Dinner Menu

Although raised as a Unitarian, in 1994 I became member of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers).   You can read parts of the newsletter from the meeting I sometimes attend, which is an unstructured silent meeting for worship.  You can also read more about Friends or look through Quaker Books.

Return to the main menu

Non-Violence

Violence is a messenger.   The messages we are getting of late are related to messages we are sending to our children, to the world.  Is violence really the best messenger, or a solution to problems?  I don't think so.  Thoughts after Littleton are here, shared on-line with a Quaker group.

Breaking Windows in the House of God - visit Brian Elroy McRoy 's site and read some thougth provoking pieces, especially Terrorism as A Means of Self-Actualization, which opens with "Violence improves the value of life."  It isn't what you  might think.  In fact - while you're here, take some time to visit Brian McRoy's pages - I don't know him, except through his pages - they are filled with food for thought for the dining room!

Return to the main menu

Founder and Executive Director Daphne White explains why she gave up her journalism job to devote her time to the cause of teaching non-violence to children:

"Kill him! Kill him! Kill him!" I was watching my son play with a friend's hand-held video game -- a game both boys had earnestly assured me was not violent. The outburst occurred because my six-year-old was not as adept as his friend in manipulating the game: he was not killing fast enough. At the close of the twentieth century, virtual killing has become an acceptable form of child's play. Children are encouraged to "kill" bad guys on a regular basis at a variety of settings.

As a mother, I have been concerned about this issue ever since my son was a toddler. It seemed that everywhere we went, David was being enticed to watch or participate in some act of make-believe violence: he was confronted by violent arcade games at pizza parlors; war movies being aired at video rental stores; violent previews preceding the screening of children's matinees; Nintendo and Sega games at friends's houses.

As a concerned parent, I began to wonder :

•Do children's pretend lives have anything to do with real-world aggression? •Do the programs they watch on television really affect their behavior? •Do children know the difference between fantasy and reality?

I set about finding the answers to these questions, and the results so alarmed me that I decided to abandon my previous work as a journalist and devote my life to this issue.

The first thing I learned is this: while aggression is a part of human nature, violence is a learned behavior. Children learn violent behavior and values by imitation, like they learn everything else. But violence can also be unlearned -- especially by young children -- given proper support and role models.

The second thing I learned is that children under the age of eight can not separate fact from fiction: that is why they believe in the Tooth Fairy, and worry about monsters under their beds. This is also the reason that children may not understand why it is acceptable for television characters to continually hit, kick and shoot each other -- but it is not acceptable for children to behave in this way on the playground.

In a 1995 report called Violence and Youth, the American Psychological Association has concluded that: "Children's exposure to violence in the mass media, particularly at young ages, can have harmful lifelong consequences. Aggressive habits learned early in life are the foundation for later behavior. Three major national studies -- the Surgeon General's Commission report (1972), the National Institute of Mental Health Ten Year Follow-up (1982), and the report of the American Psychological Association's Committee on Media in Society (1992) -- reviewed hundreds of studies to arrive at the irrefutable conclusion that viewing violence increases violence."

As a mother, I found these to be frightening conclusions. What are we as parents teaching our young children when we allow them to watch violent programming and play with violent toys and games? What kinds of messages are we sending to our youngest, most vulnerable children?

Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, a military historian and author of On Killing, argues that this type of "entertainment" is actually conditioning children to become killers.

"If we had a clear-cut objective of raising a generation of assassins and killers who are unrestrained by either authority or the nature of the victim, it is difficult to imagine how we could do a better job," he writes. "The inflicting of pain and suffering has become a source of entertainment and vicarious pleasure rather than revulsion. We are learning to kill, and we are learning to like it."

While watching television or movie violence is harmful to children, it is passive learning. But when children play with violent interactive games, they are participating in the murder and destruction -- they receive points for their violent actions.

What are the lessons that children learn from such "entertainment"? That violence and destruction are fun. That shooting doesn't kill ... or even hurt. That ruthless competition is a winning strategy. That there are no consequences for shooting people or blowing up buildings. Researchers have demonstrated that young children become more aggressive after playing violent video games, or watching violent television programs."

For more information, visit

Return to the main menu

The Non-Violence Website Questions about the pacifist movement can answered here - Dave McReynold has a piece on The Philosphy of Non-Violence.  David McReynolds works with the War Resisters League.

He writes: "There is not a single original idea in this material. Some of the ideas may be new to you, or may be arranged in ways that seem novel. They lack the power to kill, but contain the power to change.  Read with caution. They have not been approved by any government authority. You are free to reprint, giving the source."

Part One: "In trying to understand the philosophy of nonviolence, it is important to keep in mind there is no living, vital philosphy which does not have "holes" in it... Nonviolence is many things, but if it is not a search for truth - a search that is never ended - it will fail.

Part Two: "Gandhian philosophy assumes that the 'reality' we see is transitory, that change and struggle is the rule, not the exception... In thinking of Gandhi we should understand the role of the Bhagavad-Gita (meaning "Song of God") in his life and thinking"

Part Three: "One of the issues that keeps surfacing is how to deal with the issue of police brutality. We can make the same mistake here that a handful of middle class "leftists" made at the start of the Vietnam War when they targeted our own troops as the enemy, or we can learn from history."

Part Four: "We will never know if nonviolence would have worked against Hitler... but within Occupied Europe there were well documented victories for nonviolence."

The Nonviolence Network  is a part of the CHILDREN 'R FIRST CAMPAIGN to stop the violence in our schools and communities. We're here to unite "networks" with YOU  in partnership with Kids to rebuild our neighborhoods and schools as safe havens for ALL!  They invite you to unite with THE NONVIOLENCE.NET works to stop the violence.

The Peaceworkers   The methods of conflict resolution by third parties have been found highly workable as a means toward peace and justice - in India, China, Cyprus, the United States, and other countries. Peaceworker volunteers help make non-violent means a visible force in world affairs.

Return to the main menu

Children's Issues

  Please go visit these pages  below and read about how to keep your child safe.  Show your support  however you can - read about it, discuss it, give time and if you are able, give money to help.  Think about other people's children, too.  And be aware that there are organized groups of pedophiles who lobby for the 'rights' of children to have sex at an early age, and who think pornography is harmless. Be aware, be aware, be aware.

 Stand for Children began on June 1, 1996, when more than 300,000 Americans stood for children at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. Committed people came to the nation's capital that day because they were tired of living in a country where prisons and prison construction are a higher priority than preschools or school construction. They were tired of hearing about family values from leaders making life harder for working families. They knew it was time to take a stand.

Since organizing that first Stand For Children Day --- the largest gathering for children in American history --- Stand For Children has become a national membership organization. Their mission: to organize powerful citizen voice to give all children the opportunity to grow up educated, healthy, and safe.

  Child Abduction   I hate that I feel the need to spend so much time worrying about this AND that my  9 year old is learning about this for safety reasons.

    Missing Kids.    We put our heads in the sand, hoping nothing bad will happen in our communities.   Bad stuff happens, be prepared - and see if you recognize any of these children.  You can post the banner on your own site, too.  Whatever we do doesn't feel like enough, but it is something.  Here are my state's missing children.

Teachers and childcare providers are underpaid.  The education system offers different opportunities for different communities.   

My child is your child and your child is mine. If one child grows up in poverty and another in wealth, their lives will touch each other in ways that may unpleasantly surprise us.

Return to the main menu

Abortion

An issue that has been wearing at me for several years is the abortion issue.  This is something that is little discussed in Quaker meetings I've attended.  There seems to be some discomfort with the line between women's rights and the rights of the unborn.  For thoughts of some Friends, visit Bill Samuel's Home Page(s) , Tabitha's Pages or Chuck Fager's thoughts, which are quite similar to my own. Brian Elroy McKinley's thoughts on abortion and the Bible are also of great interest to me, and perhaps to you.

Wherever I stand on this issue, I feel that the setting isn't quite right.  The choice of being "pro-life" or "pro-choice" is clearly black or white, and to take a stand on either side does little more than alienate everyone.  The battle goes on.  In my opinion, I want  politicians, organized religion and - yes - Big Business to let go of the issue - it isn't something to be owned. This should not be a money making enterprise, a vote getting tool.  Without selling our souls, we can't force the issue from the outside by legislating morality or stuffing spirituality at people who don't want it. It's up to individuals, to lead by example within our families and communities!

This cannot be done if we divide up, labeling each other and start 'debates' to support our rightness and wrongness as Democrats or Republicans, almost literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  While our egos argue, lives are tossed away. Children and young adults are raised thinking abortion is a matter of your political standing, not the taking of a life.  Abortion becomes an intellectual argument, with nothing personal or alive involved.

How precious is any life if human life can be so easily discarded?  We need to convince people to understand that abortion is the taking of a life, rather than a political position to be debated and won. Long lasting changes will come if we all become convinced or if the majority become convinced, and then act upon this belief.  

Here are some interesting links, with a variety of opinions and viewpoints. The purpose of my recommending that you visit these sites is so you can think this through for yourself.  How much sense do you find in the arguments given?  Do you agree or disagree?  Why?  These links are not intended to support abortion.  I place them here because I believe they will challenge pro-choice people to think this issue through.

Return to the main menu

What can I say? I like reading it. The stories within it are often true today. I like this Quaker article, by Tom Davis. But is it to be taken as true, literal?  I think not.  We humans are desperate to find answers, comfort to some of the harsh realities of life, and we keep insisting that we can figure all of this out.  In fact,  we cannot - we don't begin to grasp the real meaning of much, try though we might.

For years I have been interested in the teachings of Jesus and have wondered what he was really like, what his message was, who he was speaking to, and why his words have lived on for so long.  My interest was subdued due to my upbringing as a Unitarian Universalist.  Although I was told it was good to be a seeker, and to look at World Religions, the one teacher who was left out was ... Jesus!   On the other side of the coin, the fundamentalist or 'traditional' Christian interpretations of the Bible (our only source for Jesus' words) have been riddled with confusing, conflicting, outdated or weak statements.

So, I searched in silence.  The Quaker meetings were a place where I felt my interest in Jesus was allowed, even encouraged, without being clouded in dogma.   In the last couple of years I have become interested in the Jesus Seminar and writings on the Jewish carpenter who was Jesus.   The Jesus Seminar has been analyzing the Bible, attempting to glean out which words were probably spoken by Jesus, which were perhaps spoken by him, and which were probably not spoken by him.  This is all too lengthy to go into here.  The official site is Jesus Seminar.  You can also go to the Westar Institute if you, like me, are of the less scholarly mind but are interested in religion.  They describe themselves as "Westar's twofold mission is to foster collaborative research in the field of religious studies and to communicate the results of the scholarship of religion to a broad, non-specialist public.

Westar is not affiliated with any religious institution nor does it advocate a particular theological point of view. "

Return to the main menu

We're A Country Full of Opportunity and Wealth

How do we explain this to our children? We are a country full of wealth, opportunity and resources. We are a country where people are living below the poverty line. There are cities full of children who do not have much of a future to look forward to.

We explain this by commenting on how we have become a country where children are killing children. It's TV, its the movies, its the welfare program, its dysfunctional families, its greed.

We donate money, we volunteer and we help third world countries. We need to help each other!

Return to the main menu

---

Death

 You're not supposed to talk about it.  Does that mean it won't happen to us?  Is it something to be feared?  People in my age group are 'preparing' for it. The will, the final arrangements.  Is there some way out of it? Death was an early visitor in my life,  (visit my dad's page).

This is the year I began really "getting it."  We will not get out of here alive.  That can be a message that you hear, but don't feel.  After 50, I'm feeling it.  Example - one evening I was tucking my youngest into bed - the traditional (for us) reading and neck massage routine when suddenly I realized to the core of my bone that I am but a player in his life, back-drop - history.   30 years from now he will be tucking a child into bed, telling them how his mom used to massage his neck - to that child, I'm an ancestor (or the old lady in the nursing home - I am 43 years older than my youngest child!)

Another 'wham' was when a co-worker died suddenly.  At 33, he was a couple of years older than my oldest son.  No reason, just here, then gone.  That one hit me like a hammer.  For some reason, I fixated on the reality that of the two of us (that would be me, and you, dear reader), we are both going to die - no question.  Aside from how, and when, I suppose for the two of us, our only question is, "who's next?"

Death - for years we've not been supposed to talk about it.  The dying were put aside, somewhere in the hospital, and left.  Thankfully, we are going back to the notion that people need to die at home, whenever possible.  And if home is not able to do this, there is hospice.  I've started volunteering at hospice, a wonderful experience.  It isn't what you think, although for those under 50, I suspect most are not ready, unless they've had someone close to them die.Whatever we do, we can put meaning to our lives, making even the smallest positive changes in just one other person's life, then it was a life well spent.

I just finished reading Grace In Dying and would suggest it (although it is not a quick read - more like studying how to live.

Return to the main menu

I am pleased to have become a member of the Consistent Life Ethic Ring.  Many of us are rushing through life without stopping to question what is going on around and within. Give yourself a moment to pay a visit to these sites. Guaranteed to make you  reflect!