jump to navigation

Prayer Quandries February 14, 2010

Posted by makingyourdashcount in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

This has the potential to offend; if it offends you I apologize.  But I’ve always found the expression “I’ll pray for you,” curious and feel a need to write through this.  “I’ll pray for you” is an expression that has gained popularity in recent years; I never heard it as a child, even though I grew up in as religiously diverse a community as one could and attended a Methodist school.  Unfortunately,  this expression has been directed to me  many times in my life, from the loss of one of my brothers and daughter and difficult decisions in the final days of my mother’s life, but what does this really mean and what is the purpose of telling someone this sentiment?  Does one think that praying for someone will invoke divine intervention that will change outcomes?  Or is it really synonymous for “I’m thinking about you,” an emphatic note of support?

When Sarah was in elementary school, there was a mom’s prayer group that got together on Wednesday mornings at one of the member’s home to pray for the students and teachers of the school.  HUH?  Yes, there were at risk students there who could use divine intervention and I am sure there were teachers who could use divine guidance on how to work with these students; however, did these moms think that their prayer would make a difference?  If so, how?  Did they think that their prayers over coffee and cookies would do more than their sitting with these at risk students as tutors, like other moms did?  Obviously, or they would have tutored the students.

I have always ascribed to the concept of praying with one’s feet when there is a need for something.  Although I have found personal peace in the quiet action of praying, in finding that spiritual center, I have no expectations that prayer goes further than that. Prayer can bring a peace that helps one heal.  Prayer can bring peace to help one make tough decisions. But prayer without the right physicians will not cure a cancer;  prayer without antibiotics will not cure an infection.  Prayer without a check sent to a trusted agency does not rebuild homes.

So I am curious.  As tragedies unfold, why do people share the sentiment that they are praying?  Is it because that the action of prayer lets them feel as they are doing something to help remedy the tragic suffering of others?  Or do they think that their prayer will invoke a divine intervention?  Even more curious, why do FaceBook and other public prayer groups sprout?  Are they basically a communal concern group who feel a need to share with others but have no other outlet.  I wonder if the people who publicly pray understand that others “just don’t get it” and may feel put off by their intention, especially when those prayers are directed toward them.

When people have said to me,” I’ll keep you in my prayers,”  I’ve always translated that to I’ll be thinking about you and say thank you.  Maybe I do that because I understand that outreach.  I appreciate people’s empathy, even when there is little that they can do to remedy the situation.   But the outgrowth of public prayer groups was described by someone recently, who was the target of the prayers as “creepy.”  If it is seen as “creepy,” the purpose of the group must be more self centered than directed, since the recipient would prefer it not exist.  That is not a judgment, just a statement.

So I continue to struggle with the concept of communal prayer.  For if I were to believe in divine intervention, I would also have to accept that for some reason God hates our family, since we have had more than our fair share of challenges.  My mother once said, “I don’t believe in a God who micromanages.  God has more important things to do than meddle in my life.”  With that, I will still connect with the hurt and will step forward when financial assistance is needed in disaster, but I will keep my prayers to myself.

Why I am voting NO on Ohio’s Issue 3 and why it matters (to me) October 19, 2009

Posted by makingyourdashcount in Ohio Legislation, Ohio Politics, ohio, politics.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

This weekend I had the privilege of being in a small audience listening to John Harwood’s (CNBC &NYT) slant on politics in the age of cable news polarization and grass roots movements. In all honesty, it was a bit disheartening as he talked about what it takes to get a legislator to vote for any bill introduced by the other party. As I heard it, even if one party introduced a bill where all of the points stood on the side of the other party, the other party would never vote for it, because it was not theirs. Party Loyalty.

So much for the American public’s desire for collaboration.

It takes acts like 9/11 to bring both sides to agreement across the table. So sad because it tells me that I’ve wasted a lot of time on the letters sent to legislators (although there are a very few, who have some backbone while not running for reelection, seem to break that mold.)

In polling, as I learned in a political science class the day before, people cross party lines when asked about issues although they barely cross when asked about candidates. On issues, people of different political persuasions find common ground. Sounds like a much more promising area to make a difference… state and local issues, because people do not pigeonhole their political identification as readily.

This is particularly visible on the current battle over Issue 3, Gambling in Ohio. Pushed heavily by labor unions in the state on the hope that it will generate jobs, key Ohio politicians (both Democrat and Republican) have stayed out of the discussion. God knows Republicans would never publicly agree with Unions.. and Democrats would never go against.

So here is MY .02 on why I hope that all of you vote no on Issue 3
.
To me this issue isn’t about jobs or preying on those least affording to gamble false hopes, taxes or the evils of gambling, although if those reasons propel you to vote no, I’m good with it.

I am against Issue 3 because this is our state’s constitution and I have a problem with specifically entitling locations and particular people with ANYTHING, let alone a monopoly business!

To me a constitution is about affording rights and codifying policy. If one wants to codify gambling in the Ohio Constitution, then don’t limit it to particular locations and numbers. The free market system should determine that. Say: Ohio allows the following types of gambling.. yada yada and then let investors dook it out.
Read this issue for yourself to see the following language: (The casino in Cleveland, Ohio will be located on one or more of the following properties: (a) the property situated south of Public Square, east of Superior Avenue, west of
Ontario Street and north of W. Prospect Avenue; (b) the property situated south ofW. Prospect Avenue, east of West 6th Street, north of W. Huron Road and west of Ontario Str«1; (e) approximately 7.91 acres of property located south of W. Huron Road, west of Ontario Street, nonh of Canal Road and lying east of the prolongation of the centerline of the Bridge of West 6th Street; (d) approximately 11.22 acres of property and water lying east of the prolongation of the centerline of the Bridge of West 3rd Street, south of Canal Road, northwest of W. Eagle Road and bounded by, and including a portion of, the Cuyahoga River to the soulh and the southwest; (e) all air rights above the approximately 0.87 acre parcel… etc etc etc… Is THIS what SHOULD be in a Constitution. Think about it.

If you decide you are FOR this Issue, let me know. I have a few business ideas that I, too, would like to have codified. I have two more years of tuition to cover and need that guaranteed income.