I'm more anxious than ever to find out what my fate will be this fall. I am still waiting to hear back from Seattle University about whether I will be selected for an assistantship, and I'm also waiting to hear back from the University of San Diego about their admissions decision. I've yet to hear what kind of financial aid either school can offer me (besides a Stafford loan), so at this point, I basically don't know how I'm going to afford grad school. At the beginning of this week, I was just about convinced that I had gotten the shaft from SU regarding the assistantships because I hadn't heard from either of the three I interviewed for, and I heard that other prospective students had already received offers. But, I guess there is a big student affairs conference going on this week that all the departments are involved in, so most of them haven't made decisions yet. I still have a chance! (knocking on wood as I write...)
On the same note, I just received an email the other day from California State University-Long Beach, saying I was selected to interview for their program. This would have been good news, if not for the fact that they made no mention of doing phone interviews, and instead said (and I quote): "We are unable to consider individual preferences when scheduling interviews. We have scheduled you for an interview at 10am on Tuesday, March 22nd." Yeah, let me just tap into my trust fund and pull out a few hundred dollars so I can book a last-minute flight to Long Beach NEXT WEEK. Not! The worst part of it is that I know this is their method for weeding people out. The person who sent the email didn't offer one sentence of congratulations or welcoming, nor a "thank you" for applying to their program. There were, however, several mentions of the competitiveness of the program, and a virtual threat that if I didn't respond promptly, they would move on to the wait list. Thanks for making me feel like a number, CSULB. And thanks, also, for stating that you are committed to a diverse student body and social justice, and then making it almost impossible for out-of-state students to even make it to campus for an admissions interview. It's things like this that make it clear to me which schools are worth pursuing in the end. Seattle U welcomed me with open arms from the very first email I received and never made me feel like I had to prove myself further than I already have. As I've stated already, I'm not a religious person, but I am really looking forward to attending a private school again because they take care of their students. I responded to CSULB, saying I had decided to go in a different direction for my graduate studies, and thanking them for the opportunity to interview for their program. I have not received a reply...
Anyway, I am super excited to start a new chapter in my life (I know, corny phrase, but you get it). I am having a lot of anxiety about how I'm going to afford rent, who I'm going to live with (if anyone), and how I'm going to orient myself to a new city. But it's exhilarating at the same time, and I'm so sick of playing the waiting game! Provided that I get into USD, I'm also really conflicted about where I want to go: Seattle or San Diego? Seattle is obviously way closer to home, friends, and family, and it's a city I know I'd love to live in. But, a big part of me still wants to use grad school as an opportunity to try something entirely new (not to mention live in place that has sunshine year-round!). I've heard great things about San Diego, and it is, after all, my birthplace. Lots of decisions to make in the near future; if ya'll have any words of wisdom, persuasion, or caution, I'd love to hear them!
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Saturday, March 12, 2011
praying the gay away
I just watched the episode of the new TV series, Our America with Lisa Ling, called "Pray the Gay Away?". Basically, it covers the idea that being gay and being Christian are mutually exclusive and inquires how those who find themselves with this intersection of identities deal with it. It follows two main communities, the first being Christians who have identified homosexual feelings in themselves, but believe it is a sin, and are therefore trying to become straight and live out "God's best plan" for them. They do this, in part, through participating in conferences like "Exodus," which try to teach them that if they just pray hard enough, just love God enough, they will at least be able to resist acting upon their homosexuality, if not completely dissolve it. The second community this episode follows is comprised of people who believe that their identity as Christians is not in conflict with their homosexuality and that God loves them just the way they are. They participate in summer camps and other support networks that are Christian-centered, while also in celebration of their "true selves."
