Personal recollection and the role of good parents

Here is a little personal story to share with you, since it came to mind tonight after church services.

I grew up in the 1950's and at that time, even though my mother could, of course, drive a car, it was usually my father who did the driving. As soon as I was old enough to be observing of the landscape around us as we were driving, and to understand the mechanics, I started to worry about something. I've always loved animals of all kinds, and as a small girl I noticed that birds often landed on or were standing on the road or the road's shoulder. I worried about them and asked my dad about them, urging him to be careful and to avoid hitting them! He was very kind and reassured me that the birds are fast enough that they always get out of the way. This was exactly the right thing to say to a young child, and I believed it for many years.

It was much later, when I was older, that I noticed the occasional dead bird on the side of the road, LOL. By then of course I realized that some birds were not fast or observant enough to avoid a car! But I was grateful for and benefited from the peace of mind that my father had given to me for many years.

Friends, that is how it should and it must be. The Bible says that parents should not grieve their children. What does grieve mean? It means a sadness and sorrow in the heart.

Today there are so many hypocrites about the truth. Modern society values all kinds of untruths, exaggerations, malicious gossip and lies, yet some people would probably think that my father was "lying" to me that birds are never hit by cars and that kids need to be "prepared for life."

The media is even worse in this. How many stupid videos, films, advertisements and so forth show "humorous" flattened animals, graphic details of realities of nature, etc for a far too young audience? Gosh, if a child asked the question that I did back then during these times, I'd be afraid that some parents would go out and run over a bird so the three year old could see the squashed corpse and be "prepared for real life."

Children-all children-have tender innocent souls given to them by God and that are besmirched and harmed only by humans, or by illnesses that affect the child's stability. It is not proper for parents to "harden" or "prepare for 'reality'" (so called) the innocent souls of children. In other words, it is not a parent's job to give children grief, not the slang term of giving grief (to nag or to hassle, which sometimes is necessary), but to grieve and sadden children with graphic violence and sadness, which needs no introduction or promotion to children, since sadly as they age life tends to bring this stuff to them anyway in due course.

So one of my fondest memories, that gives me a smile, of my much loved (and wise) father is that he gave me so many years of thinking that all birds everywhere got out of the way of cars, and it is only later that I had what then was an appropriate humorous moment when I, being older, first noticed a pile of feathers on the side of the road, and said to myself, "Hey! Now wait a minute..."

LOL. I hope that you have found this diverting and even somewhat thought provoking.

Read about this family

How sweet to read, in these sad and too mechanical and cold times, a story of joy and normalcy, of real humanity.

http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/local/49265347.html

The untimely death of Jett Travolta

Many infants, children and young adults die every day, around the world, those who are known, and those who are nameless to all but those who loved them and to God. Therefore I do not normally comment about the passing of a child, but here I feel I must so that people can be strong and have faith and understanding again.

I am not speaking for God, but I am telling you what would be safe and respectful for you to believe. Young Jett would be in heaven, for his being raised without the faith is not a barrier to those who are too young or unable to find their own way to God. He would have been brought to God by his guardian angel, by other angels, and because as far as I can tell his mother could not be there, he would have been comforted in his injury and demise by the Blessed Virgin Mary, whose Motherhood of God and of all was just celebrated in the Church one day ago.

In heaven he would find himself among his own family, those grandparents or great grandparents, or as far back as necessary to find those who have achieved heaven in his family. He would thus be recognized as being with many maw-maws and paw-paws, and would not be frightened at all. His illness and infirmities would be gone and he won't even remember what it was like to have them. He would have new friends too, and I cannot help but keep thinking of Eric Clapton's young son being with him, "showing him the ropes of heaven," for some reason.

The Lord who he probably did not know much about on earth he knows very well and trusts with his whole heart from the get-go. As I said, he has nothing to regret and nothing to confess, and he has only comfort, love, light and wholeness that will last for eternity. He won't be "back" because there is no reincarnation, and eternal bliss is not taken away from anyone once it is given.

Adults who were not helpful to his well-being, both in health and spiritually, will have to answer to God, however, when it is their time of death, during their personal judgment. Know that and prepare, and not with excuses, but with penance and repentance. View being reunited with him when your natural time has come as your personal goal and it won't be so difficult, but things will be quite difficult if you do not repent and amend what you can while you yet live. There is no "But God, I didn't realize" that you can say once you have in actuality died.

