george2u2 (imported) wrote: Mon Feb 27, 2012 10:01 am
I'm now an atheist. Looking back over many decades and my growing in a religious home, I see that the most sexual abuse I ever had was from well meaning but ignorant church leaders.
I couldn't be baptized until I stopped "Playing with Myself" for a year.
When I told the preacher I liked men. It was the "Pray the Gay away" and Get married and it will all go away.
So much for inspiration from his imaginary heavenly friends.
There was always the threat of hell, (Hell was what I was going through in life, not after death)
I'm still legally married to my wife of 33 years, but she has been bedridden and institutionalized for decades.
She knows I have a new boyfriend. I've taken her to Gay meetings, she knows of several people who I've had attractions for in the past, and I think that she would be kind to Darrin as well. Darrin is the one who is afraid of of meeting her. He's met the kids and my son in law, and has no problem with them.
SHAME is the thing that you have to let go of. The whole world can be against you but if YOU internalize shame, It is the elephant in the room. Internalized shame can not be ran from. Just face it. Just like Job, in the bible, he feared God and lost everything. When he turned it around to LOVE god he got everything back and more.
I understand the anxiety, How crippling it is, How nothing seems interesting when you are depressed.
You are lucky to have Tony, and I'm fortunate to hug Darrin.
Oh, how I wish we could give you a big group hug, Show you how to hop, skip and run into fulfilling employment.
However I wish I could do that for millions of others looking for work.
One fellow was looking for work, and asked his successful uncle, what he would do if nobody would hire him.
His uncle paused for a moment and went on to tell him, That is exactly why he went into business for himself. He couldn't find a job either.
Being ashamed is, as best I can make useful sense of the human condition, the ultimate human tragedy. It is the most devastatingly damaging human brain condition I have ever been able to identify.
When I was about 18 months of age, the age when socialization typically teaches young children to be ashamed, my encounter with being shamed by older people who had learned the ways of being ashamed and shaming others was so fraught with deadly, psychologically shattering peril that I summarily rejected ever becoming ashamed of anything about my life and life experiences. That was a fully conscious event for me. It is, by now, so deeply embedded in my permanent memory as to be, in every way I can recognize, as to be, methinks, eternally indelible.
A few years ago, there was a minor traffic incident at a traffic light in which another driver drove into the side of a small trailer I was pulling with a car. Because of what other people had done and were doing at that intersection, my attention was, for a couple seconds, reflexively directed toward probable danger, and I inadvertently entered the intersection while the traffic light for me was "yellow." I did not enter the intersection when the light was red, and did not "violate" that traffic light.
Another driver called the police, and I waited for the police to arrive. The police officer asked me questions which I answered truthfully, and in answering, never indicated in any way that I thought that either I, or the other driver, was actually "at fault." It is my best guess that the police officer decided that I realized I was at fault (something absolutely untrue) and sent to me a traffic citation in which he claimed, falsely, that I realized that I was at fault.
That eventually led to a trial, during which I stated my finding of being innocent. The police officer was not a witness to the collision of the other driver's car with my trailer, and so had no valid testimony to offer regarding the incident itself. At trial, the other driver never indicated that I was at fault. When came my time to "cross-examine" the police officer, I asked the officer whether he understood that everything I said to him about the incident was of situational attribution and therefore could not possibly be about my being at fault. The officer indicated that he had not so understood. I then asked the officer, in effect, "So, you did not understand what I told you, and you did not ask for clarification?" The officer agreed that he had not understood and had not asked for clarification. That, according to due process, totally erased his testimony about my being at fault. With zero testimony in court to the effect that I was in any way at fault and no testimony in court to the effect that I had "violated" that traffic light, the judge ruled that I was guilty of violating that traffic light based on clear and convincing evidence.
I have two transcripts of that trial, which differ in one critical and essential aspect. The court reporter got part of what I said completely wrong, I understand that the trial was electronically recorded, and the corrected transcript has an accurate version of what I said.
My conclusion, yet only slightly tentative for now? The Anglo-American Adversarial System of Law and Jurisprudence has, in the United States of America, gradually enough to escape blatant attention, morphed itself into a prima-facie unconstitutional established religious cartel.
What is my best guess as to why that judge found me guilty in the total absence of any valid testimony of my being at fault in his courtroom? My best guess is that the judge has so intensely internalized shame as to be so brain damaged from shame as to be incapable of doing any better at recognizing what happened in his courtroom.
Oh, yeah, there is more. After the police officer confabulated the false notion that I realized I was at fault, I set out to learn how to correct that confabulated falsehood. Along the way, I spoke by telephone with the acting city attorney, who promptly informed me of two lies he would allow me to tell in court, my choice. I informed him that I would not tell any lie in court. He told me that I had to enter a plea and had to accept one or the other of his two lies as my plea. I told him that I would not enter any plea. He told me that I had to enter a plea. I guess he was clueless to the fact that I had read the relevant Wisconsin statutes and accurately understood that, if a defendant does not enter a plea, the judge is mandated by statute to enter a not guilty plea on behalf of the defendant. So, to test the veracity of that acting city attorney, I said, "If I have to enter a plea, I will plead contempt of court." The acting city attorney immediately "hung up the phone" without saying a single word to me.
Have situational factors assigned to me the role of being a whistle-blower regarding what has, perchance unwittingly, become an authoritarian coercive religious establishment which has become, according to its own rules, tragically unconstitutional?
An adversarial system court judge rules that I violated some law I did not violate, and I set about to inform the adversarial system that its adversarial methodology has violated me (and everyone else, including its most sincerely religious adherents).
But then, in another post, I commented about my liberal arts college life phase and my having studied, in college, "contemporary religious thought." Without identifying myself, as that college has, over the years, had many students, I surmise that I can safely name the college: Carleton College, Northfield, Mionnesota. And I can safely name my contemporary religious though Carleton professor. Ian G. Barbour, who gave the Gifford Lectures and was awarded the Templeton Prize during the 1990s for is work directed toward understanding process philosophy and process theology as a unified field. Barbour was a college physics department chairman prior to studying religion at Yale and becoming Professor of Religion and Physics at Carleton.
My formal education includes ways of studying the realm of religion as a field of fully proper scientific inquiry. The non-overlapping magesteria notion of Stephen Jay Gould and his cohorts is, in my personal and professional view, of the realm of pseudo-science, from a human brain biology perspective.
If you are traditionally orthodox, my best hunch is that you may tend to deem me to be a form of heretical apostate.
And yet, is not every finding of scientific inquiry which replaces, or adds to, prior scientific orthodoxy necessarily and inexcapably of the work of scientific heretical apostates?
As for nobody being willing to hire me; some folks did hire me, and I recognized as they did so that my being hired might be a transient experience. Having anticipated that during my early childhood, I started a business, which I continue to operate, while in sixth grade. In my business, I have never fired any employee. Perhaps that is because I have always been the only employee of my business.
If I believed more in luck than in conscientiously directed effort, I suppose I would deem those of us who have found meaningful relationships and who are Archive members, to be among the lucky ones.