This I know . . .

 ". . .  If it is in the Bible, it must be true. . ."

 (from Howard Bess)  
 ". . . In the past this attitude has led to advocacy of slavery, segregation, subordination of women and corporal punishment for children.  It has been only when these Biblical teachings were challenged and set aside that justice has prevailed.  The latest challenge to Bible standards is the current debate about Biblical marriage and same-sex marriages.  The Bible standard advocates are calling for Biblical standards for marriage.
    Many of the relevant passages are found in the book of Leviticus.  The place of women is set out as a part of the property codes.  Women were property.  Men were owners of women.  A man could own as many women as he could afford.  Polygamy was the standard, not monogamy.  Men owned women in three categories.  They owned wives; they owned concubines; and they owned slaves.  All were available to their owner for his sexual use.  Most of the women involved were little more than breeding stock.  These standards were prevalent all over the Middle East and reflect Mesopotamian and Babylonian traditions. 
    Over the centuries, custom changed and, while polygamy was allowed and was common, cultural pressures and standards evolved toward monogamy.  One standard did not change.  Women in Jesus’ day were still seen as property.  Marriages were still arranged.  A woman had no voice in the acquiring of a husband.  A young woman was provided for marriage for what was deemed the best interests of the father.
    During the times of Jesus, the life of many women in a poverty economy was precarious.  A man could divorce a woman by declaring his freedom from her.  The worst scenario for a woman was to have no owner.  The so-called prostitutes that hung around Jesus were not prostitutes in a modern sense.  They were vulnerable women who had no owner.  Evidently Jesus accepted them and provided them with a level of protection and security.  One of the criticisms of Jesus was that he associated with prostitutes. 
    To his credit, the Apostle Paul declared that in Christ there was no longer slave or free, male or female.  In spite of the acceptance by Jesus and the declaration of Paul, the early church embraced and perpetuated patriarchal dominance and female submission.  The Leviticus standard of male ownership of wives continued in most of Christianity until the 20th century.  It now seems incredible that women in the United States did not have a vote until the 19th Amendment was adopted in 1920. 
    I scratch my head when I hear someone declare that we need to return to Biblical standards for marriage. 
    Around the world and within the United States the understandings of marriage and marriage practices are hugely diverse.  In that diversity a new question has been inserted in the public discussion.  Should two persons of the same sex be allowed to marry?  It is a subject that is never addressed in the Bible.  It is a modern question that has evolved over the past 50 years.  The Bible is a collection of ancient writings.  I would not expect any of these writings to address a question that is so recent.  Bible quotations seem so very irrelevant. . . "

". .  . Is there no standard for marriage that can be embraced in our modern world?  I suspect that diversity of understandings will win the day.  The need to formalize the attractions that we have for a loving companion will not go away.  . ."

[The Rev. Howard Bess is a retired American Baptist minister, who lives in Palmer, Alaska.  His email address is  HYPERLINK "mailto:hdbss@mtaonline.net" hdbss@mtaonline.net]

What do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html

 
Also download your
very own copy of
AMBIENCE & WINE
by Ray Jozwiak

Please visit
http://www.rayjozwiak.com

Tweet

You've always been . . .

. . . ahead of me . . .

One fact that I
In my infinite wisdom
Could not always see
But in the end you always convinced me
Things aren't always
What they appear
The things I've always looked for

Once long ago before we met
I thought I could
Single-handedly make the
Spinning world go away
Just like some king
from back in those bygone days
But I was wrong
I don't belong
Inside this category

Seemed to be
At the time to me
To my advantage
Missing why
Not knowing
When to try
To start believing
In my
Very own
Self
Determination

Sometimes at night
When I'm alone
The solitude
And the quiet can bring out
All the worst in my head
But now it seems that isn't to big or bad
I've learned a thing
Or maybe two
And just ahead
There's
Always
You

ALWAYS YOU
(instrumental version from PUT A FINGER ON IT & WINE)
©2006 Raymond M. Jozwiak



What do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html

 
Also download your
very own copy of
AMBIENCE & WINE
by Ray Jozwiak

Please visit
http://www.rayjozwiak.com

Tweet

Underappreciated. . .

 . . . undervalued . . .