Now, as someone who hasn't considered myself religious for a long while, and who is confidently agnostic, it is easy for me to feel that "praying the gay away" is a total crock that essentially convinces people to suppress who they are and how they feel, out of sheer reverence to guilt, shame, and fear of damnation. I absolutely refuse to believe that, if God exists, she/he would harbor hatred for those who are acting upon natural tendencies that do not inherently harm anyone. However, the question Lisa Ling was hoping to address is why people would believe this. I appreciate that she is tackling such a controversial topic via such a mainstream media outlet, and I generally found the show fascinating and non-judgmental. However, I really don't think she got to the root of why certain Christians believe that homosexuality is sinful. Of course, she mentioned the fact that they reference six biblical passages as "evidence" of the sinfulness of homosexuality, but for me, this merely grazed the surface. The real question for me is: Why is a literal interpretation of the Bible so essential to people's faith? As someone who grew up Catholic, going to Catholic schools, and learning about scripture in an academic setting, I never understood how the Bible could possibly be interpreted literally. I studied scripture at the college level, and even at a Jesuit Catholic institution, it was taught that most of the Bible can be understood symbolically, without nullifying the basic principles and morals of Christianity. Personally, I believe that the Bible is a historical text, written by human beings, and therefore a product of its time--not a product of divine inspiration. However, acknowledging that there are many people who do believe it is divinely inspired, I desperately want to understand how they reconcile this belief with the fact that a good portion of scripture is hateful and contradictory to other modern cultural ethics. If anyone reading this is a Christian who takes scripture as divine truth, I honestly want to know why this is essential to your faith in God, Jesus, and your desire to be a good human being?
I also think the debate over whether homosexuality is biologically or socially determined (or both, for that matter) is completely irrelevant to how those who identify as such should be treated. Does biology have to dictate the amount of respect and love one receives? I was born with blue eyes; does that mean someone who wears blue contacts should be less accepted by God than I am? By the same token, I was socialized to be afraid of spiders; does that mean my fear of spiders is any less real for me? I can tell you, I am just as much afraid of spiders as if the fear had been written in my DNA, and I don't think it means I should devote my entire existence to eradicating my fear of spiders. There was a woman in the Our America episode who has "exited" her life as a lesbian and supposedly become a heterosexual through her faith in God's "plan for her." She mentioned in the follow-up conversation to the episode that there is no biological evidence for homosexuality and that she believes her lesbian tendencies came from the abuse she experienced as a child, at the hands of men. My response to that is: okay, maybe your homosexuality was derived from these experiences, but as long as you have sought help for dealing with the trauma of the abuse, then why does it matter? There are plenty of gay people who haven't been sexually abused, and there are plenty of people who have been sexually abused who do not become unattracted to the gender of their abusers. The nature or nurture argument doesn't get us anywhere because it doesn't address the fact that all human beings deserve to feel that who they are is legitimate. I realize that we don't seek to legitimize pedophiles, for example, but I think it's entirely different when we're talking about those who act upon inclinations that do not directly harm another.
Ok, I'll get off my soap box now. Sorry this post isn't as jocular as my other ones, but I thought that would detract from the seriousness of this topic. Please feel free to post comments--I really want to continue this conversation with someone other than myself--and thanks for reading!
Now, as someone who hasn't considered myself religious for a long while, and who is confidently agnostic, it is easy for me to feel that "praying the gay away" is a total crock that essentially convinces people to suppress who they are and how they feel, out of sheer reverence to guilt, shame, and fear of damnation. I absolutely refuse to believe that, if God exists, she/he would harbor hatred for those who are acting upon natural tendencies that do not inherently harm anyone. However, the question Lisa Ling was hoping to address is why people would believe this. I appreciate that she is tackling such a controversial topic via such a mainstream media outlet, and I generally found the show fascinating and non-judgmental. However, I really don't think she got to the root of why certain Christians believe that homosexuality is sinful. Of course, she mentioned the fact that they reference six biblical passages as "evidence" of the sinfulness of homosexuality, but for me, this merely grazed the surface. The real question for me is: Why is a literal interpretation of the Bible so essential to people's faith? As someone who grew up Catholic, going to Catholic schools, and learning about scripture in an academic setting, I never understood how the Bible could possibly be interpreted literally. I studied scripture at the college level, and even at a Jesuit Catholic institution, it was taught that most of the Bible can be understood symbolically, without nullifying the basic principles and morals of Christianity. Personally, I believe that the Bible is a historical text, written by human beings, and therefore a product of its time--not a product of divine inspiration. However, acknowledging that there are many people who do believe it is divinely inspired, I desperately want to understand how they reconcile this belief with the fact that a good portion of scripture is hateful and contradictory to other modern cultural ethics. If anyone reading this is a Christian who takes scripture as divine truth, I honestly want to know why this is essential to your faith in God, Jesus, and your desire to be a good human being?