While there is no food per se in heaven, since it is not needed, children are able to... how can I put this... experience a feast of those things they loved and enjoyed on earth, but in their equivalent in heaven, where everything is prepared "just for them." The poorest earthly child once in heaven and the wealthiest earthly child once in heaven are equally exalted and lavished in love that is personal to them. That is why some children have their pets in heaven, while others have the feelings that they had from their favorite activities, even if those activities are of the spirit and no longer the limitations of the actual and material. As soon as he arrived he felt that he was always there and by now has probably already shown other "newcomers" "the ropes."

I hope that this gives everyone who reads some comfort and guidance.

-marymajor

Read about this tragedy and learn

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/11/kenner_murdersuicide_binds_fam.html

***
Now that you have read it, think this through carefully.

The reason that religious "traditionalists" insist on dating, love, marriage, baby IN THAT ORDER is not because we are boring old a**holes who do not understand life.

It is precisely to prevent broken hearts and tragedies such as this.

When a couple "experiments" with love, such as "living together" and then having a planned or unplanned child, it is devastating for one partner when the other decides this relationship is not for him or for her.

Many people like to criticize "violent" men who go crazy when a relationship breaks up. But that is exactly what I am pointing out was kept to a minimum back when people dated for extended periods, and then committed in marriage once they were certain. Many boys and men today are totally devastated when they "have it all" given to them (love, sex, friendship, even a baby), even before they are emotionally ready, and then it is yanked away from them.

Girls and women likewise suffer too, when they think they have it all, and then are "dumped," but it is often a mitigation that girls tend not to be as violent, and rather, fall into very sad cycles such as depression.

It seems the last thing anyone thinks of is the baby. The baby should always be the highest priority, but it is precisely for that reason that baby who comes "first" in importance should be "last" in order, after dating, a period of discernment, and then marriage.

See, young people, you need to understand something about the psyche of humans. Teenagers and young people are devastated when they have it "all" given to them, and then suddenly lose it because they were both too immature, or one partner just "walks away" and needs "time and space." You have all grown up thinking that "living together" somehow guarantees good marriage, by "checking it out first," but the opposite is true. When you "check it out" you are doing so at your current level of growth and maturity. If you marry, you commit, and if as so many marriages do, it fails, it does so over time, while you are both growing and have more resilience and understanding of how and why it failed. Thus a divorcing couple is more likely to have two more resilient individuals who can get through the trauma some years down the road, than a couple who "plays house" and "tries it out," and then in a matter of only months, one partner backs out for whatever reason. Yes, this couple would have been better off taking things slowly in the traditional way and yes, even if after they married they divorced or annulled, they would, obviously, still be much better off (to say nothing of the baby) emotionally and able to cope with the situation which would have more gradually unfolded.

I hope that you find this helpful. This is why you should stop snickering at people who marry frequently, because they are trying to do things the right way, in the right order. Humans need time to grow up, and to "have it all" only to have it yanked away by one partner (no matter how justified the reasons) is a heartache that many young people cannot endure, as they were not meant to be plunged from one extreme to the other. Humans sure would no longer be walking the earth if the order of dating/marriage/children hadn't been followed by 99.9% of humans for thousands of years.

Another thought about Part 1 of 4

I want to really emphasize one point about what I discussed in the previous post regarding the two wives of Jacob and their children. This is of great importance for humans to better understand not only God, but also life, how to be genuine, and also realistic, about life.

Jacob, who becomes renamed to Israel by the unnamed angel of God whom he encounters, is the patriarch of the twelve tribes of Israel. But this is a human story also, of a husband, of a wife, and of a father, and of a mother. Too many modern humans fall for the their own propaganda that they can "have it all." But the very patriarch of Israel "did not have it all," even as God guided him. Nor did his wives. His first wife had him as her husband, and loved him with her whole heart and soul, yet he did not love her. Yet she was remembered by God in her sorrow and given the first of many children for her honor and joy. So she had the love and blessing of children, but not what modern humans would think of as a loving husband, romantic, personal love. Jacob did love his second wife (she being the one he wanted all along, and he angled to have her even though under law the first older sister had to be married first) and so I guess modern humans would "root" for her, "Yeah! That's 'true love.'" Yet she suffered for many years because she could not bear children, until God had pity on her sorrow and made her fertile. See, the one who actually had Jacob's "romantic love" was not happy because she was envious that her unloved sister had children! Genesis 30:1 When Rachel saw that she failed to bear children to Jacob, she became envious of her sister. She said to Jacob, "Give me children or I shall die!" In anger Jacob retorted, "Can I take the place of God, who has denied you the fruit of the womb?"

Jacob's romantic love for Rachel was not enough for her, and she wanted children, not from love of children, but from envy of her sister who had children, but not the love of her husband. Yet, even when God, who understood her suffering, granted her children, the children she received were not enough for her and she prayed for "another son" (Genesis 30:24), even naming the one she had in reflection of her wanting yet another son, as the one was still wet being born! And she did receive another son, dying in giving childbirth. And thus Jacob still had the wife he honored but did not love, while the wife he loved died in the common risk of the time, childbirth, especially when in the middle of nomadic travel. So there you have it. Who "had it all?"

Modern humans, infested with feminist propaganda and men's hedonistic tendencies, who remain puerile and immature far into what should be their adult years, demand and brain wash others that they should have more and more and more, and only when they want it, not when God sends it. They find someone who loves them, but want someone "hotter." They want children, if at all, on their own timetable, aborting those they don't want. They think their hot and rich husbands will live forever, providing for them, and then they fall in war, in work, or doing "extreme sport," or of a heart attack as they slave away in the corporate world. For some reason modern humans think they should have it "all," when the humans who were blessed with God who walked side by side with them, as documented in the Bible, did not "have it all."

I hope that people will read what I wrote, the summary of the children of Jacob, and yes, read the actual scripture too, and think about this. This is one reason why the Bible does "contain all the answers to life," because if one ponders the deeper, yet obvious, meanings, one understands more about the reality, joys and sorrow, infinite possibilities (through God) yet real limitation, of life. Anyone who really understands the story of the love and losses of Jacob, Leah and Rachel would never have fallen for the propaganda of modern times. And they would have remained open to the obvious gifts of love, both romantic and the love of children, that God does bestow in abundance when it does occur.

Bible commentary Part 1 of 4 Jacob's children

I am going to write an important commentary regarding this section of scripture from Genesis. First I am going to post the passages, and then in a separate post at a later time I will make my commentary. The scripture relates how the sons of Jacob avenge the defiling of their sister. By way of background Jacob (Yaqoub in the Qur’an) is the father of the twelve sons who are the patriarchs of the twelve tribes of ancient Israel. The story regards the children that were born by Jacob’s first wife Leah. Leah had borne, either personally or by adopting, six sons when she gave birth to a daughter named Dinah. The sons of Leah in the order of their birth were Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Gad (born via Leah’s handmaiden Zilpah), Asher (also via Zilpha), Issachar, Zebulun, and then Dinah. By way of explanation about the custom of those times, after Leah had her first five sons, she entered a period of infertility. She begged her husband Jacob to lie with her handmaiden Zilpah so she could have more children and adopt them, which in the bible is called “to give birth on one’s knees” (Referring to a custom of a father acknowledging a newborn child by placing it in his lap). So after Zilpha bore two children on behalf of Leah, Leah found that she was fertile again and was able to naturally bear Issachar, Zebulun and Dinah.

Having children was absolutely vital to Leah because while she loved Jacob, and was his first wife, she knew that he did not love her. And so her children were not only her source of validation as being the mother of his children and heirs, but also her only source of love. For Jacob loved Leah’s younger sister Rachel, and took her to wife after Leah. Genesis 29:31 When the Lord saw that Leah was unloved, he made her fruitful, while Rachel remained barren. This is important to understand as one of the many Biblical statements that children are the source of love and gifts from the Lord. In fact, after Leah was secure and had the first six children, the Lord also heard the prayers of Rachel and she was able to bear children naturally (she had had two, Dan and Naphtali, via her handmaiden, adopting as did Leah hers via Zilpah). Genesis 30:22 Then God remembered Rachel; he heard her prayer and made her fruitful. She conceived and bore a son, and she said, “God has removed my disgrace.” So she named him Joseph, meaning, “May the Lord add another son to this one for me!”

She did get her wish and bear another son, but ironically died in childbirth, while Jacob’s entire family and flock were traveling from Bethel to Ephrath. Genesis 35:18-19 With her last breath-for she was at the point of death-she called him Ben-oni; his father, however, named him Benjamin. Thus Rachel died; and she was buried on the road to Ephrath [that is, Bethlehem]. The insertion calling Ephraph Bethlehem is called a “gloss,” which means it is not in the original and is added by someone at a later date in order to add “extra information.” However, this gloss is an error, and an example of how Biblical scholars must understand that human hands do make errors in the scripture, whether of translation, in lettering or transcription, and also, as in this case, believing a tradition that is not actually true. Catholic Bible Study Edition footnote 35, 19 page 44 “Bethlehem: the gloss comes from a later tradition that identified the site with Bethlehem, also called Ephrath or Ephratha. But Rachel’s grave was actually near Ramah, a few miles north of Jerusalem, in the territory of Benjamin."

I include all this information as a prelude to the scripture that I want to cite in order to make several points. One I’ve already made above, which is that if one reads the Bible with compassion and care, one can discern where true love, family and compassion are found, especially in love of children, and that God does not forget either the unloved adult, or the adult who is loved but who does not have children and thus a household and heirs. Another point is that as I commented in previous posts, all of the Biblical personages are “witnesses” to the workings of God and the events of the time, even if all that we have are their names recorded in the Bible. Here you can see how Rachel was a real woman, who bore a real son named Benjamin, who became a patriarch of one of the twelve tribes of ancient Israel, who had a territory named after him that one can find on a map, where his family and tribe settled, and where his mother, who died in giving birth to him, is buried, near a town that one can locate in even in modern times. These are real people who lived in real times exactly as described in the Bible (and mentioned in the Qur’an) and they are witnesses to God and his works as they were the primary participants, there in those times and places.

Remember, by the way, that “witnessing” as defined by God and taught to the patriarchs means that one is able to personally attest to the truth of a matter. Some modern day evangelicals abuse that term, using “witness” as a word meaning that they attest to or testify to their faith, but obviously “they weren’t there to witness Biblical events” so they are not using the term "witness" the way God taught humans to use it. To be precise they really should stick to the other popular traditional term which is “to give their testimony.” One can give testimony about the real impact that the real God, through Jesus Christ, has had on one’s life. But when people use the term “witness” I cringe because it is more difficult for people like me to teach what witness actually means Biblically, as the term is now diluted, yet it is an essential concept.

For example, the Apostles, disciples and all who knew Jesus personally (even the many nameless and faceless in the crowds who heard him speak, saw him, or were cured) are “witnesses to Jesus.” Everyone who hears from witnesses of Jesus and those who believe as a result can now “testify.” I’d not be so strict on this matter if moderns had not gotten so sloppy in melding their own experience of faith with that of the people in the Bible who were actually and in truth there. This makes it more difficult for people who are Bible and Qur’an scholars to explain the intellectual foundation of their faith, which is that the people who were there and who saw with their own eyes are “witnesses.”

Witnessing, as I’ve written before, is a technique that is given by God to humans when the Law was given about how to attest to the truth of a matter, and obviously it involves the actual people being present and truthfully seeing what happened in front of their eyes. So it is easier to explain the intellectual belief in the Bible and the Qur’an to those who are questioning and questing for better understanding if one can use the term “witness” as God originally intended humans to use it, as stated in scripture. This is how I’ve had fruitful dialogue with our Muslim brothers and sisters, as they also have witnessing in the Qur’an. So I’m not nitpicking, but trying to correct some very squishy and unhelpful use of the term “witnessing” by evangelicals, and suggest they stick with “testimony” and other like terminologies.

Having put this introduction forward, in the next post I’ll cite the scripture that I wish to provide commentary upon.

Personal musings about race relationships

I've blogged about this before, but have learned that I guess I just have to keep repeating myself over and over and over again. Plus I thought of a true event from my personal life to share.

The reason it is on my mind is that one of the talk show hosts today mentioned how racial sensitivity has even extended into some people misunderstanding vocabulary that has nothing to do with race but has racial sounding syllables (I'm not even going to type them here, even though it's just plain English grammar) or objects that are "black" are now suspect in normal speech. I can relate.

