Rabies Scare Sends Pets to the Park

Two weekends ago, my friend Beatrice, her handyman Kirk, and my feline niece, Tweetie, were attacked by a rabid fox only a half-block from our house.

This was the second rabid fox attack in the Myers Park neighborhood in as many months, and with the fox habitat destroyed by the start-and-stop construction of the Cascades Park boondoogle, the likelihood is that more foxes going out of their minds in terminal pain from rabies will be coming into our downtown neighborhood and threatening more people and pets.

In an effort to at least take care of one side of the equation, the city and county offered a free rabies vaccination at the Myers Park Recreation Center. And it was unreal! There were so many dogs and cats and barks and meows and people on their cellphones... it was like a pet owners convention. People were in line for over an hour to get their pets the rabies shot. Some had been smart enough to bring a bowl to put water in while they waited in the hot, sticky humidity of a Tallahassee summer day.

But what is still not clear to me is what are our governmental officials planning to do to take care of the rabies problem in Leon County.

Already in 2009, the county has a report of 61 rabies cases, which was the total number of cases for all of 2008. And it has been on the rise steadily over the past four years. That, to me at least, would indicate that there is a problem and it should be tackled. Otherwise, we'll continue to have issues of rabid animals attacking humans and pets in neighborhoods... or in the case of Myers Park, they could cross into down town parking lots and go after state government workers. Then, maybe, it will warrant more attention!

In the case of the attack on my friend and her workman, they don't get free shots to deal with the assault. In fact, the workman... who is in the same position as yours truly (the uninsured American)... he is being forced to pay $1,700, money he simply doesn't have. Why doesn't the county offer free shots to those attacked?!

It seems to be inhumane to simply do nothing to stop the spread of this excrutiatingly-painful disease among the fox population. We are dooming them to a certain death if we don't do something. Why are we not baiting traps with oral vaccines? Especially since we're likely to see rabies move from the foxes to the raccoons to who-knows-what-else. I was once lectured by a man at Leon County Animal Control that the fox is a protected species and has as much right to be in the Myers Park area as I do. Well, that's true: it also has as much right not to be exposed to a deadly virus passed from mammal to mammal! And I, and my pet, have a right to be protected as well.

Rolling Right Along

Word is circulating about in the blogosphere that The Diocese of Minnesota has a slate of three candidates its considering to replace a the retiring bishop. And--eek--two of the three candidates are women. And--gasp--one is a partnered lesbian. You can read their information here.

Had we still been in the "season" of B033, the lesbian would have been told, "Sorry, dear. This is a straights-only club." And, again, there is no guarantee that this woman will get the call. But at least she gets to be in the pool and doing interview laps with the other two candidates. And that is a very good thing.

Also good is an item that came to my attention on the whole transgender-rights issue at General Convention. The resolution... D090... asks for church application forms and other documents of the sorts to be updated and made inclusive of those who do not want to be forced into choosing "male" or "female". It also would give the applicant a chance to list which name they would like to be called, and which pronoun they prefer.

Can you believe it? This is the same Episcopal Church that has been in turmoil about recognizing the gifts of the gay and lesbian congregants and priests, and they are already running ahead of society by redesigning application forms to recognize differences in gender identity. That's revolutionary! The Church is actually a trailblazer in this category taking a step that most public and private employers haven't done yet.

Have I said it already that I am pleased and happy with my national Church?

For The Last Time, It's NOT a Lifestyle Choice!

The following inflammatory and disturbing email comes courtesy of a friend who wanted me to see the type of correspondence arriving in the "in box" of our Leon County Commissioners.


Subject: proposal that will expand the County’s existing anti-discrimination code to include protections for the LGBT community

I am AGAINST the proposal to extend protections to the LGBT community in employment. I believe that there are occupations where sexual orientation should be a point of discrimination. If I have a group in which I am promoting a heterosexual lifestyle, such as a church or private group; or if I am hiring for a position of oversight of children whom I want to protect from the influence of such a lifestyle, then a person's sexual orientation should be considered as a factor of employability.

