Ray Charles passed away today.

I had to laugh when I read this story in the NYT today. (If the website requires a log-in, use "laexaminer/laexaminer.")

Republicans in the House of Representatives have quietly introduced a measure to make it easier for churches to support political candidates, just days after the Bush campaign came under fire from liberal groups for inviting church members to distribute campaign information at their houses of worship.

Representative Bill Thomas of California, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, added the measure to a much larger bill, introduced in the committee on Friday, that centers on revising certain corporate taxes. The provision, called Safe Harbor for Churches, would allow religious organizations a limited number of violations of the existing rules against political endorsements without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.

My favorite quote, however, is this one: The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the timing "simply reeks to high heaven, literally." Heh.

Some would probably ask why I find this funny, and it's because churches already do this. Can you say "subliminal messages"? Yeah, me too.

In a 117-page decision, the judge, Phyllis Hamilton, ruled that the law is unconstitutional in three ways. She said that it placed an undue burden on women seeking abortions, that its language was dangerously vague and that it lacked a required exception for medical actions needed to preserve the woman's health.

The decision was the first ruling on the merits of the law. Two other cases, in Nebraska and New York, are pending. All three judges had halted enforcement of the law while they conducted trials.

Rev. Sensing has additional commentary.

WARNING: Do not use this ruling to call for California to slide into the sea or something simply because people like Hamilton live here. That upsets me more than you probably realize, mkay?

Picture courtesy of the Army Times Frontline Photos Archives

A friend and classmate that I hadn't heard from in awhile e-mailed me today, and included a quote that's worth remembering.

Once a famous 10th century Egyptian woman wrote to a seeker of the ultimate truth "GOD": "If I worship you to attain heaven bar me from it. If I worship you to avoid hell please cast me in it. But if I worship you for who you are show me your love and I will show you mine."

Beautiful.

And congratulations, Solomon. I'll be donning cap and gown next year!

Bene Diction asked me to link to this survey, which is interesting in its range of questions for a Christian like me. Please take a little time to fill it out.

Anyone?

No, not bling bling. Though you can find that if you looked hard enough.

Just bling.

An addendum to this post: it occurred to me after the fact that I may not call myself a feminist...but I sure as heck act like one.

Case in point: guys opening the doors for me. Since my initial post on this habit is now swimming in the sea of forgetfulness elsewhere in the blogosphere, I'll give you a brief recap. The first time I was in SoCal, my friend Lee was the perfect gentleman - wherever we (me, him and Ash) went, he opened the door for us ladies. Frankly, I wasn't used to this and got pretty uncomfortable; once he noticed that I was fine with opening the door for myself, he stopped opening the doors for us. I was embarrassed about this and regretted being that forward without mentioning why I didn't feel comfortable about him being a gentleman in this manner, but also grateful.

I got home, posted about it, and we talked a bit about it later on. We agreed that the next time we went out, we'd go with Army rules or Victorian rules when it comes to opening doors. When Army rules are invoked, it's every person for him/herself. Victorian rules? The gentleman will open the door for the ladies.

Like I told Lee last night...I'm going to have to work on this, letting a guy open the door for me. Yes, it's courteous and even chivalrous to have a man open the door and insist that I go first, but I'm the type of chick that sees a door and doesn't see the point in having to wait an extra 3-5 seconds while the guy behind hurries to go around me to open the thing. And I'm not partial to the gender of the person behind me - if I open it first, I'll stand there and make sure that person doesn't get a door slammed in their face.

All this to tell you that yes, I don't necessarily identify myself as a feminist - but I have little quirks that would make a person say, "Uh, Rhe, you could've fooled me."

How many of these books have you read? Out of 101, I count 20. Clearly I have some readin' to do.

My favorite out of the books from this list that I have read is Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte. The books I want to read are The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer, War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy, and The Illiad and The Odyssey by Homer.

Interesting that Aldous Huxley's Brave New World is on the list but George Orwell's 1984 is not.

(via Blackfive)

I'm approaching this subject from a personal perspective, because when it comes to feminism, I'm an inexperienced woman.

Call me a product of the modern era, a person who witnesses and enjoys the fruits of the upheaval of the sixties and seventies. Racial prejudice towards blacks isn't a controversy to me because I don't see blacks as being different from whites or browns. (I have an olive complexion, black hair and dark eyes - I'm what you'd call a "minority.") I don't see men as a majority as sexist and chauvinist. As a kid and a teenager I was oblivious to these issues because they never directly affected life as I knew it, and even today, I don't see why a person's gender, ethnicity, skin color or sexual orientation has anything to do with how society should think an individual should be treated.

The reason I asked Hugo questions about feminism was and is that I'm a woman who’s curious about the movement behind women’s rights. I've been studying feminist poetry in one of my classes and that added fuel to the fire, so I approached a blogger who regularly tackles feminist issues at his website, is very knowledgable about current women’s concerns, and identifies himself as a feminist. I figured those factors were enough to establish his authority on the subject.

