?PURGATORY~g(CAT!FISH)d~DIALOGUE? : September 2014

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

DID HE SMILE HIS WORK TO SEE: IN RESPONSE TO YOUR NOTE :DID HE WHO MADE THE LAMB MAKE THEE

Subject:	In response to your note
From:	Beth LaRocca-Pitts (bethlp@stmarkumc.org)
To:	jeaverydvm87@att.net;
Cc:
Bcc:
Date:	Monday, September 29, 2014 3:01 PM

Hi James.

In response to your note here is my remembrance in writing of are the things I said when we talked on the phone:

"BACK UP! BACK UP! BACK UP!

YOU SAID

'SEEK HELP FOR MY CRYSTAL METHS ADDICTION!'

DON'T YOU OFFER IT THERE?"

~(Simply Jim)~

"Yes! We do have GROUPS that meet "such and such dates" here at St. Mark!"

~(Rev. Dr. Beth)~

"But I'm...NOT...anonymous."

~(Simply Jim)~

"NEITHER...ARE...THEY...REALLY!"

~(Rev. Dr. Beth)~

1. I referred you to the Crystal Meths Support group here at Saint Mark UMC which meets Tuesday evening at 7pm and Saturday morning at 10pm.

"Hello."

~(Simply Jim)~

"This is Rev. Dr. Beth from St. Mark. Deanna said you requested I call you."

~(Rev. Dr. Beth)~

"I did give her my phone number when she requested it; but I was actually expecting an email. But this is okay. Just be aware I have a hearing impairment and don't do as well over the phone."

~(Simply Jim)~

"I'm sorry, but I won't be able to help you."

~(Rev. Dr. Beth)~

"Yes you can help me. You are just choosing not to help me.

That's 'LOVE STRONGER THAN JUSTICE'."

~(Simply Jim)~

2. I declined your request to meet with me and two witnesses from the congregation to discuss your issues.

This is the point where she goes on

"VAGINA MONOLOGUE RANT".

Everything she threw at me over the phone, from this point on, were all information I volunteered with Deanna their business manager and Rev. Jennifer in person the day before; having stopped by with hard copies of emails weren't sure Beth receiving or ignoring.

Deanna even laughed when I told her she was the neck of this church, a five headed hydra. Deanna even told me, when asked, her loyalties were to the members of this church instead of Methodist organization overall;

maybe it was the homeless considering the way she answered.

They were being fed as me, Deanna, and briefly toward the end, even Rev. Jennifer joining in our conversation.

"Right now I need a support group waiting for we when coming off the crystal meths. Just pretend you are my sister, aunt, niece, whatever! I'm not saying you have to like me. Fake it if you have to. I'll understand. As many as I can find. I'll take anything at this point. But I'm still radical atheist."

~(Simply Jim)~

Deanna was fine.

"Just call it negative theology."

~(Simply Jim)~

Then turning to Rev. Jennifer,

"Did you know that minus flesh equals..."

~(Simply Jim)~

But the second I started talking about my understanding of the bible; Rev. Jennifer abruptly cuts me off with an excuse, I didn't hear, and leaves.

"Did you see how nervous she just became and fled?

They...ALL...do...THAT!"

~(Simply Jim)~

"(trying to contain a laugh as she smiles while slightly looking over my shoulder in the directions Jennifer flees)"

~(Deanna the Neck of St. Mark Five Headed Hydra)~

I had every intention Rev. Jennifer hearing this. I'm just assuming she stopped and turned around in disbelief.

And the smile she returned as I walked by her on my way out, as she was talking with one of the homeless, looked forced.

3. I stated that my reason for declining was that I believed a mental health professional or drug counselor would be better trained and equipped to give you the support you need. I did not feel my expertise as a local pastor would be particularly helpful.

"I'm going to hang up now."

~(Rev. Dr. Beth)~

"Beth...? Beth...? Beth! GOD DAMN IT!"

~(Simply Jim: HOMOPOLAR GOD DAMN IT! HOMOPOLAR!)~

I didn't even get a chance explaining to our Rev. Dr. Beth that Bipolar-ism is a medical misnomer;
that...

the drug she's selling to members of her church is a "learned helplessness" known

Unipolar Depression.

You bet we will be meeting soon.

I hope this is what you asked for. I trust I will see you soon again when you visit Saint Mark.

Beth LaRocca-Pitts

***

The following dialogue, although taking storytelling liberties here, took place out in the parking lot on a Tuesday night after having finally check out a Crystal Meths Anonymous meeting held at St. Marks. It confirmed what I already knew: not the place for an atheist like me who refuses to play into the confirmation bias of "those people of faith".

I can quietly sit out their parts; but not the other way around.
God is heavily ingrained into the 12-step program;
learned helplessness again.

"BA - BA - BA - BA - BANANA!

OHHHH! I DIDN'T NEED TO HEEAAAR THIS!"

~(Simply Jim)~

"Sounds like you are preaching to me. I don't listen to people who preach to me."