I believe that giving the LGBT community further protection, contributes to the expansion of this lifestyle. I refuse to be coerced into advancing this lifestyle out of fear of a "brain drain" from FSU and FAMU.

I believe that further employment protection will give the LGBT community a leg-up over the general population, such as is provided in preferential hiring of veterans or with affirmation action hiring practices afforded to minorities according to race and gender or in corporate EEO quotas.

I believe that for most jobs sexual orientation is a non-issue and does not even appear on employment applications or in personnel files. There does not appear to be an overwhelming disadvantage afforded to the LGBT community with regard to employment, in general.

I believe that the LBGT lifestyle is a choice; although some claim that individuals are born with a propensity toward this lifestyle, to act on that propensity is a matter of choice. I believe that people have the freedom of choice in their pursuit of happiness but the choices they make are not are protected from the consequences of that choice and their choice should not be protected from consequences by government.

People choose to further their education or not: this choice plays into a potential employers decision making. A person chooses to use drugs or not: their choice plays into a potential employers decision-making. A person chooses to commit a crime or not: their choice plays into a potential employers decision-making. A person chooses to get a tatoo or not; their choice plays into a potential employers decision-making. A person chooses to dress a particular way: their choice plays into a potential empoyers decision-making. Why should the choice of sexual lifestyle be any different?


-- Doris L. Moss MBA, CAM
Client Services Manager
ParkerFinch Managemet

http://www.parkerfinch.com/



NOTE: My friend also shared with me that Ms. Moss, in addition to her professional and academic credentials, is also an officer in the local Capital City Democratic Women's Club, once again proving that bigotry knows no political boundaries.
I wonder if Ms. Moss would consider her lifestyle choice of being straight a "choice". Afterall, if we take her logic (such as it is) to its natural conclusion... then all people are faced with choosing whether to act on their hetero or homo instincts. And since she, presumably, has chosen to be straight, she wants the right to discriminate against those who made a different "choice".

Because, just as the Archbishop of Canterbury believes, there are consequences for such choices!

Again... my sexual orientation is NOT a lifestyle choice. It is the gift of my sexuality. Choosing Coke instead of Pepsi is a preference that is part of the "lifestyle choice" of drinking carbonated beverages. Wearing jeans instead of khakis because they are more comfortable is a "lifestyle choice." Choosing to be accepting of other people's differences in sexual orientation or being a fearful and discriminating bigot is a "lifestyle choice". Nuff said!

On This Day in History...

How interesting that at a time when we have huffing and puffing about the actions taken at General Convention 2009 to include all people in the all the sacraments... the Episcopal Church marks 35 years of ordaining women to the priesthood. It was another time in the history of TEC when actions taken led to much gnashing of teeth and wailing in the wilderness.

Now, we are living through the same sort of nonsense with the Archbishop of Canterbury posing a "two tier" Anglican Communion to appease those who can not accept that in the United States, queers are among the baptized in the pews and could likely be called by God to move from the pew to the pulpit.

Rev. Susan Russell at AN INCH AT A TIME has an excellent retrospective in light of current events.

Happy Mary and Martha Day!

I caused quite a stir this summer during Tim Miller's workshop when, in the course of describing a gay pride parade in Heaven, I envisioned Mary and Martha as dykes on bikes at the front of the line of heavenly queers... leading Jonathan and David with their rainbow flag... and the Virgin Mary with her P-FLAG banner. Leather chaps and bare-breasted on Harleys is hardly the image that anyone would ever imagine for these two sisters of Lazarus.

I don't really either, but it does make for an interesting picture, doesn't it?

