Skip to content

Numbers Sanctify

June 22, 2014–politics.html

Please read the article posted.

I want to be several voices here. I find having to explain a position a little tedious, and would like to lighten this load by demonstrating how others are experiencing change. First, it is unrealistic of man to demand or make law that one must behave in a manner that is consistent with any one mode of thinking. It is also irresponsible to demand sudden change when not absolutely necessary. To be pushed to a sudden extreme is unsafe—a sort of jump and swim is not a wise process of introducing and implementing change and practice within society. To be forced through fear of being threatened in any manner is unhealthy, and I do not agree with this push in religion any more than I agree with it in government. To demand that a person believe or practice one way of “living”, through biblical, and or doctrinal interpretation, is not what I understand as Godly, or of the Energy and Essence of God, or fair in the sense of being of equal exchange. I guess this is why I view religion and government of a similar face.

Allow me to share …


Religious Layperson: I understand the story of Adam of Eve to be what God desires in a marriage: one man and one woman joining together in holy matrimony. I am not at all anti-gay, but I believe the Genesis story, what we have been taught in this, and I also believe man and woman were formed in such a way that supports man and woman together sexually.

Supporter of same-sex marriage: You are entitled to your beliefs, but what does this have to do with how I live? The government should never have denied anyone equal rights.

Wedding Photographer: I understand both of your points, but as a wedding photographer of thirty-five years, my art is visually programmed to photograph a woman and a man. When I compose a picture, I look for the beauty of contrast. Sorry, this is how I have been wired in my work, but I was recently accused of discrimination because I told a same-sex couple that I could not photograph their wedding. It’s not that I am anti-gay; I am not! But am I not permitted CHOICE in my art? This discriminates against my vision, and how I CHOOSE to work the camera.

Bishop: Marriage in society should be one man and one woman, with children to follow, if the couple should desire this. Scripture is clear on this. If we allow government to change the law of God, then we have given in to sexual and immoral practices, and what will follow will be the decline of the healthy family structure.

Roman Catholic Priest: I have gay couples in my congregation who have asked me to marry them, and I am torn. My church doctrine forbids this, and unless I break from it, I cannot marry these couples. In one sense, I see the traditional marriage as one man and one woman, and children. To me, as a pastor, this is what I am most accustomed to dealing with. This is not to say that same sex couples cannot adopt and or give birth to children, it’s just that I am accustomed to pastoring both sides in marital disputes, especially involving children. It is good to have both male and female understanding and experience in these situations.

Supporter of same-sex marriage: Priest, how can you argue any case in marriage if you have never been married … and have never had children?

Roman Catholic Priest: It’s not that I think government should deny anyone equal rights. It’s not this at all! I am just sharing my experience. As for children … I view the laity as my children.

Supporter of same-sex marriage: You may be like a parent to the laity, but what has come out of your institution has proven that this thinking is not really the case for most parishes, and especially cathedrals. Geez! How many children can one or two priests oversee? And truly, raising children from birth to paying college tuition is quite a bit different than what you do. Also, your argument on your pastoring both sides (male and female) falls short because your institution discriminates against women. Society, religion, and government have all discriminated against women since the beginning!

Wedding Photographer: I think the government should be looking at the individual and not the couple. My work may involve couples, and this may appear one-sided, but this is my visual acuity, and no one should be accusing me of anything. The government should be realizing individual needs—giving equal rights based on individual rather than couple. Look at the marriage system today. In my line of work, I’ve made a decent living because of the high divorce rate! I suppose the religious did too, along with the baptisms and whatever else the religious believe they need in life. The supporter of same-sex marriage pointed out the discrimination of women … think about how many women have had to raise children without support! No rights—poor pay! Some succumbed to prostitution because they had no where else to go. The religious did not want them. The government did not want them. Even their families did not want them after the man left the house, or died. Who was left to take care of them? Sometimes it was the artists who many saw as a bit off anyway … but in reality, both religious and government partook of this profession. Hmm … I think government should be looking at individuals, and not couples, and rework the system. The number of divorces, the cost, and likely the often horrific trauma of this, has caused many people to hold off on marriage, but with the new marriage laws coming in, there will likely be an increase. Regarding children … well, money and rights should be focused on the child. If it is proven that a child is safe, healthy, and living a life that is determined to be an appropriate upbringing for each stage of growth, then that child should receive, through the parent(s), the financial assistance and any needed or special accommodations. The children are the most vulnerable. To hell with these marriage laws. This would certainly wake up the lazy or unstable parent, and the mismanaged and over-loaded DCF programs.

