thing, but modern Americans, set loose on the internet, are not taking advantage of this tool.

Refusing to attempt to understand the actual position of the other side, in a sympathetic light, and making assertions about what your opponents think, believe or want, has become common and is not productive of anything good. It just perpetuates the prejudices and discord.

"Nothing is sweeter than

to think well of others."

Saint Therese of Lisieux

It won't be news to you if I tell you that there is a lot of turmoil in our country right now. I believe that at least part of the cause of this is this disorganized approach to communication among us.

Most of my readers will remember that I am a Catholic convert with a Hindu (Vedantic) orientation. I was raised without any religion whatsoever and participated in many different faiths before converting to Catholicism about 14 years ago. While I believe in everything the Catholic Church believes and teaches, I have a tremendous amount of experience as a non-Christian American. I can easily speak to the point of view of non-Christians, as a result.

When having discussions with some of my Catholic brothers and sisters, I will often object to their characterizations of poor people, gay people, brown people, immigrants, disabled people, and other vulnerable groups. The reply I often get is, "oh, I am not talking about you." As a single, female, senior, divorced, disabled poor person, I fit into many categories of the most vulnerable groups and, having been raised in a non-Christian environment, I am intimately familiar with the lifestyle and beliefs of unchurched people.

But those good Catholic people ARE "talking about" me! They have erroneous, conspiracy-level beliefs about poor people, for instance. There is a huge amount of prejudice about the poor! Right wing people who identify as Christian will often immediately talk about drug addiction and criminality when discussing "the poor."

It isn't that I don't find drug addiction and criminality disturbing, because I DO. Since becoming disabled and poor, and after moving into low-income housing, I have been on the receiving end of quite a bit of the criminality of a segment of the poor. Several of my poor neighbors have stolen from me. The homeless who have encampments in the bosque next to the apartment complex have stolen things out of my garden and my patio, and have rifled through the drawers of the potting cabinet on the patio - looking for whatever might be useful, I suppose. My car has been broken into several times, with no more apparent motive than to scrabble around for change or valuables, leaving me with a broken side window and a creeping sensation of wonder that, although the car was parked right next to my apartment windows, I never heard a thing.

I've had neighbors aggressively try to "befriend" me just so they can get into my apartment and scope it out for possessions they might like to have. One woman spent months telling me I should just "give away" the bed I wasn't using instead of selling it, and then called me one morning and announced that her daughter-in-law had "cried with joy" at the news that SHE would be receiving this bed because she really needed one. I had not agreed to any such thing and was even FURTHER astonished when the neighbor told me she had arranged for a rental truck to come and get it and that it would be at my apartment within two hours! It dawned on me that the neighbor who had pursued my friendship had been "working me" for months, with the express purpose of divesting me of whatever possessions she liked, so I gave her the bed. I rightly guessed she would stop bugging me after she got what she wanted, and I was right. The woman came and took the bed and never spoke to me again.

Anyone who imagines I don't know what I'm talking about when discussing the criminality of the poor needs to take a step back and try another tack. The thing is, despite feeling really bad when someone steals from me or tries to manipulate me for profit, as in the case of the neighbor and the bed, I know that the thievery of the poor is just more obvious and personal than the thievery of the other classes. 

There is a percentage of people in all walks of life who will steal. I have an entirely middle-class sibling who, through a complex con that she worked on me over several months, managed to legally bar me from successfully fighting the theft of inheritance by my father's third wife - just so the sibling could take whatever scraps were available.

The wealthy classes steal from the poor and the middle class in a less direct and less personal way. I would make the case that theirs is the most reprehensible type of thievery because it relies upon the inability of the lower classes to protect themselves. I 

The thievery of poor people is more honorable, in one sense, because it is blatant and out in the open and in-your-face. I know what my neighbor stole from me when I hired her to clean my house. Likewise a second neighbor, the daughter of people I believed were my friends - she ALSO stole from me. I was able to speak to her directly about it.