No, Mary and Martha were not that radical, at least as far as we know. But they give us a glimpse into the human response to God: both the attentive listener, and the active doer. In Luke's gospel, Mary is the one sitting at Jesus' feet soaking in every moment of being with him, while Martha is cleaning the kitchen, sweeping the floors, and making the house tidy for the guest... much to her consternation after awhile. When she complains, Jesus tells her:

"Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things; there is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her."--Luke 10: 41-42

Now, one could dismiss Martha as the sister who really needs to take a chill pill. But I think both Martha and Mary, while having different approaches to responding to God... really give us an insight about a Christian approach to living out our faith. There is the Mary approach which is the attentive and deep listening. But if we stayed stuck in "Mary mode", we'd just be sitting still. The Martha way, I think, is the outgrowth of having done the attentive listening. Once we've heard, we allow that hearing to motivate us to action to "do all such good works as thou hast prepared for us to do."

And so, here's to the sisters who give us good guidance in the journey with God!

"O God, heavenly Father, whose Son Jesus Christ enjoyed rest and refreshment in the home of Mary and Martha of Bethany: Give us the will to love you, open our hearts to hear you, and strengthen our hands to serve you in others for his sake; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, now and for ever. "--Collect for Mary and Martha of Bethany

On that "Chosen Lifestyle"

As the dust continues to settle from General Convention 2009, along comes the Archbishop of Canterbury to go kicking it up again with his rather lengthy, numerated missive titled: "Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future". A good two-thirds of this "pastoral" letter is dedicated to the two resolutions, D025 and C056, that won overwhelming votes of support from both the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops in Anaheim. These were the "controversial" resolutions; y'know the gay ones.

And... just to make sure he stirs up the most dust possible... his choice of words about "chosen lifestyle" highlight his complete and utter cluelessness about me and the other "others" in the Anglican Communion. His letter reads in part:

5. In response, it needs to be made absolutely clear that, on the basis of repeated statements at the highest levels of the Communion's life, no Anglican has any business reinforcing prejudice against LGBT people, questioning their human dignity and civil liberties or their place within the Body of Christ. Our overall record as a Communion has not been consistent in this respect and this needs to be acknowledged with penitence.
6. However, the issue is not simply about civil liberties or human dignity or even about pastoral sensitivity to the freedom of individual Christians to form their consciences on this matter. It is about whether the Church is free to recognise same-sex unions by means of public blessings that are seen as being, at the very least, analogous to Christian marriage.
7. In the light of the way in which the Church has consistently read the Bible for the last two thousand years, it is clear that a positive answer to this question would have to be based on the most painstaking biblical exegesis and on a wide acceptance of the results within the Communion, with due account taken of the teachings of ecumenical partners also. A major change naturally needs a strong level of consensus and solid theological grounding.
8. This is not our situation in the Communion. Thus a blessing for a same-sex union cannot have the authority of the Church Catholic, or even of the Communion as a whole. And if this is the case, a person living in such a union is in the same case as a heterosexual person living in a sexual relationship outside the marriage bond; whatever the human respect and pastoral sensitivity such persons must be given, their chosen lifestyle is not one that the Church's teaching sanctions, and thus it is hard to see how they can act in the necessarily representative role that the ordained ministry, especially the episcopate, requires.
9. In other words, the question is not a simple one of human rights or human dignity. It is that a certain choice of lifestyle has certain consequences. So long as the Church Catholic, or even the Communion as a whole does not bless same-sex unions, a person living in such a union cannot without serious incongruity have a representative function in a Church whose public teaching is at odds with their lifestyle. (There is also an unavoidable difficulty over whether someone belonging to a local church in which practice has been changed in respect of same-sex unions is able to represent the Communion's voice and perspective in, for example, international ecumenical encounters.)

Let me respond by simply stating that I have never, never, ever chosen to be a lesbian. I would not ever chose ON PURPOSE to be stared at in bars, refused service in a restaurant, denied a job promotion, or otherwise be treated with less dignity than is afforded anyone else. Choosing to where a T-shirt instead of an oxford to work is a "lifestyle" choice. Choosing to drink coffee instead of tea in the morning is a "lifestyle" choice. Having sexual and affectional desire for a member of the same-sex is a "sexual orientation."