Religious Layperson: But how could you keep track of how the money and special rights meant for the child? How would you make sure it is used FOR the child and not a lazy or unstable parent?

Wedding Photographer: Honestly, photographing weddings may be my profession—a way to make a living—but I see more through that lens than I could ever share in the work. When tuning everything out and zeroing in on one person or group of people … I see things, and you would be shocked at what I have seen happening in the marriages, and the family life, both in and out of religion.

Religious Layperson: That doesn’t answer my question. Who would oversee the family situation?

Wedding Photographer: That’s an easy answer with a lot of hard work.

All: Oh?

Wedding Photographer: The caretaker.

Religious Layperson: But I am one half of the caretaker, and my husband is the other half. Why would I need another caretaker? And who would pay for this person?

Wedding Photographer: Society has changed dramatically from the days of Moses, or Jesus, or when Christianity began setting itself up in Europe and the United States. There are many distractions, and I do not think that any one would argue that there is a great deal more to choose from. Religion has not proven itself as any kind of savior to the children. In this, I think most would agree. Government has not shown itself to be savior … and education holds only promise, but are we overdoing the education? And who can afford this and still get a job? Families … children … parents and students are stretched and stressed. There is much negativity and deception within these many, many choices. All one has to do is listen to the preachers, the teachers, and the politicians … news, and ads on TV, and you can see where there is ignorance and malpractice … at least through my lens anyway. Someone is always found to be paying someone for good credentials. Can you trust a priest? A bishop? A teacher? A religious? A politician? A doctor? Or even the parent, who just might also happen to be the religious, the politician, the doctor or the teacher, and who is looking out for what is best for himself, group, unit, office, station, institution or enterprise. This almost always involves money, and or perks of some sort. So … given this not so trustworthy society of the US of A, I am suggesting a third party initiative, one that looks out for the child, and his right to grow up impartial in order to get along in society, with the opportunity for education and a paying job. I am advocating several members depending on the size of a community, to oversee the family units within a community. This would also assist in Child Welfare cases.

Religious Layperson: No, I will not have a stranger overseeing my children.

Wedding Photographer: That makes me laugh. Here’s why … every school teacher, coach, music instructor, camp counselor, priest, pastor, doctor, specialist, mayor, governor, president, acquaintance, classmate, new neighbor, boyfriend, stepdad, stepmom, and even uncle and cousin  … just to name some … is a stranger. Wouldn’t you rather have someone watching where you cannot?

Religious Layperson: Well, if you put it that way … yes, it might make sense, but we have a right to a caretaker who believes as we do, and thinks like us.

Wedding Photographer: Then you will have to organize yourselves like the Amish. Keep your communities together, and somewhat self-sufficient, which isn’t such a bad thing if you are concerned about pesticides and poor handling of foods, and terrorists, sex offenders, rapists, drug addicts, guns, and barn burner types—you know what I mean. If society is getting too big for you and your family, maybe you need to down-size and become more organized, and more transparent about your ideals—what you believe, how you behave. You can’t expect people to take you seriously if your leaders are hypocrites, or involved in corrupt practices. And in this experience, you would find out what it is like to live on a one-way street.

Religious Layperson: You almost make it sound like there is something wrong with us.

Wedding Photographer: Well, things do tend to work out that way.

Roman Catholic Priest: You do have a point in gathering together the community. Several of my parishioners have come to me concerned about all that you have stated, especially the shootings and stabbings in schools, and the sex offender who may very well be the next door neighbor … and who is to say that a teenager in the community isn’t going to become disgruntled about life, the government, and join a terrorist group, and arrange to plant bombs like what happened in Boston. We can’t even keep safe those turning down a date for the prom! Our schools are no longer safe places for the children.

Religious Layperson: Or community buildings, and theaters and malls …

Wedding Photographer: Yes, and now that I think about all of this … the elderly need overseeing, as well. More and more I am seeing community watch services growing. Law enforcement even advocates for this, but let’s get back to the topic of the organized community of similar thinkers? How would this work? The strange thing is this: The gay couple down the street was okay as a neighbor until they decided to marry. Then suddenly there is a war cry of foul play, and I get tarnished in the process, and I am not alone in this. So many others running their own businesses have been accused of having discriminated against gays when this wasn’t what it was about. I don’t care if gays get married, and I am sure there are many photographers willing to photograph same-sex weddings, so why have I been singled out and denied my right to think freely—TO PRACTICE MY ART FREELY! It is a witch hunt. The extremists run both polling halls.