But what can I do about the thievery of the rich who give one another tax breaks and talk about "trickle down economics" that no one believes is true because nothing has ever trickled down from these accomplished con artists? Millionaires and billionaires buy more luxury goods and properties for themselves while the rest of the people scrabble around for bread.

The fact is that there are no higher a percentage of criminals in the poor populations than there are in society in general. In fact, it may be quite a bit lower, because most poor people are poor because they're disabled or elderly. There is no more drug addiction among the poor than in society as a whole. It's just that people who are successful criminals have enough money to shield themselves from punishment. Drug addicts who are rich, famous, or have solid families have enough resources to support expensive rehab programs.

How many alcoholics do you think exist among the middle class and wealthy? Quite a lot. They can afford the booze. They can also afford to make it 'look' better. I have a relative who is an alcoholic. On the outside, it looks like she's a nice middle-class lady. She's got the trappings of respectability. But she is a terrible drunk. The packaging is just more attractive. She can afford to drink herself into oblivion inside an attractive home. She can also lie, cheat and steal under cover of apparent "respectability." You won't find HER in the gutter, slurring her words and vomiting her stomach contents onto the road. She does it behind closed doors.

This is why, when discussing the middle class or the wealthy, alcoholism is not the first thing that unkind people will talk about. It's the first thing mentioned when the topic of poor people arises, though. Why isn't it the first thing one hears when discussing the other socio-economic groups that have this problem? Americans are prejudiced against the poor in the same way the British in Dickens-era England were. Nothing has changed.

People want to justify their prejudice against the poor.

I am far from a perfect person, but I am not a drug addict. I don't drink. I'm not a criminal. Heck, I haven't had so much as a parking ticket in 44 years! I do not live on welfare. I have Social Security into which I paid for more than 30 years of constant work. I have no tattoos. I have lived as a celibate religious for almost two decades. I am nothing special because, aside from my formal religious vows of sannyas, I am very typical for a woman of my age. MOST poor people are like me. They've done the best they could with their lives, and they are struggling to make a go of it on very little income in their old age. 99.9% of us are NOT homeless people begging with big signs on the street corners, and shooting up drugs at night. They're the exception, not the rule. But even if ALL poor people were drug-addled, alcohol soaked n'er do wells, I ask you to remember that Jesus did not put any requirements upon poor people before they were entitled to the compassion of Christians.

"The poor man has one plea, his want and his standing

in need: do not require anything else from him; but even

if he is the most wicked of all men and is at a loss for

his necessary sustenance, let us free him from hunger."

St. John Chrysostom

Most of us have no help whatsoever. We receive "too much" income from Social Security, thanks to our work histories, but certainly not enough to pay for our needs. Some of us get help from our families, but an awful lot of us are not getting crucial needs met and are dying much sooner than necessary, as a result.

While it is common for most bloggers to avoid talking about themselves, I am taking the opposite stance, partly because my previous confessor taught me that my personal experiences can be used to advocate for others in my position.

"He who is gracious to a poor man lends to the Lord,

and He will repay him for his good deed."

Proverbs 19:17

In my own way, I am fighting the prejudices and bigotry that are so endemic in the cruel America of today. I hope to be able to help that segment of American Christians who are mentioned, above, to be able to identify, even a little bit, with those who are less fortunate than they are, and with those who disagree with them politically.

Put yourselves in my shoes, my American brothers and sisters, then survey our land through my eyes and my experience. If you can do that, you may disabuse yourselves of some of your prejudices.

God bless us all.

Silver "Rose"
Sannyasini Kaliprana

WHAT IS YOUR VISION FOR THE FUTURE?

"When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not

invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives

or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return,

and repayment come to you. But when you give a

reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame,

the blind, and you will be blessed, since they do not

have the means to repay you; for you will be repaid

at the resurrection of the righteous."

~Luke 14:12-14~

Jesus told us quite clearly that He expects us to distribute his largess, but humans continue to disparage other humans and to say, directly and indirectly, that the poor are not "worth" helping, or that they aren't really poor, or that they do not deserve any assistance unless they are as poor as the poorest person in the world.