For some reason early in my adulthood I discovered that Afro Americans I didn't even know were hostile to me. Not being racist, I didn't notice a pattern. For every couple of Afro Americans who hated me for no reason, there were whites that hated me for absolutely no reason also. So I never noticed a particular pattern except, of course, wondering why humans in general hate before even having a reason. Later, as I've related to the point that I'm sick of the subject myself, I discovered that stalking cultists had spread rumors about me and in particular, stoked imaginary grudges.

What do I mean by an imaginary grudge? Cultists cultivated amongst themselves and their entourages that people 1) carried over "beefs" from their "previous lives" (reminder: that is their delusion, there is no reincarnation) and 2) examined words slips, Freudian slips, speech patterns, friendship patterns and "butt kissing" patterns in order to "reveal" hidden prejudices etc. For example, if someone never slept with an Afro American, they were on the "suspect list" of being "racist." If you used a term that was subversive humor (such as I and my husband used) rather than that being identified correctly as a mark of solidarity and subversiveness, it was instead, most ignorantly and simplistically, assumed to be racist. I'll post more on the subversive humor aspect of the racial problem some other time, when I think the public mood is such that people can pretend to be all grown up and read it as adults. Maybe I have to check the "astrology charts" and wait for "Mercury to enter Cancer" before I do that, HA HA HA. (That is ironic and sarcastic laughter).

Anyway, I did think of a tender story I wanted to share. My husband and I separated in 1992 and our divorce was finalized end of 1993. We split on very amiable terms and in fact I knew about his dating life (his "top two" and "which one he picked.") He got married soon after we divorced and his wife is Afro American. She's a nice lady so far as I can tell (I only met her once), very pretty (and THIN! Not all chubby like me!!) She's very high in the medical profession and for privacy sake I won't give more detail.

As soon as they married I asked my husband if they were planning to have children. I was hoping that he'd say yes. But he told me they were both lukewarm on the subject (as he was when we were married, which was fine because as I've explained before, I knew any children of mine would have been in dire danger from cultists, so one reason I let him "pick me" as a wife was that I knew he would not press me on having children, no, far from it in fact.) So because I thought he'd make a fine dad and he had missed out on having kids, through his own choice, I really hoped that he and his wife would have kids. Remember, this is in 1994-5 that we had this conversation. I would have loved for them to have kids and I think they would have been adorable.

Can you now understand how unjust accusations of ME being racist have been? Sometimes it seems I'm the only one urging Afro Americans to have children and not the "liberal sacrament" of abortion. So there is PROOF that far from being racist, I had hoped that my own ex-husband would have children with his Afro-American wife.

In 1995 someone I inherited as a "employee" who was Afro-American accused me to my face of "not liking her" because I'm a "racist" and that my husband "married a black woman" and I'm "mad about that." Obviously nothing could have been further from the truth. Yet she contributed whole heartedly to making my life a living hell. Gee, I wonder where she got the idea that I was racist from?

God sure knows the answer to that and he's not very happy about it.

Reminder that heaven belongs to children

Jesus explicitly taught the Apostles and disciples that the Kingdom of heaven belongs to the children. While Jesus was being figurative about the innocence that is required for all who desire to be saved and achieve heaven, he was also being literal. Jesus explained that the guardian angels of children constantly face God. To put it in a modern technical term, Jesus was explaining that children, through their guardian angels and their inherent innocence, have a "seamless interface" with God. This was his way of explaining that children are sinless in the sense that they will achieve heaven should they die at a young age before they reach their ability to fully comprehend and self regulate regarding sin. Therefore it is obvious that the pre-born, the miscarried or the stillborn, babies, infants, toddlers and young children are assured of heaven, and one can be very hopeful of young teenagers also, since in this society teenagers really are not fully "men" or "women" in their maturity and discernment. However, one must not jump to conclusions about whether violent or sinful children in their late teens are saved, regardless of their hardship of background. If they are living fully aware and sinful lives as if an adult would, they have lost the childhood innocence that Jesus speaks of regarding assurance of salvation. Teenagers are not fully mature, and society must stop tempting them down violent and debauched paths. But at some point teenagers have made fully informed choices to follow those paths. However, when one reads of a tragedy about the loss of a good child, the sadness can be mitigated by the knowledge of Jesus having assured humans of their place in heaven.