Supporter of same-sex marriage: I don’t think government is trying to tarnish you and deny your right to practice freely.

Wedding Photographer: Oh, no? Then why did they? If someone wants to make a stink to enrage and push their agenda, they will, and they have … and government is acting partial. It’s pushing! It’s pushing and it’s demanding, and it’s likely all for getting votes.  Think about this—what’s to stop the discrimination cry from targeting all forms of art? What if someone who happens to believe in God and Scripture, and already in this they are stigmatized and labeled something by someone, usually the militant atheist, and the artist sculpts or  paints human figures with angels—male and female embracing—not as sexual lovers, but united in some spiritual way … and become well known for this art … it takes off and becomes a type of signature image, or symbol, but then someone hollers foul? “This artist is discriminating against the gay community. This denies us rightful representation in the spiritual!” Then government steps in and says, “Artist, you must not discriminate against the gay community by painting only male and female together in your Spiritual Art.” I do not desire to be immersed in a one-way community, but if it will keep me from being accused of this, and keeps me from being tarnished for life, or causing me to lose my business, and will also permit me to photograph as I CHOOSE, then by golly, I WILL DO IT!

Supporter of same-sex marriage: Funny you should even bring that up. Christianity is a patriarchal religion. How do they explain the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, which I have heard some religious groups say is all male. Look at the Roman Catholic Church with their all male priesthood and all female convents full of nuns, and I guess I don’t have to mention the number of gays and lesbians in these. I even read that one Christian group believes that all angels are male. And look at the Christian’s spiritual leader—a male. Tell me Christianity as the religious believe and practice it is not itself advocating same sex uniting!

Wedding Photographer: I can’t argue with you in this, except that Jesus never married, at least not that I am aware of based on what Christianity teaches. Maybe this is the way to go: don’t get married! Of course, then, I will still be out of a job. Scratch that last.







L Thiel:  I have several thoughts regarding the “born that way” gay, but I think this argument will eventually wear itself out. This understanding will, in time, become more understood. As for religious history … what else has there been besides this, when church and state was not church AND state—ever—because from my vantage point, man has never been free of religious affiliation and religious upbringing (positive or negative) in the history of himself (except before man as man) … this, too, will wear itself out. Every government worker steps into office with some religious experience forming his opinions, just as every one given freedom to vote comes to the polling station to vote carrying something influenced by his religious affiliation and experience. Even an atheist steps in with atheism, an opinion that there is no God but only his interests, or his belief in himself as entity, and this, possibly a response to something having occurred in society, or something having occurred within his upbringing.

As for teens coming from “broken” homes … I think even this needs further defining. I knew a lot of teen mothers growing up, but society would not have considered these children of broken homes. These remained within the family setting, and the children grew up as any other child might, quite often in seemingly healthy, happy environments. It would depend on your area, and once again, THE COMMUNITY MINDSET. The article posted in SPIR a while back about the pregnant teens in Ireland who were sent off to the “nun camps” is an example of mindset within a community where being pregnant outside of set principles and practice (doctrine) was looked at as illicit, once again, judging, and accusing FEMALE AND NOT MALE of sin. Who established this mindset? Who solidified this mindset in communities after Jesus came to do the Work of His Father? What has changed from the Pharisee/Sadducee to the Christian? Anything? Government has to realize its role in society, and it must begin to understand its place in the world. It IS religious, and IS a dead beat dad. 

On marriage … wow, what haven’t we had in this?  We have the marriage of convenience all the way through to multiple partners, and one might even view being married to something; such as vocation, or sport, rather than to or sharing in marriage with a person. Where does one devote his time, and for what purpose? I think of the World Cup in this, for the moment, and the protestors upset at the expense of hosting this event when so many are hungry and struggling to get by. Was this a wise choice on the part of the government?

As I have been trained to walk around a subject and see it from as many positions as possible, for this is and should be the way of the spiritualist, I first saw the term marriage as the issue in these heated debates on SSM. Why call it marriage? I asked. If the word is hanging you up, get rid of the word, but I soon saw the agenda behind both sides in this. It was not about meeting half way; it was about compromising in war and this is not an option where there is hate. It is also about religious economics—who gets what and how.

