BRAINPAN LEAKAGE

Got your attention, didn’t I?

So, here’s my thing. I’m not going to ramble on about which candidate I endorse, or anything like that. I have always been of the opinion that we vote by secret ballot for a reason. Plus, I don’t want to torque off any readers who don’t share my political views. Politics, like religion, is a very personal thing. It’s nothing to be ashamed of, but by the same token, if you express your opinion you need to be prepared to take a few hits from those who don’t agree.

No, I’m not chicken. I just don’t have time to deal with it right now, at least, not in THIS forum…

So, anyway, back to the title of this blog…

I keep seeing ads by the RNC and Senator McCain which use the word “Liberal” as if it is a bad thing. As if it carries with it a horribly negative definition.

What’s up with that? According to what I have been able to research, the word liberal carries with it no negative connotation. (see below)

lib·er·al      /lib eral, lib rel/ [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] –adjective

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
–noun 14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.

——————————————————————————–

[Origin: 1325–75; ME < L l?ber?lis of freedom, befitting the free, equiv. to l?ber free + -?lis -al1]

—Related forms
lib·er·al·ly, adverb
lib·er·al·ness, noun

—Synonyms 1. progressive. 7. broad-minded, unprejudiced. 9. beneficent, charitable, openhanded, munificent, unstinting, lavish. See generous. 10. See ample.
—Antonyms 1. reactionary. 8. intolerant. 9, 10. niggardly.

So, thus far I haven’t seen Obama or the DNC running any ads using the word “conservative” with the implication that it means “intolerant reactionary”… Maybe I’m wrong. Perhaps they have and I just missed it. If so, my bad… But, so far, I’m not seeing it…

But, I’ll say this much… Tactics like changing the meaning of a word for the purpose of denigrating a person or group sounds pretty intolerant and reactionary to me… And, that goes for BOTH sides of this fence…

It’s interesting what you can find when you are randomly surfing the net.

Say, for instance, you are running down something that someone told you about, so you type in some logical, key search phrases. You don’t necessarily find the thing said individual was talking about, but you might just find something equally interesting (or disturbing, as the case may be).

That would be what happened to me today.

You see, I was chasing down something I had been told about a movie someone had seen. They told me that in the credits it has said “Based on the Rowan Gant Investigations Series by M. R. Sellars.” Well, having never received any sort of royalty check for such I was interested in finding out if this was true. As it turns out, I have been unable to find this movie (the person couldn’t remember the title), nor have I been able to find anything remotely indicating that such exists. What I did find, however, was a rather interesting blog.

Now… In the interest of not getting sued for unauthorized linking, I will simply put the URL here and if you are so inclined you can cut and paste it.

taac.us//blogs/Jennings/2007/06/13/wiccan-truths-can-be-found-closer-to-home

You will, of course, want to preface that with a www.

I suppose I found this particular blog interesting because it is about me, and the Rowan Gant Investigations. On top of that, it is written by Father Jennings of The Ancient Apostolic Communion, that being a new Independent denomination in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ.

First off, I was surprised to find that Father Jennings had taken the time to read a book in the RGI series. He comments about the particular antagonist being featured in two books, however his commentary starts with something on the order of “Reading THE book in M. R. Sellars’…” (I capped the THE, not him…However, I am left wondering at the choice of THE over A, or even the and the plural, BOOKS…Oh well, in his blog he wonders about me as well, so I guess we are even.)

So…Father Jennings first seems to have a bit of an issue with my departure from “standard” literary conventions– those mentioned being punctuation and capitalization. I have no problem with that. It puts me in a category with one of my favorite, recently deceased authors, Kurt Vonnegut. He eschewed standard literary convention as well, choosing to create punctuation (such as I sometimes do with the ?! found in my books) and to use non-standard capitalization for emphasis (this is the item that seemed to set Father Jennings on edge the most). As a side note to Father Jennings, I hate to burst your bubble, but most novelists do take license with some of the conventions. And, we have these things called style sheets…

The first MAJOR thing Father Jennings takes issue with, however, is that I never explain “why” Rowan is Wiccan. He goes on to outline that if Rowan were Catholic, it wouldn’t be a problem since it is so close to Protestant Christianity that it would simply be accepted by the reader without question. However, since he is Wiccan, apparently the reader is owed an explanation as to what drove him to that faith.

I thought that to be just a bit amusing.

No, I am not poking fun at Father Jennings. I actually enjoyed his blog. It is well thought out and intelligent. However, I still find this observation of his amusing. Why? Because I don’t make a habit of asking people “why” they became Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Asatru, Secular Humanist, Agnostic, Atheist, or even Wiccan. I simply accept the fact that they are (if I happen to find out, because I don’t make a habit of asking a persons religion either). I also simply accept that they chose the path which best enlightened them spiritually. Perhaps I am a bit behind the curve with that, but the truth is I believe all religions should co-exist in some sort of harmony. I don’t hold any belief that such will happen in my lifetime, but for some of us we look upon religion as a personal quest, and our faith as something which bears no explaining to anyone but ourselves.

However, the good Father points out that one reason it is easy to accept someone being Christian is that they are born into it. Well, in the very first book of the RGI series, Harm None, Rowan points out that his Mother was a Witch. So, following his logic, it has been explained. Of course, I suppose that means I need to write a prequel explaining WHY Rowan’s Mother was drawn to the Craft, but I won’t go there…

Secondly, Father Jennings points out that the Christians portrayed in my books are all so narrow minded they can look through a keyhole with both eyes. Father, I love that metaphor! Reminds me of some of my own. Either way, this is not something I take issue with either. Truth is, he probably hasn’t read ALL of the books, because not EVERY Christian is portrayed as such. However, YES, some of them are. The one he points out most prominently is the ANTAGONIST. Well, you know, there is this thing called CONFLICT. Conflict makes a story and drives a book. Since the antagonist in the volume he references is Christian, and bent on reviving the Inquisition, it simply wouldn’t do for him to be generally accepting of other faiths, IMHO. It should also be noted that the antagonist is NOT portrayed as a typical Christian, but as a very disturbed sociopath. I also seem to recall Rowan  (remember him – the Wiccan?) points out far more benign meanings behind scripture than what the antagonist skews it to be.

Sooooo…this leads me to Father Jennings question of my personal open-mindedness where religion is concerned. To that I say, rest easy. I don’t hate Christians, Father Jennings. I take people on an individual basis, regardless of religion, race, politics, or personal philosophy. I treat everyone with respect until they treat me otherwise. Once they have shown ME disrespect, then I have no use for them.

However, since you have questioned my “broadmindedness,” I will pose this question to you– Did you ever think that perhaps I created the characters based on personal experiences? Like maybe the time my house was covered with banners in the middle of the night, all of them reading “Witches Live Here – Burn In Hell”… Or, the Christian Charity that refused to accept a sizeable donation from me because, and I quote that which was said to my face, “Thou Shalt Not Suffer A Witch To Live…”

But, I’d rather jump down from the soapbox. I am not here to preach hate. As I said, I take people on an individual basis and many, MANY of my good, close friends are Christians who adhere to the philosophy of live and let live, just as I do.

We ALL have things to learn, and we all have our crosses (pentacles, thor’s hammers, etc) to bear. That is just part of life.

So, lest anyone think otherwise, I took no offense at Father Jennings blog. I found it interesting and entertaining. As I said, it was intelligent and well thought out. However, the comment section was closed so I couldn’t reply there, so I thought I’d just write my own little diatribe for the masses in my own blog…

Oh, and by the way, like it says in the front of my books–

The are FICTION…

More to come…

Murv