The Trump administration wants to give a black mark to any immigrant who receives assistance, so that when it comes time to decide on his application for citizenship, he will have a major hurdle to overcome. Trump has made it clear that he doesn't want to receive anyone from "shit hole countries" and he'll do almost anything to discourage them, including taking their children and incarcerating them.

"The poor man has one plea, his want and his standing

in need: do not require anything else from him; but

even if he is the most wicked of all men and is at a

loss for his necessary sustenance, let us free him from

hunger."

~ St. John Chrysostom~

The continuous message with which we are being pounded is that poor people are less than others. Poor people are criminals. Poor people are addicted to drugs. Poor people are responsible for whatever is lacking in the economies of other people.These ideas are fueled by the propaganda of scarcity. This lie is promoted by greedy people who have far more than they need. Something like 27 Americans own as much of our country's wealth as the rest of the millions of others. They spend a lot of money advertising the philosophy of scarcity and cutthroat competition. Every one of society's ills are blamed on the poor, the sick, the brown, the different.

I reject that false vision of the world.

"[Commandment to kings.] Open your mouth for the dumb,

for the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge

righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy."

~Proverbs 31~

What I want is for everyone's circumstances to rise to the level where we all have yummy, healthy food, safe and comfortable housing, good medical care, comprehensive education, and the joys of art and culture. No one would feel the need to have an abortion. All children would have a loving, happy family life.

Rather than demanding that our poor live as poorly as those in the poorest banana republic, I think God wants everyone to be lifted up. Instead of complaining that our poor people have cell phones, why not aspire to every poor person having a means of communication? Instead of looking down on poor people who are saddled with addiction issues, why not aspire to everyone having access to rehabilitation?

In short, my vision of the future is an egalitarian vision of love. It's God's explicit vision, as consistently revealed in the words of Christ and his saints.

"If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers,

in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your

God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor

close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall

freely open your hand to him, and generously lend

him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks."

~Deut. 15:7~

What is YOUR vision?

Silver "Rose"

PUT ON YOUR CATHOLIC GLASSES

Morning Walk

November 5, 2017

A fair number of Catholics have put down their Catholic glasses and put on their Republican glasses instead, trading in their faith for a political ideology that they've confused as an appropriate substitute. Many appear willing to do or say anything in support of their political candidate, even if it is dishonest, uncharitable, and slanderous.

Instead of examining what is happening in the White House today, for instance, these RepubliCatholics are fixated on Hilary Clinton, who is not in any public office, is not running for office, and has not been in office for years. Social media continues to be flooded with ridiculous conspiracy theories about her. Clearly, she's not even yesterday's news. She hasn't been in any political office for at least 5 years. Why beat the dead horse?

At the same time, Robert Mueller,  a man of sterling character and reputation, is being slandered by the RepubliCatholics, who are calling for him to be fired, supposedly because of Mueller's "professional relationship" with Comey, the former head of the FBI whom Trump fired after Comey initiated the investigation into Trump Campaign ties to Russia. If one is going to have an FBI investigation, it is obvious that the FBI employees are certainly going to know one another. Are we to surmise, then, that no FBI agent can head an FBI investigation because one of them was fired by the person being investigated? That would be convenient to the person being investigated, certainly.

Read about the motion to remove Mueller HERE

These RepubliCatholics are also mad that the FBI didn't find any wrongdoing with a Uranium deal with Russia, a deal on which 7 government agencies signed off and which was not engineered by then-secretary of state, Hilary Clinton. CLEARLY, Trump devotees are clutching at straws.


Who is Bob Mueller, anyway?

As Special Counsel for the FBI's investigation into Russian interference in the campaign of 2016, Robert Mueller's mandate is to investigate "any links and/or coordination between Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump, and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." [Rod Rosenstein's letter appointing Mueller as Special Counsel.]