I also think the debate over whether homosexuality is biologically or socially determined (or both, for that matter) is completely irrelevant to how those who identify as such should be treated. Does biology have to dictate the amount of respect and love one receives? I was born with blue eyes; does that mean someone who wears blue contacts should be less accepted by God than I am? By the same token, I was socialized to be afraid of spiders; does that mean my fear of spiders is any less real for me? I can tell you, I am just as much afraid of spiders as if the fear had been written in my DNA, and I don't think it means I should devote my entire existence to eradicating my fear of spiders. There was a woman in the Our America episode who has "exited" her life as a lesbian and supposedly become a heterosexual through her faith in God's "plan for her." She mentioned in the follow-up conversation to the episode that there is no biological evidence for homosexuality and that she believes her lesbian tendencies came from the abuse she experienced as a child, at the hands of men. My response to that is: okay, maybe your homosexuality was derived from these experiences, but as long as you have sought help for dealing with the trauma of the abuse, then why does it matter? There are plenty of gay people who haven't been sexually abused, and there are plenty of people who have been sexually abused who do not become unattracted to the gender of their abusers. The nature or nurture argument doesn't get us anywhere because it doesn't address the fact that all human beings deserve to feel that who they are is legitimate. I realize that we don't seek to legitimize pedophiles, for example, but I think it's entirely different when we're talking about those who act upon inclinations that do not directly harm another.
Ok, I'll get off my soap box now. Sorry this post isn't as jocular as my other ones, but I thought that would detract from the seriousness of this topic. Please feel free to post comments--I really want to continue this conversation with someone other than myself--and thanks for reading!
Sunday, March 6, 2011
The Sheen's Speech
A truly lazy Sunday. I got to sleep in, which I kind of missed out on last Sunday with Preview Days, and I couch potatoed it up four about three hours thereafter, blaming my common cold. In fact, I have been feeling pretty under the weather the past few days, both literally and figuratively. I think lack of sleep, traveling, and too many consecutive days of Pacific Northwest dreariness finally got to my immune system. I have a really icky sore throat, congestion (of course the kind that only affects one nostril, so my symmetry is all off), an ever-present headache, and plugged up ears that have prompted me to say, "I'm sorry, WHAT?" one too many times. So, naturally, I watched Sex and the City reruns on TV that I've seen so many times I can recite even the lines that were censored out. (A skill I'm only 50% proud of...)
Anyway, I ultimately decided I was just bored and desperate enough for easy entertainment that I youtubed the infamous Charlie Sheen interview, which recently aired on 20/20. I think I only found a portion of it, but it was enough to send me spiraling into a mental rant about how much of a d-bag he is. The man has no sense of accountability for his actions, which he doesn't seem to understand affect more than just himself. He is clearly an addict, and I know Dr. Drew is probably scouting him for the next season of Celebrity Rehab, but his unabashed sense of entitlement is too repugnant for me to sympathize. I won't even launch into an argument about the moral issues surrounding his call-girl/prostitute/porn star posse, nor will I fault him for "throwing down 7-oz. rocks" [paraphrased, I couldn't bear to watch the interview a second time to get the quote word-for-word]. It's the fact that his ego is so inflated he thinks he's a hero for simply having and exercising fame and privilege. And what's worse, he seems to have convinced a significant portion of the public of his self-appointed heroism, as well. Youtube commentators, by and large, lauded him for his badassness and not caring what anyone thinks of him, while even those who chastised him still noted that he is "talented" and that his sitcom is "funny." (BARF!) As my brother would say, he is a "talentless hack," pretty much always has been, and has essentially risen to fame on his family's coattails and his own self-destruction. I hope for the sake of his children, his family, and his now-unemployed coworkers that he eventually has an epiphany, realizes he's not a god, and gets the help he really needs. But for the sake of disgruntled bystanders like myself who have been taken hostage by his tasteless contributions to mainstream entertainment, as well as the onslaught of undeserved media attention detailing his debauchery, I hope he just OD's already. (Ok, I know that's harsh, but you know at least a small part of you agrees...)