So, what in the world could he mean by "chosen lifestyle"? I think that comes clear in his explanation about why he is opposed to ever blessing same-sex unions. Because same-sex couples might be engaging in same-sex sex. This seems to be the "choice" that would have "certain consequences." Those consequences being that no sexually-active LGBT person should be allowed to "go behind the curtain" and become a deacon, priest or bishop. And, what if the civil authorities have already determined that same-sex marriages are legal? Well, ++Rowan has an answer for that, too! "Since when do we let matters of 'the world' influence 'the Church'?"

Of course, he also acknowledges that violence committed against LGBT people in the name of the Church is wrong and abhorrent and the Church should apologize for such actions (Nigeria! Uganda!). But when does the Archbishop recognize that the tortured language of his letter is yet another form of violence against gay people in the Church? No, he's not physically attacking me. But he is bolstering the bigotry that's out there that says I am a second-class citizen and should be treated as such.

One can take solace in the fact that the Archbishop resides in jolly ol' England... and what he says or does is not binding on The Episcopal Church. At least I hope not!

One can also take solace that God is watching, and notes the prayers of those who truly turn to him:

You have kept count of my tossings;
put my tears in your bottle.
Are they not in your record?
--Psalm 56

Sit Down!

When he looked up and saw a large crowd coming toward him, Jesus said to Philip, "Where are we to buy bread for these people to eat?" He said this to test him, for he himself knew what he was going to do. Philip answered him, "Six months' wages would not buy enough bread for each of them to get a little." One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, said to him, "There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish. But what are they among so many people?" Jesus said, "Make the people sit down." Now there was a great deal of grass in the place; so they sat down, about five thousand in all. Then Jesus took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated; so also the fish, as much as they wanted. --John 6: 5-11

This description from the Gospel of John on the feeding of the five thousand is only a small portion of what was read in Episcopal Churches throughout the United States Sunday morning. And, in all likelihood, the sermons preached put more focus on the fact that everyone was fed at the feeding of the five thousand. Or that Jesus withdrew when the crowds wanted to make him a King, or that Jesus finally reappears out on the water, panicking the disciples half-to-death and leading to another time of Jesus saying, "Do not be afraid." I suppose some could even twist it into yet another lesson to be learned out of the General Convention. There's plenty to look at in the first 21 verses of John 6! But what I thought was interesting was the command to "Make the people sit down." This is what really struck me.

The act of having the people sit was a way of making sure that everybody calmed down. And it likely slowed them down, something that had to happen in order for the crowd to receive what Jesus was about to give them: the fish and the bread that they wanted and would satisfy them.

This "quieting" of the anxious spirit is something massage therapists do as a matter of course every day. Through the simple act of placing a hand on the back of a neck or shoulder or feet I can sometimes see a person's body undergo a change that indicates they are ready to receive the work. My hands sink in deeper and I know that this attention, and the client's gradual slowing down of the breath, will lead to a change in this person's spirit... as well as the loosening and stretching of the connective tissue wrapping their muscles. They will emerge from the session renewed, having had everything they wanted and now feeling satisfied. But in order to get there they need to "sit down" or "lie down" as the case is in a massage.

So having Jesus order everyone to "sit down", to me, seems like he's looking to get the crowd into a place of being ready to receive whatever they were going to get. Literally, it's a piece of fish with a slice of bread. But in a broader, figuarative sense, it's the feeding of the spirit.

And this leads me to a question: how often do we sit down and take time to prepare ourselves to really receive God? And will we know it when it happens? Or will we keep ourselves all abuzz, so that we remain disconnected?

I have experienced the order to "sit down" in my faith journey. There have been those times when I have wanted to grab hold of the wheel of the boat and take charge of piloting this vessel in one direction or another. And that's usually when the command comes from within that I am to "Sit down!" I don't always like that command. I don't always want to obey that command. But inevitably I usually do because to not do so often times feels like the wrong choice.

I have been feeling that choice a lot lately. A choice to try and take command of the boat, or to simply sit down and receive whatever it is that I am to receive. Sitting is not always easy, but it seems the best course of action.

At least for me.