~(Member Fine Arts Ministry)~

"OBVIOUSLY NOT...HERE...EITHER!"

~(Simply Jim)~

Out in the parking lot, not only did I get hit on for drugs, sex in exchange for drugs as well; by someone who recognized me from my flag dancing days at the Heretic.

"I didn't come here tonight to help you
with
your drug addiction,"
I said to this vague acquaintance, who remembers me, at same time patting him on his chest once for added emphasis.

"THAT FELT GOOD!
Do it again,"
he says as he expands his chest forwards.

Couldn't believed he actually tried that.

Flag dancers are a loner bunch having the appearance of being an easy prey to others; desperate for attention.

Then I see what looks like another meeting letting out, only this time, better dressed men; recognizing someone from FAITH SEEKER BIBLE STUDY CLASS I had also checked out once. I tried complaining about the phone conversation just recently had with their pastor with this official representing the FINE ARTS MINISTRY of ST. MARKS as we walked from the classroom ,after it was over, to the sanctuary where Sunday Service was about to begin.

"Although not using these words, she practically told me,
'GO FUCK MYSELF,"
I said just before he slipped into the sanctuary itself.

"Oh I didn't need to hear this,"
he says.

"Checking out the Baptist today,"
I responded as I vered off toward those RED DOORS.

"No hurry. Ask around. Ask around."

That certainly caused a change in his demeanor.

It wasn't a threat.
I had already planned on attending the service at Clairmont Hills Baptist Church that morning. My purpose at St. Mark was to check out the Rainbow Class. Was hoping to find a sympathetic ear there since it sounded more oriented to gay issues.

No one seemed to know anything about this Rainbow Class. Joined in on the Faith Seeker class instead that morning.

They were reading Matthew:
Jesus confrontation with his "man-MAL", instead of temptation by the devil, the way I re-conceptualize or re-contextualize the lesson to be learned.

Serve on Fine Arts Work Area

The Fine Arts Ministry of Saint Mark has official representation on the larger Administrative Council and has need of persons to serve in this important and exciting work area. This work area assists with the continuing development of Fine Arts at Saint Mark. If you have interest in providing assistance in this “Think Tank”, or can offer your abilities and expertise in any area of the arts, please let us know

Time Commitment: Meetings are once per month.

Banners and Visual Design Saint Mark is well on its way in the establishment of a resource center for the many images, colors, textures, and artistic possibilities and needs that arise out of our worship and gathering together. Persons with design abilities or technical skills in sewing, crafts or the visual arts are welcome. This group leads the design and creation of banners; the design, creation or set up of the altar for festival services; the creation of graphics for worship folders; cover design for publicity materials. We also have the need to organize or catalog our resources or any other visual applications.

Drama Ministry The opportunities within the drama ministry are almost limitless... a major musical AND non-musicalper year, several small scale presentations during worship, seasonal events and services, all which require dozens of personnel on stage and behind the scenes.Whether you wish to be IN the spotlight, OUT of the spotlight, RUNNING the spotlight, SETTING UP the spotlight,OTHERS ready and look great in the spotlight, CLEANING UP once the spotlight is off, creating PUBLICITY about the spotlight, selling TICKETS for people to come to see the spotlight...if you need some ’drama’ in your life - LET US KNOW!

***

Subject:	Re: In response to your note
From:	James Avery (jeaverydvm87@att.net)
To:	bethlp@stmarkumc.org;
Cc:
Bcc:
Date:	Tuesday, September 30, 2014 11:42 PM

"Did I see you leaving St. Mark one Sunday?"

~Me

"I go every Sunday."

~CUMUnion

"Are you religious?"

~Me

"(weird sort of stammering)"

~CUMUnion

"Well answer this question instead; did you start off Methodist?"

~Me

"Noooooo! CATHOLIC!"

~CUMUnion

"This is strange. I just accused your pastor of being nothing but a "Catholic Fag Hag paid to be Methodist Administer to Congregation 80%...ALMOST...Bye Bye Honey NO MORE SEX and the Kids." This is just weird. Oh well. This is not what we here for tonight anyway. Will let you get back to what we where doing."

~Me

It will do for now.

DID HE SMILE HIS WORK TO SEE~(6!9)~DID HE WHO MADE THE LAMB MAKE THEE

Beth, what about St. Mark would even remain Methodist had they not been able filling it with "faggots"instead? I don't understand that church.

And this was the purpose of meeting wanting with you and two other members first. I'm quite a JELLYFISH having a COLORFUL LANGUAGE.

Please do contact Glenn Memorial UMC and let them know you and Joshua have both been asked by me to join us; however, the sooner I'm able getting this meeting with Josh and Alice is my priority.

I've also dropped off invitations with Clairmont Presbyterian Church Rev. Owen, Clairmont Hills Baptist Church's Rev. Pitts, St. Bartholomew Episcopal Church's The Very Rev. Beverly Elliot, and with Beth Jacob's Synagogue to become interested at least; and hopefully will let me come back with a briefing of this meeting.

If it even happens.