A few days ago four sets of families received the terrible news that their four sons, all Boy Scouts, were killed when a tornado struck their camp. I know how heart rending it is to lose a child, and how one never really recovers. I am pleased to see that the parents of one of the Boy Scouts, Ben, have started fund raising to include underground shelters when the camp is rebuilt. This is one of my huge pet peeves: the lack of underground cellars, storm shelters or basements in both public facilities and private homes. I myself live in such a place and have been forced to live in 3 locations in the past six years that have not had an underground basement. I grew up in the generation that always had a home with a basement for shelter in not only storms such as the tornado, but also against excessive heat, in the days before air conditioning (that was a lifesaver for many generations of people and their children in sweltering heat). I am outraged at how so many homes and public facilities do not have underground storm shelters, and find this lack at scouting facilities to be astounding, frankly, astonishing and disappointing (but I've found, not surprising anymore). Prayers for their comfort and condolences.

The only comfort I can offer is that those who have lost infants and children can safely aspire to meet them again in heaven in the Lord's embrace. But I need to remind everyone that this is not automatic. Children in heaven are in a perfection of fullness and completion in God's home. It is a grace for parents to join them; they, strictly speaking, do not require any other companionship than those who they are with in heaven already. Parents must live godly lives full of belief and good works, shunning bitterness and occult practices, in order to join their children once again in heaven, for all eternity. I hope I've made that clear.

Grieving 8 yr old boy hangs himself over mom

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/uk/Grieving-boy-8-kills-himself.4162237.jp

***
This is one of the saddest stories of the many sad stories we hear every day. This boy in the United Kingdom lost his mom and his grandpa to cancer. He was loved and carefully watched at school, but nonetheless hung himself with his school tie at home where he lived with his grandma.

He's the same age as I was when my dad died of a heart attack.

But things are different today than they were in my day. People have less brothers and sisters, if any at all. So if they have a terrible loss like this boy had, they don't have siblings in their peer group to bond with and get through it together.

Also, the rapid pace of society and over stimulation makes even a moment or a day of sadness seem to last for an eternity. We are doing no favor to our children bringing them up in a society that does not teach optimism and fortitude. Yes, those qualities must be taught; they are not genetic or automatic. But instead today there is a "quick fix" and a "winner/loser" mentality, so that children (even those loved and supported as this boy) have little resilience to "slog it out" as the Brits used to call it. Ironically where children do show enormous endurance is enduring abusive home situations and neighborhoods. That is where they have to be little soldiers who shoulder the burden and march onward.

But when it comes to love, a huge extended family, and cautious long term emotional investment in the future, our society is the opposite of teaching those values. A child in a large traditional family can better cope with loss of even his loved mum because he can envision the day when he marries and has children of his own, remembering her. But it is all fragmentation and anti-family in the schools, media and society. If one is not on the computer, playing video games, being stimulated (or dulled to "endure") by substances, spending money, or being popular with the gang, then those seconds, minutes, hours and days of grief just drag on unbearably. In the old days children lived in large families with connection to the cycles of life through farming. They could bear the unbearable because they were doing so within a family that by its very existence and size spoke "optimism." Now even the most well meaning secular setting preaches fragmentation and depressive mentality, and even the smallest children are affected. This little boy and I were the same ages when we lost a parent to illness but we could not be more different than night and day. Already at eight I had comfort of full knowledge of my dad being in heaven, and also a commitment to life and having loved ones of my own when I grew up. This little boy, like so many children these days, were never given the structures for those connections. It is so very terribly sad. My prayers and condolences to his family, schoolmates and community, who I know have such genuine sorrow and grief.

What a happy story this is triplets plus family

I loved reading about this couple with two girls, who then have baby triplets. The two girls are such great older sisters to the baby triplets! Nice helping hand from family and friends too.

http://www.oregonnews.com/article/20080209/NEWS01/195904190/-1/NEWS

Why Church Speaks for God re Natural Family Planning

I plan to write a longer article on this subject, so here's an outline of what I'll be explaining to provide some material for thought until then. One of the largest challenges to faith for Catholics is the prohibition against artificial forms of birth control. I'd like to explain why the prohibition exists from "God's point of view." It is important to understand why the prohibition against artificial forms exists, and why natural (cyclic) family planning is encouraged. This is not going to be a political or socio-economic article, but one of educational background.