Mueller is a war hero. He received the bronze star for combat for his service as a Marine during the Vietnam War. He was the director of the FBI for 12 years (originally appointed by President Bush.) He has served as a U.S. Attorney, an Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, and as Acting Attorney General.

He was one of the "key players" in making America safer after the 9/11 terror attack on the twin towers. [See: "Robert Mueller, Known for His Integrity, Leads Historic Investigation as it Heats up." HERE]

Mueller has a solid reputation for equanimity and nonpartisan action. Mueller's reputation is such that, if he isn't fit to lead this investigation, then no one would be. (Read the articles through the links I provided.)

This investigation isn't partisan. Mueller, like Trump, is a Republican. The investigation has found quite a few Trump Campaign officials have strong ties to Russia. This isn't "business as usual." It's bizarre for an American politician to be surrounded by people who have so many ties to Russia, an enemy state, as I detail in the next paragraph. The timing of the Republican push to oust Mueller is suspicious, to say the least.

Charges may soon be filed against Mike Flynn, Trump's former National Security Advisor, having to do with Flynn's connections to Russia. [See: "Mueller Has Enough Evidence to Charge Flynn in Russia Investigation." HERE]

Mike Flynn

George Papadopoulos has already pleaded guilty to charges stemming from his work with Russia while a member of the Trump campaign. [Read his plea agreement and underlying confession of guilt HERE.]

George Papadopoulos

Former Foreign Policy Advisor to Donald Trump

Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, charged with tax fraud and money laundering, has Russian connections and is currently under house arrest, as is his long time associate, Rick Gates, who was also on Trump's team. [Read about them: HERE]

Paul Manafort

Trump's former campaign chairman

Rick Gates

Assistant to Manafort

As Catholics, our devotion to truth should be far stronger than our attachment to any public figure, otherwise, we are in service to Satan, the father of lies. If you find yourself in the position of fighting AGAINST the truth coming out about your favorite public figure, it may be time to rethink why he is your favorite to begin with.

God save us all.

Silver Rose Parnell
Copyright (c) 2017 - All rights reserved.

INDIANA ON MY MIND

Sometime in my mid to late 30's, I worked for an attorney in Beverly Hills who, I grew to understand, was somewhat lacking in personal ethics.  One day, he placed a document in front of me and told me to sign a verification testifying that I had mailed copies of it to the opposing attorney a few days previously.  I had never seen the document before, so I declined to sign it.  He wanted me to lie, and my personal ethics and religious sensibilities prevented me from doing it.  He insisted, quite vigorously, that he was the boss, he had ordered me to sign it and that he would take responsibility for it.  He claimed I would not be culpable, morally or legally.  He was wrong on both counts.

When he realized that I was not going to budge, he either fired me or I quit.  I can't remember which.  It was a terrible job anyway.  Our work space was tiny, all the secretaries were jammed together, and they were horrible women, probably each one was part of the "mean girl" clique in high school, and they had even gone so far as to steal my tax return out of the outgoing mail, probably to see how much money I made, or just to mess with me.  Maybe both.

When the conversation turned to my final check, the attorney refused to pay me my accrued vacation pay.  California law, at that time, provided that a person's vacation pay accrued on a daily basis and that, when you left the employ of a company, the company had to pay you the accrued vacation pay.  Previously, companies had waited until an employee was about to take a vacation and then fired them without severance and without paying for the vacation they had earned.

When I reminded this attorney of the laws in this regard, he said, "so sue me."  I replied, "Fine, I will!" and I drove directly to the Department of Labor Standard Enforcement and filled out a complaint against them.  I knew that, if the company did not give me the money it owed me within two weeks, they could be fined $10,000 or more and they could be required to pay me as if I was still employed with them, for every day I had to wait before I received the money I was owed.  I received my complete check within a week.