On a less cynical note, I finally saw The King's Speech, which was quite good. It's hard to say whether it was deserving of the Best Picture award or not, since I saw it after all the hype, but it was definitely worth seeing. Colin Firth captured the plight of a chronic stutterer and the insecurity of a man thrust unwillingly into kinghood quite well. Plus, he's hot! :) I also really enjoyed Geoffrey Rush's portrayal of the speech therapist, which was refreshingly funny and endearing. On top of the film itself, it was kind of a delight to see a movie at the theater by myself, for a change. I think it allowed me to be more introspective, and it hearkened me back to my high school days, when walking to the theater and catching a movie by my lonesome was my typical fallback on a boring summer day. Anyway, if you haven't yet seen it, go see The King's Speech--but don't pay $10.50 at Regal 'cause that's just outrageous, even for the Best Picture!
Anyway, I ultimately decided I was just bored and desperate enough for easy entertainment that I youtubed the infamous Charlie Sheen interview, which recently aired on 20/20. I think I only found a portion of it, but it was enough to send me spiraling into a mental rant about how much of a d-bag he is. The man has no sense of accountability for his actions, which he doesn't seem to understand affect more than just himself. He is clearly an addict, and I know Dr. Drew is probably scouting him for the next season of Celebrity Rehab, but his unabashed sense of entitlement is too repugnant for me to sympathize. I won't even launch into an argument about the moral issues surrounding his call-girl/prostitute/porn star posse, nor will I fault him for "throwing down 7-oz. rocks" [paraphrased, I couldn't bear to watch the interview a second time to get the quote word-for-word]. It's the fact that his ego is so inflated he thinks he's a hero for simply having and exercising fame and privilege. And what's worse, he seems to have convinced a significant portion of the public of his self-appointed heroism, as well. Youtube commentators, by and large, lauded him for his badassness and not caring what anyone thinks of him, while even those who chastised him still noted that he is "talented" and that his sitcom is "funny." (BARF!) As my brother would say, he is a "talentless hack," pretty much always has been, and has essentially risen to fame on his family's coattails and his own self-destruction. I hope for the sake of his children, his family, and his now-unemployed coworkers that he eventually has an epiphany, realizes he's not a god, and gets the help he really needs. But for the sake of disgruntled bystanders like myself who have been taken hostage by his tasteless contributions to mainstream entertainment, as well as the onslaught of undeserved media attention detailing his debauchery, I hope he just OD's already. (Ok, I know that's harsh, but you know at least a small part of you agrees...)
On a less cynical note, I finally saw The King's Speech, which was quite good. It's hard to say whether it was deserving of the Best Picture award or not, since I saw it after all the hype, but it was definitely worth seeing. Colin Firth captured the plight of a chronic stutterer and the insecurity of a man thrust unwillingly into kinghood quite well. Plus, he's hot! :) I also really enjoyed Geoffrey Rush's portrayal of the speech therapist, which was refreshingly funny and endearing. On top of the film itself, it was kind of a delight to see a movie at the theater by myself, for a change. I think it allowed me to be more introspective, and it hearkened me back to my high school days, when walking to the theater and catching a movie by my lonesome was my typical fallback on a boring summer day. Anyway, if you haven't yet seen it, go see The King's Speech--but don't pay $10.50 at Regal 'cause that's just outrageous, even for the Best Picture!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)