What I found and find still, an agonizingly improper stimulant in the traditional marriage mindset, which is of a religious equivalent in birth and practice, is the notion that one is bound to the other for life. To be responsible to one another, and to be respectful with another should be the common practice, but being bound to the other is not, in my view, a healthy lifestyle. People change as experiences often force this change. To hang onto some notion that you must remain in a certain place or position is foolish, and likely doing more harm than good. I am not advocating divorce in sharing this; I am explaining spiritual pragmatism. To grow is to move from one place. Pick up your mat and walk. Take up your cross and follow … these are teachings on movement, which takes you through self and into purposeful placement in the greater scheme of things. If one is moving and the other is not, would it not be a responsibility of the partner to demonstrate in respect, and to assist by example, that partner might also move? Not everyone is and can move at the same time. People reside in differing places, and planes—spiritually as well as religiously. If one refuses to grow because his partner is hung up in one place, how does this help the relationship? How will this help in that purposeful placement in the greater scheme of things? Paul speaks on this in 1 Corinthians—the Eucharist (Chapter 11). Warnings are issued today, however—I think of the peace doves in St Peter’s Square as just one visual Voice.  What I hear in this is: It’s time now to prepare yourself to pick up your mat. Of course what I am speaking of here is far more than a marriage of two, but people are not seeing the signs given. They are not awake.

I feel God saying: okay now, boys, we have a new addition to the house and I need you, son, to clean up your room because another is coming to be with us, and I want to give your room to this one, and this means that you will have to move in with your brother. What cannot be carried will be removed. What will not fit into the other room will need to be put aside. And you, son, you must prepare for your brother to move in.


All that said, what are your thoughts regarding the Spirit Artist in these pendulum swing extremes?


L Thiel:  It’s time to move. Serious artists of iniquity do teach, preach, criticize, and even condemn. This is essential, provocative and carefully called upon when drawn of the Spirit. Breath is preparing to reach far and wide.


Allow me to share something I just read a few minutes ago.

But the prosecutor — who said he’s been criticized by the left and the right, by various governments and has been banned from Russia — also conceded that the uninvited scrutiny about the arrest of a mid-level diplomat on charges she underpaid a domestic worker brought pain too. He told the crowd he only personally learned of the case that caused what he described as “an international incident” a day or two before the December arrest. Soon afterward, she was permitted to return to India, though charges remain.

The criticism was like nothing that had ever fallen upon a Manhattan prosecutor. Rudy Giuliani ‘s Italian-American background drew no special attention from Italy as his office arrested scores of defendants in organized crime cases. Giuliani seemed to enjoy the prosecutions, even playing a “Godfather” in an annual press show when he was mayor. Bharara’s treatment got personal.

“Talk show hosts in India took to calling me a self-loathing Indian who made it a point to go after people from the country of his birth. Which was a bit odd, since the alleged victim in the case was also Indian,” he recalled. “An Indian official basically asked on television, ‘Who the hell is Preet Bharara?'”


“Criticized and banned … a self-loathing Indian who made it a point to go after people from the country of his birth.” Even in the vocation of the attorney is called upon to assist in helping to move the mindset, to remove the inbreeding of ignorance and egotism, and to review that which might be a fatalistic dogma.


Thought I would also share a couple of responses from a photographer’s page:


“His grandmother and I are raising him. I worry about putting him into the public school system. I was a teacher for many years. I’ve seen so much confidence destroyed by the standardized system. Every human is born with natural curiosity. I’ve never seen a child who wasn’t inspired. But once you force someone to do anything, the inspired person is killed. I dropped out of school myself in 7th grade. So I know. I taught a GED course for years, so I’ve seen the end results over and over. I’ve seen so many kids who have complexes and insecurities because they were forced to do something they weren’t ready to do, and then they were blamed when they weren’t able to do it. What we call ‘education’ today is not organic. You can’t take something as complex as the human mind, compartmentalize it, and regiment its development so strictly.”


“I’m going to be an artist.”
“Do you have any advice for other artists?”
“Don’t press down too hard with your crayons.”



J. R. Neill illustration


Peace and Love





One Comment
  1. opheliart permalink

    Comment from a poster on the above article:

    Dealing with gays has become very profitable. Most are not raising children.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: