| SouthBear's World |
 |
| SouthBear's Autobiography This is the detailed version of my life. Interested? Then grab a cup of coffee and enjoy! (Click on the cross to enter) |
 |
| For those of you who have lives, here's the basics. I know that even this may be too much information, but it's easily scanned. So, here's my life on the table: |
| Physical Statistics |
| Birthdate: 15 June 1964 |
| Birthplace: Ellisville, Mississippi |
| Height: 5 feet. 10 inches |
| Weight: It's a secret. I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. |
| Hair Color: Brown, but nature and age are exacting their tolls on that. |
| Personality Typology |
| Myers Briggs: INFJ, which means I'm a Counselor Idealist. |
| Brain Lateralization Test: 58% Left Brain Dominant |
| Ethnicity & Nationality |
| Ethnicity: Northern European (English, Scottish, Irish, French, Dutch) |
| Nationality: The United States of America |
| Religion |
| Faith: Christianity |
| Affiliation: The Episcopal Church (USA) |
| Liberal: I believe that God's work of redemption was completed at Golgatha, and that the job for the Church and her members is not to "save" people (they are already saved), but to reconcile people to one another and to God. The mission of the Church is to repair a broken world. Our job is not to use fear to bring the world to God, but to be examples and beacons of the Love that is God. Unfortunately, many Christians use fear and intimidation to accomplish this (study the Protestant doctrine of Dispensationalism - illustrated in the popular Left Behind series of books and moves as proof of this). People will not be saved with threats of eternal damnation, but by the love and grace that comes only from one Source, the selfless sacrifice and example of Jesus Christ. That grace must be accepted freely and without coercion. God would have it no other way. |
| Politics |
| Party Membership: None, but I sympathize with the Democratic Party and any other party that is philisophically anti-Republican |
| Political Philosophy: Moderate (with Liberal to Libertarian tendencies). For an explanation of my political philosophy, see SouthBear's Political Philosophy. |
| Presidential Choice in 2000: Albert Gore |
| Presidential Choice in 2004: John Kerry |
| Stand on Selected Current Social Issues |
| I am Pro-Life with reservations. This doesn't mean I'm anti-choice. I support a woman's right to control her own body, but with that right comes a measure of responsibility. Responsibility implies her right to keep herself from becoming pregnant, either through abstinence or birth control precautions (Abortion is not birth control). She also has the right to expect her sexual partner to cooperate in this responsibility by participating fully in birth control precautions. I support the right of the woman to choose abortion in the case of incest, rape, peril to her own life, or other very extenuating circumstances. Even in these cases, it must be remembered that abortion ultimately is the taking of another human life, and should be considered as the very last option available. For this reason, I am in favor of keeping the legal options for women open even though I know it will be abused by those who wish to be relieved from inconvenient circumstances. In spite of what some Christians claim, scientific and purposeful birth control is the only ethical option in today's world of overpopulation, poverty, and lack of basic human rights. |
| I am fanatically in favour of intense regulation, and the banning of all assault rifles and handguns. I am not anti-hunting, but there are certain types of guns that are not intended to be used in hunting (and have only one purpose, to kill human beings in an efficient manner). In spite of what Americans may think, the security of our civil rights do not rest on the trigger of a gun. The American gun culture is archaic, stupid, and deadly. The pro-gun motto "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is naive. My anti-gun motto is "People with guns kill people!" I am also convinced that the framers of our Constitution did not intend to allow ordinary citizens to have unlimited, uncontrolled access to weapons designed to kill people. They did intend for us to be able to defend ourselves and provide for our families, which was often accomplished at that period in history with a gun as a tool. The homey in the ghetto of Detroit has very few legitmate needs to possess a gun. Homer in Hickory Flat may need a gun for one thing only, to kill dinner. These differences need to be taken into consideration on a case by case basis, but no one should have the unlimited right to possess a gun in today's society by sole right of residence in this country. You think this is extreme? Wait until it is your son, daughter, lover, or friend who is gunned down in cold blood on the streets of his own hometown for no other reason than that the murderer wants money to play poker!! It'll change your perspective! |
| I have an unusually difficult time getting my mind around this issue. To me, it's a no-brainer. We have a group of human embryonic cells floating around in a petrie dish. These cells will never become human beings. On the contrary, they will eventually be discarded because they cannot be sustained for long periods of time outside of a womb, and they cannot be implanted for impregnation without their "owners'" (presumably the parents) consent. Meanwhile, there are a group of people who could potentially benefit from research conducted on these cells to determine if it is possible to create human tissue that could cure them of a wide variety of diseases. So, the issue becomes: discard the embryos without the research and possible medical benefits of using them - OR - use these cells to possibly cure people. What's the problem? One way or the other, these cells will never be anything other than what they are right now, a group of cells floating around in a petrie dish. Life is complicated, but it isn't so complicated that this is a dfficult issue to resolve. In my mind, those who object to using these cells for some tangible benefit to humanity should be held libel for the pain and suffering and eventual deaths of those who would have otherwise been relieved if only more rational minds prevailed. |