(from Wikipedia.com)
John Gilmore (September 28 or October 29, 1931 in Summit, Mississippi – August 19 or August 20, 1995 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States) grew up in Chicago and played clarinet from the age of 14. He took up the tenor saxophone while serving in the United States Air Force from 1948–1952, then pursued a musical career, playing briefly with pianist Earl Hines before encountering Sun Ra in 1953.

For the next four decades, Gilmore recorded and performed almost exclusively with Sun Ra. This was puzzling to some, who noted Gilmore's talent, and thought he could be a major star like John Coltrane or Sonny Rollins. Coltrane, in fact, was impressed with Gilmore's playing, and took informal lessons from him in the late 1950s. Coltrane's epochal, proto-free jazz "Chasin' the Trane" was inspired partly by Gilmore's sound.

In 1957 he co-led with Clifford Jordan a Blue Note date that is regarded as a hard bop classic: Blowing In from Chicago. Horace Silver, Curly Russell, and Art Blakey provided the rhythm section. In the mid-1960s Gilmore toured with the Jazz Messengers and he participated in recording sessions with Paul Bley, Andrew Hill (Andrew! and Compulsion), Pete La Roca (Turkish Women at the Bath), McCoy Tyner (Today and Tomorrow) and a handful of others. In 1970 he co-led a recording with Jamaican trumpeter Dizzy Reece. His main focus throughout, however, remained with the Sun Ra Arkestra.

Gilmore's devotion to Sun Ra was due, in part, to the latter's use of harmony, which Gilmore considered both unique and a logical extension of bebop. Gilmore had stated that Sun Ra was "more stretched out than Monk" and that "I'm not gonna run across anybody who's moving as fast as Sun Ra ... So I just stay where I am."

Gilmore himself made a huge contribution to Sun Ra's recordings and was the Arkestra's leading sideman, being given solos on almost every track on which he appeared. In the Rough Guide to Jazz critic Brian Priestley says:

    Gilmore is known for two rather different styles of tenor playing. On performances of a straight ahead post-bop character (which include many of those with Sun Ra), he runs the changes with a fluency and tone halfway between Johnny Griffin and Wardell Gray, and with a rhythmic and motivic approach which he claims influenced Coltrane. On more abstract material, he is capable of long passages based exclusively on high-register squeals. Especially when heard live, Gilmore was one of the few musicians who carried sufficient conviction to encompass both approaches."

Many fans of jazz saxophone consider him to be among the greatest ever, his fame shrouded in the relative anonymity of being a member of Sun Ra's Arkestra. His "straight ahead post-bop" talents are exemplified in his solo on the Arkestra's rendition of "Blue Lou," as seen on Mystery, Mr. Ra.

After Sun Ra's 1993 death, Gilmore led Ra's "Arkestra" for a few years before his own death from emphysema. Marshall Allen then took over Arkestra leadership.

What do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html

 
Also download your
very own copy of
AMBIENCE & WINE
by Ray Jozwiak

Please visit
http://www.rayjozwiak.com

Tweet

Unusual . . .

 . . . to be stuck like this?

Maybe not.

Ever feel this way when you've been asked to do something that you really have no business doing, you know it may not be the best thing to do and you know that it will not promote peace and harmony, which you like best?  Furthermore, the person doing the asking, is one that you hold in high esteem and one whose relationship you value immensely.

Uncomfortable?  Unnecessary? Undesirable?  Maybe. But not unusual.

What do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html

 
Also download your
very own copy of
AMBIENCE & WINE
by Ray Jozwiak

Please visit
http://www.rayjozwiak.com

Tweet

Put your money . . .

. . . where your mouth is . . .

(from Wikipedia.com)
". . . The Social Gospel movement is a Protestant Christian intellectual movement that was most prominent in the early 20th century United States and Canada. The movement applied Christian ethics to social problems, especially issues of social justice such as excessive wealth, poverty, alcoholism, crime, racial tensions, slums, bad hygiene, child labor, inadequate labor unions, poor schools, and the danger of war. Theologically, the Social Gospellers sought to operationalize the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:10): "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." They typically were post-millennialist; that is, they believed the Second Coming could not happen until humankind rid itself of social evils by human effort. Social Gospel leaders were predominantly associated with the liberal wing of the Progressive Movement and most were theologically liberal, although they were typically conservative when it came to their views on social issues. Important leaders include Richard T. Ely,Josiah Strong, Washington Gladden, and Walter Rauschenbusch.