First of all, it's important to understand that only humans and the apes have what is called the menstrual cycle, which means that they can reproduce pretty much at will, on a monthly basis. Every single major form of life (I'm not talking about ants here, but rather mammals, reptiles, and all of the historic creatures such as dinosaurs) have what is called an estrous cycle aka "coming into heat." This is the time when a female is able to become pregnant and signals that she can to prospective mates. Those of you who have followed the recent births of baby pandas in the US and China have learned about this by hearing how the female panda is only in heat once a year, and for only the briefest of amount of time (a day or two.) Now think about this. All of you who have faith believe that God created the universe, earth, and all of the creatures upon it. Isn't it a very strong message related to survival that every species except apes/humans has a limited period of fertility, often as rare as once or twice a year? Animals have thrived for millions and millions of years in this system. Here is a quote from Wikipedia with some handy comparisons of common animals that we are all aware of:

"Some species, such as cats, cows and pigs, are polyestrous and can go into heat several times a year. Seasonally polyestrous animals have more than one estrous cycles during a specific time of the year and can be divided into short-day and long-day breeders:
Short-day breeders, such as sheep, goats, deer, foxes, elk—are sexually active in fall or winter.
Long-day breeders, such as horses and hamsters, are sexually active in spring and summer.
Species that go into heat twice per year, such as most dogs, are diestrous.
Monoestrous species, such as bears, foxes, and wolves, have only one breeding season a year, typically in spring to allow growth of the offspring during the warm season to survive the next winter.
A few mammalian species, such as rabbits, do not have an oestrus cycle and are able to conceive at almost any arbitrary moment."

Throughout the several billion history of life on earth, life has both flourished and been naturally regulated by a yearly or at most twice a year time of breeding. Animals do not under normal circumstances pursue sexual gratification outside of the purpose of reproducing. Again, apes and humans are the only species that have separated the sexual act from the reproductive imperative and cycle.

Now, fast forward and think about some of the traditional Jewish laws about not having relations with one's wife during certain times of the month. A lot of feminists totally misunderstand the origin of that, focusing on the "unclean" wording but not on the historic reasons this evolved. When God dictated the Law to the people of Israel through Moses, God had the well being of the people and both their earthly survival and their heavenly salvation in mind. God knows from his infinite knowledge and can see through "experience" of the two billion years of life on the planet that life flourishes when it is "open" to reproduction at all times, but limited in the number of times that reproduction is possible. When humans interfere with the natural ability to reproduce, it's not so much a matter of making God angry, but rather, they are continuing the long pattern of human's fooling around with what they don't understand and then having dire consequences for the entire species' survival, and most of all, for the sanctity of life and of children. When people are closed to children and manipulate fertility in artificial ways, it's not simply a matter of morality anymore, but also a severe quality of life issue and ultimately jeopardizes entire populations. I offer as one example what happens when countries such as China and India have large "traditions" of killing infant girls. They now have millions of males who might have to face life without a spouse. So when God created Laws and prohibitions, it was designed to make the reproduction and continuation of life natural and in harmony with the earth that humans spend their life upon, in community with other humans. Regulating the frequency of sexual activity when one can potentially result in a pregnancy is the key to natural life itself and it's ongoing success.

(to be continued)

Love of Children *Daily Dosage*

Here's a cute story about a Navajo family that I know. When I first visited them in the 1980's on the reservation, the husband and wife had six children. They were all delightful and never once resented living in a crowded 3 room house, where money was always a struggle, despite both parents working hard. We were sitting in the living room and the mom pointed to the couch and said, "I had all the children on that couch." As I listened slack jawed with admiration, she told me how funny it was that after she had each baby, they'd drive to the hospital (50 miles away) to have the post natal care, and the hospital folks would joke, "You always come to us after the baby is born." LOL! The oldest child, a boy, told me, "Yeah, I was so disappointed that I missed the youngest one's birth because I was over at the neighbors!" The family was so warm and loving and if there was a Pulitzer Prize for parents, I think my friends should win. And each child loved his or her sibling. If one got a special present of say, $5.00, they'd never spend it on just themselves, they would buy juices for their brothers or sisters out of their small gift. Like most Native Americans of that generation that I know, they would never consider not having a child, no matter what the sacrifice. Anyway, I wanted to share that story about the couch; I still smile when I think about it :-)