| The question that keeps coming to my mind when I try to understand both sides of this issue is this: What is it about gay marriages and relationships that diminish those of heterosexuals? What is it about gay marriages and relationships that will somehow unravel the apparently frail bonds that hold Western society together? I think that the intensity of emotion in this debate is due largely to a general confusion among the American public about the religious elements of marrage and its secular, legal elements. Almost everytime I hear someone offer an opinion on the subject, particularly an opinion against the idea, what I hear are objections based on religious beliefs. However, it must be pointed out that there is a definite difference between what Christians call Holy Matrimony and what the state calls Civil Marriage. They are, in fact, two different things. The question at hand, therefore, becomes two questions: 1.) Should the state allow civil marriages to be entered into between members of the same sex and 2.) should the Church bless those unions when the couple comes forward for such a blessing? The answers to these questions have absolutely no bearing on one another in this country because, supposedly, the state and the church are independent of one another. On the first question, religion and religious belief should play no part whatsoever. This is a purely legal question. Nor is it a constitutional question. With this framework in mind, therefore, it is my opinion that there is no threat whatsoever, either to traditional heterosexual civil unions or to the fabric of Western society, offered by allowing same-sex couples to enjoy the benefits and responsibilities of entering into Civil Unions just as heterosexual couples do. As to the second question (Should the Church bless same-sex civil marriages?), all |
| Birth Control |
| Gun Control |
| Stem Cell Research |
| Same Sex Marriage |
| Links to schools, churches, and other organizations that were important in SouthBear's life (See the detailed autobiography for more details) |
| Schools |
| St. George's Episcopal Day School New Orleans, Louisiana 1970 - 1971 |
| Aurora Gardens Academy (now defunct) New Orleans, Louisiana 1971 - 1973 |
| Airline Park Elementary School Metairie, Louisiana 1973 - 1976 |
| T. H. Harris Middle School Metairie, Louisiana 1976 - 1980 |
| East Jefferson High School Metairie, Louisiana 1980 - 1981 |
| Brother Martin High School New Orleans, Louisiana 1981 - 1982 |
| Robert E. Lee High School Tyler, Texas 1982 - 1983 |
| Universities |
| The University of Southern Mississippi Hattiesburg, Mississippi 1983 - 1985; 1994 - 1997 |
| The University of Mississippi Oxford, Mississippi 1986 - 1988 |
| King's College - University of London London, England 1987 |
| Churches |
| St. John's Episcopal Church Laurel, Mississippi 1964 - 1967; 1983 - 1999 |
| St. George's Episcopal Church New Orleans, Louisiana 1967 - 1971 |
| St. Philip's Episcopal Church New Orleans, Louisiana 1971 - 1973 |
| St. Augustine's Episcopal Church Metairie, Louisiana 1973 - 1982 |
| St. Francis' Episcopal Church Tyler, Texas 1982 - 1983 |
| All Saints Episcopal Church Tupelo, Mississippi 1999 - 2006 |
| St. Andrew's Episcopal Church Birmingham, Alabama 2006 - |
 |
| St. Peter's Episcopal Church Oxford, Mississippi 1986 - 1988 |
 |
 |
| Return to SouthBear's World Portal © 2006 SouthBear Alabama flagpoles: www.fg-a.com This page was created on 28 August 2001 in Tupelo, Mississippi Date of Last Revision: 16 November 2006 in Birmingham, Alabama |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Theological/Spiritual Philosophy |
 |
 |
 |
| of the bibilical arguments notwithstanding, I find it hard to believe that any Christian would have a problem with blessing such a union when the Church routinely blesses just about everything else, most of which have nothing to do with religion and religious faith, including houses, animals, and fishing fleets. In spite of what a few scattered verses of the Bible plucked out of context may have us believe, I do not believe that God frowns on a monogamous, loving relationship between two men or two women. On the contrary, I believe that God delights in any human relationship that exemplifies the love and fidelity that He desires to exist between human beings and between humanity and Himself. I find it unacceptable that Christians claim to be in the business of promoting sexual fidelity and morality while also denying a segment of society from the very institution that is designed to accomplish this goal. Perhaps Christians NEED to keep homosexuals in what they would consider to be a "sinful" state in order to legitimize their own homophobia. That is not acceptable and is very hypocritical. It does nothing to accomplish the command and mission given to us by Christ as the Church. I would hate to be one of these Christians when I stand before Christ to answer for my life. Additionally, I think it is high time that the Church gets out of the business of acting as agents of the state by offering its clergy as officiants at civil marriage ceremonies. (This is exactly what happens when a couple goes to the courthouse to get a marriage license and then takes that unsigned license to the church to have it signed by a priest or minister during the religious ceremony.) This practice has long ceased everywhere else, and goes a long way in perpetuating the confusion and misunderstanding most Americans have about the difference between Holy Matrimony and Civil Marriage, thus encouraging them to have uninformed preconceptions when pondering the issues of same sex marriage. It is time that American society adopts a new model, perhaps based on the European model of the marriage process. Under this model, Civil Marriages would be performed in civil offices such as the Justice of the Peace or some other official. Then, if desired, the new couple would go to the Church to seek the blessing that would seal the union under the bonds of Holy Matrimony. The best illustration of this model was highlighted at the widely publicized marriage of the Prince of Wales to Camilla Parker-Bowles. Even the future King and Supreme Governor of the Church does it this way. The Prince and his bride first went to Windsor Guild Hall (the city hall of the city of Windsor) to be married legally before a municipal official. Then they went immediately to St. George's Chapel on the grounds of Windsor Castle to complete the process and had their union blessed by the Church. And that was considered to be a traditional marriage! |
 |
 |
|
 |