Although most scholars agree that the Social Gospel movement peaked in the early 20th century, there is disagreement over when the movement began to decline, with some asserting that the destruction and trauma caused by World War I left many disillusioned with the Social Gospel's ideals while others argue that World War I actually stimulated the Social Gospelers' reform efforts. Theories regarding the decline of the Social Gospel after World War I often cite the rise of neo-orthodoxy as a contributing factor in the movement's decline. Many of the Social Gospel's ideas reappeared in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. "Social Gospel" principles continue to inspire newer movements such as Christians Against Poverty. . . "

It's time for some of these ideas to reappear. . . again!

What do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html

 
Also download your
very own copy of
AMBIENCE & WINE
by Ray Jozwiak

Please visit
http://www.rayjozwiak.com

Tweet

And sang these words with a rumbling sound . . .

. . . Chippetty Flip; Flippetty Chip;-
My only name is the Scroobious Pip

 (from http://www.nonsenselit.org/Lear/pw/pip.html and Wikipedia.com)
dan le sac Vs Scroobius Pip are a hip-hop duo, combining electronic beats with sung, spoken, and rapped lyrics. The pair are Daniel Stephens (aka dan le sac; production, programming, keyboards, guitars and backing vocals), and David Peter Meads (1981-) (aka Scroobius Pip; vocals/rapper). The name "Scroobius Pip" is an intentional misspelling of the Edward Lear poem, The Scroobious Pip. dan le sac originally hails from Corringham and Scroobius Pip from neighbouring Stanford-le-Hope in Essex. Their first single was "Thou Shalt Always Kill". Signed with the Sunday Best record label, dan le sac Vs Scroobius Pip released their debut album in 2008 Titled Angles, it reached 31 in the UK album chart. They released their second album entitled The Logic of Chance on 15 March 2010 on the Sunday Best label. Scroobius Pip released his debut solo album, Distraction Pieces on 19 September 2011.

What do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html

 
Also download your
very own copy of
AMBIENCE & WINE
by Ray Jozwiak

Please visit
http://www.rayjozwiak.com

Tweet

Objective . . .

. . . ???  Not quite.  Take your pick. . .

 1.  It is a depressing thing that in this day and age the police allow trash like this to think it is alright to threaten officers, throw things, knock down barricades, refuse lawful orders, etc.  There is only one way to put a stop to this kind of lawlessness and that is with a stern warning followed by force, deadly if necessary.  Then the message may get through. No you are not allowed to riot, destroy property and incite riots. The ringleaders of this kind of thing need to do serious jail time.

2.  After the veterans spoke and descended the stage, protesters milled about for a bit, trying to figure out their next move. That's when CPD suddenly accelerated aggressively. Initially, no order for dispersal was given, when suddenly police arrived in what can only be described as souped-up riot gear that gave the officers the appearance of Storm Troopers. CPD appeared ready for a violent confrontation with protesters, which of course became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Police attacked protesters, clubbing them across their heads with billy clubs, and generally shoving activists around. At least two protesters were badly injured. "Just saw protesters gushing blood from head," independent journalist John Knefel tweeted, "Photog witnessed it, called it terrifying."

3.  I look forward to reviewing their video evidence, because what I've seen and what my media colleagues on the front lines are reporting is that protesters were given considerable latitude to express their views in rallies and marches, then fought back when police tried slowly to move them back to try to disperse the crowd. It looked like every third person in the crowd was shooting video, so we ought to have ample evidence from multiple angles if officers engaged in unprovoked attacks.  And some may have. YouTube links welcome.

4.  Most protesters have left the area, while a small number have been detained. Police in riot gear have corralled the protesters in an intersection about a half-mile from the lakefront convention center where President Barack Obama is hosting a gathering of world leaders. There are now many more police officers on the scene than protesters. The confrontation began when some protesters dressed all in black are trying to move east toward McCormick Place. Some were throwing water bottles at police, and some officers responding by hitting protesters with batons.

What do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html

 
Also download your
very own copy of
AMBIENCE & WINE
by Ray Jozwiak

Please visit
http://www.rayjozwiak.com

Tweet