There were laws in place and offices to administer those laws with regard to compensation, but to my knowledge, there was no protection for my religious or ethical considerations.  If an employer ordered me to lie or do something illegal or unethical, there wasn't much recourse except to quit, get fired, or cave in.  The only "alternative"  was to hire an attorney and sue the employer to get one's job back, which would be contingent upon being able to prove one's case - and what clerical worker has that kind of money or would want to return to a job like that anyway?

I was many times ordered to lie and/or do unethical or immoral things during my working life.  I refused, and I moved on to another job.  There was little room in business for a secretary or an office manager who will not lie for their boss.

40 years ago, a young mother at age 20, I worked as an assistant in the commodities department at a famous financial management firm on one of the top floors of a large office building in the heart of downtown Los Angeles.  I was the only female on the floor, and all the men would gather in the conference room at lunch time to watch pornographic movies.  They would hoot and holler and make vulgar noises and comments about the movies, every once in a while calling out to me to come and join them.  It was an awful experience.

I hadn't been there long when I was propositioned by the boss.  He asked me to go to Las Vegas with him for the weekend.  I refused, of course.  He fired me immediately.  I didn't realize he had blacklisted me with his cronies until I went on an interview for a job with another firm in the neighborhood.  The interviewer was a friend of the boss that had propositioned me.  In front of a room full of people, the interviewer announced that he would never hire me because my previous employer had told him I was lazy and slow.  He pronounced this with an evil smile and a glance around the room to make sure that everyone heard him.  Evidently, he took an interview with me just so he could punish me and humiliate me in front of all those other people.  I had dared to say "no" to a weekend of sex with the boss.

I see now that there is this huge flap about a law recently enacted in Indiana in which a person of religious conviction cannot be forced to materially cooperate or assist in some action or service that is of a nature that is considered morally reprehensible by the religion of the person.  Mainstream media is screaming "discrimination!" because the law would protect a Christian baker from having to make cakes for gay weddings, since homosexual acts are considered very sinful.    It would protect the Jewish man from having to dry clean all the uniforms of the Nazi party or the Aryan Nation.  I believe it would also protect the black tailor from having to sew the costumes for the next KKK rally.

Certain media outlets are making hay out of this law, canvassing small businesses owned and/or run by Christians and asking them questions designed to get them to admit that they would not serve a gay wedding.  At least one business has been forced to close its doors.  They were getting death threats.

In my own life, I have observed that, the harder I work to live a good, holy and pure life, the more animosity to which I am subjected by the world at large, acquaintances, Facebook people, etc.  I can feel the pressure to conform to the secular norm of sex on demand, abortions on demand, abandonment of my faith on demand.  I am not allowed to hold any opinion that differs from the secular worldview, or else my character and motives are demeaned and I become the object of heated and hateful attacks.

I used to belong to a religion that preached that "all paths lead to God," and not a single person criticized me, but as soon as I had my conversion and became Catholic, all hell broke loose.  Even a friend of many years duration went nuts and took every opportunity to bash my faith, in person and in print, (even going so far as to spread lies about it), while at the same time insisting on attending Catholic retreats and receiving the Eucharist, though never having been Catholic and knowing full well that the Catholic Church does not allow non-Catholics to receive communion.  Illicitly receiving the Eucharist under false pretenses, in an unworthy state, while at the same time campaigning against the teachings of faith and morals of the Catholic Church is an insult to the faith.  I can only imagine the motives, as it makes no sense to me, except in the context of a childish effort to disavow "the rules" by flouting them.

I would be happy to see more laws like the one in Indiana being enacted in the United States.  More than a dozen states have it on their books at present, and I would like to see it expanded to provide protection for employees in the work place so that employers do not feel they can treat them as slaves and force them to commit acts against their conscience.  Judging from the brouhaha that has erupted since Indiana introduced this law, however, I doubt that stout protections for religious conscience will be enacted any further.  Western culture seems hellbent on jumping off the cliff of secular atheism and moral relativism.  One can always hope, and pray it will stop itself before it goes hurling over the edge, too late to save itself.  In the meantime, let's pray.

God save us all.

Silver Rose