In Hugo’s response, he discusses abortion, choice, and solidarity. Well, abortion first: I’m pro-life and always have been. "Fetus" is the same word as "unborn child" to me. The only exception I make is in the case where a woman has an ectopic pregnancy. I don’t see pro-choice supporters as being misleading, but I do question their motives behind their support. What do they see as being more important – a woman’s independence to make life-changing choices or an unborn child’s right to live? Who is more important – the potential mother or the unborn child? Why? Is the priority of one life over another meaningful in any way to pro-choice supporters?

I agree with Hugo that the modern feminist movement seems to identify itself by being pro-choice. Until now, that’s how I viewed most feminists: they were pro-choice, and they were usually angry about something. Also, criticizing feminism and feminists for the issues and ideals they choose to support seems to be a huge taboo in this country. I’m serious – I’ve seen other feminists, bloggers and non-bloggers, immediately castigate their critics, call them nasty names, the whole works, for no other reason than they disagree with feminist reasoning and rhetoric. Why is that?

This leads me to choice, and I have more questions than opinions about this. Hugo put it eloquently:

And as a feminist, I believe the whole notion of "choice" to be problematic. One only can "choose" from a limited selection of choices made available at any one time. Choices and desires are very different things, and feminists know this. The choice between an abortion and raising a child on one's own in poverty and shame is not a happy one. Most young women who "choose" abortion might choose differently if our society were willing to provide young mothers with sufficient emotional and financial support so that they were not forced to choose between their babies and their futures. (And many of these young women might choose differently if the father of the child were willing to "step up" and be present for his new family emotionally, financially, and physically.) The choice between cosmetic surgery and being accepted as beautiful is not a happy one either -- what most women really desire is to be loved and affirmed and wanted as they are. Radical diets, surgery, and hyper-sexualization are strategies of desperation rather than choices rooted in genuine desire. (Italic emphasis mine. –R.)

Can a woman buck the system by choosing a path that’s not even among the available choices? Take the young, unwed mother, for instance, who chooses to keep rather than abort her baby. Has society changed its outlook on babies born out of wedlock? Do unwed mothers still feel the stigma of disapproval from their families and the rest of the community? On a related tangent, do young women today take the choice of abstinence seriously, knowing it’s available and accepted? Having sex before marriage and the practice of casual sex are norms these days, but are they requirements necessary for a woman to be accepted as a normal member of society?

When it comes to feeling beautiful, I’ll tell you this much: personally, I don’t care about what others think about my looks. I make sure that I have good hygiene everyday (primping for this tomboy use to take twenty to thirty minutes – now it takes about forty-five minutes to an hour!). I’ll admit that when it comes to clothes, I don’t want underlines to show in the back of my pants, and I want my outfits to be color-coordinated; otherwise, I don’t dress like I’m going to a wedding when I’m really going to the mall. Do I desire to look good? Heck yeah! Do I desire to look good on the basis of how others will judge me for how I look? NO. I’ll also admit that I have conformed in some ways to how society wants an ordinary woman to dress, but that’s different from dressing to look and feel good as an individual. In my opinion, a woman anxious to look better when she already looks good has security issues and problems with self-confidence. What is sad is that she insists that the way she sees herself should equal the way society views an ideal woman.

And finally, solidarity. When it comes to women’s rights and equality, I do believe that women should support movements that advocate better treatment of women who don’t enjoy the same freedoms we have in the West. Combatting sexual slave trafficking in the States and other countries, for example, is one cause that should receive more attention if it isn’t getting it already.

I also question extreme Muslim views that dictate morals in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran. Usually, I wonder what the Koran really says about a woman’s place in society versus the clerics who impose ridiculous laws that forbid women from working and dressing a certain way when they’re not home.

Along the same lines, I’ve clashed with Christians who insist that women shouldn’t be pastors or teachers because of a Pauline mandate. I don’t disparage or willfully ignore what Paul has to say about the matter of women’s involvement in the church, but I wonder if his teachings have been correctly applied to modern church life. On the other side of the coin, I don’t believe Christian women should cause discord in their congregations because they have gender issues with how the elders define leadership positions. I believe that a woman who’s been called by God to be a pastor or teacher should fulfill that calling, but only in a church where the elders confirm her, by the leading of the Holy Spirit, to that position. The last time I checked, the Kingdom of God is not, I repeat, not, a democracy!

Hugo did a great job answering my questions, and it’s led me to spend a great deal of thought and time on modern feminism. I still don’t see myself as a feminist, and I still have more questions. My curiousity about feminism has achieved a couple things, however: it’s given me a chance to reflect on how I view things as a woman. More importantly, it’s made me appreciate womanhood a little more. If you ask me, that’s always a good thing.