I've been patient, now, for four years.

"He comes. He sleeps. He goes. So the plot thickens."

~(C. S. Lewis)~

On Monday, September 29, 2014 3:01 PM, Beth LaRocca-Pitts <bethlp@stmarkumc.org> wrote:

Hi James.

(note was written on the back/placed on table as Beth was having dinner with new members/ all gay as well as none originally Methodist/Same as Rev. Dr. Beth)

In response to your note here is my remembrance in writing of are the things I said when we talked on the phone:

1. I referred you to the Chrystal Meths Support group here at Saint Mark UMC which meets Tuesday evening at 7pm and Saturday morning at 10pm.

2. I declined your request to meet with me and two witnesses from the congregation to discuss your issues.

I hope this is what you asked for. I trust I will see you soon again when you visit Saint Mark.

Beth LaRocca-Pitts

***

MIKE ROSS GOVERNOR: DEADLINE TONIGHT

Subject:	DEADLINE TONIGHT
From:	Mike Ross (info@mikeross.com)
To:	jeaverydvm87@att.net;
Cc:
Bcc:
Date:	Tuesday, September 30, 2014 11:54 AM

james,

You and I know where we stand. And my opponent and his big money, out-of-state buddies know where they stand.
But there's one group of people who haven't yet put their stake in the ground, and they're the ones we need to reach. They're the 11% of likely Arkansas voters who haven't yet decided who they'll vote for on Election Day.
It's a pretty simple equation: If we raise the $2,223 we need to hit our $10,000 goal by midnight and win over those voters, we'll win on Election Day. If we don't, it's tough to say where that 11% will land.
I'm confident we'll win this race, but first we need your support to carry out our plan.
Click here to rush a $5 contribution to our campaign in these final hours before tonight's fundraising deadline, and help us carry out our victory plan.
Thanks for your support.

Sincerely,

Mike Ross

CONTRIBUTE »

Paid for by Mike Ross for Governor

Mike Ross for Governor
P.O. Box 22300
Little Rock, AR 72221

MIKE ROSS GOVERNOR: Look Where We Stand

Subject:	IMAGE: Look where we stand.
From:	Mike Ross (info@mikeross.com)
To:	jeaverydvm87@att.net;
Cc:
Bcc:
Date:	Monday, September 29, 2014 4:55 PM

Paid for by Mike Ross for Governor

Mike Ross for Governor
P.O. Box 22300
Little Rock, AR 72221

Indian Removal Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indian Removal Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: The Indian Removal Act was a law passed by Congress on May 28, 1830, during the presidency of Andrew Jackson. It authorized the president to negotiate with Indian tribes in the Southern United States for their removal to federal territory west of the Mississippi River in exchange for their homelands.[1][2][3]

The act was strongly supported by non-native people of the South, who were eager to gain access to lands inhabited by the Five Civilized Tribes. Christian missionaries, most notably Jeremiah Evarts, protested against its passage.

The "Five Civilized Tribes," made up of the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee-Creek, Seminole, and original Cherokee Nations, had been established as autonomous nations in the southeastern United States. The acculturation proposed by George Washington was well under way among the Cherokee and Choctaw.

***

ACCULTURATION

Acculturation explains the process of cultural change and psychological change that results following meeting between cultures.^[1] The effects of acculturation can be seen at multiple levels in both interacting cultures. At the group level, acculturation often results in changes to culture, customs, and social institutions. Noticeable group level effects of acculturation often include changes in food, clothing, and language. At the individual level, differences in the way individuals acculturate have been shown to be associated not just with changes in daily behavior, but with numerous measures of psychological and physical well-being. As enculturation is used to describe the process of first-culture learning, acculturation can be thought of as second-culture learning.
The concept of acculturation has been studied scientifically since 1918.^[2] As it has been approached at different times from the fields of psychology, anthropology, and sociology, numerous theories and definitions have emerged to describe elements of the acculturative process. Despite definitions and evidence that acculturation entails a two-way process of change, research and theory have primarily focused on the adjustments and adaptations made by minorities such as immigrants, refugees, and indigenous peoples in response to their contact with the dominant majority. Contemporary research has primarily focused on different strategies of acculturation and how variations in acculturation affect how well individuals adapt to their society.

The earliest recorded thoughts towards acculturation can be found in Sumerian inscriptions from 2370 B.C. These inscriptions laid out rules for commerce and interaction with foreigners designed to limit acculturation and protect traditional cultural practices.^[3] Plato also said that acculturation should be avoided, as he thought it would lead to social disorder. Accordingly, he proposed that no one should travel abroad until they are at least 40 years of age, and that travellers should be restricted to the ports of cities to minimize contact with native citizens.^[2] Nevertheless, the history of Western civilization, and in particular the histories of Europe and the United States, are largely defined by patterns of acculturation.

J.W. Powell is credited with coining the word "acculturation" in 1880,^[4] defining it as "the psychological changes induced by cross-cultural imitation". The first psychological theory of acculturation was proposed in W.I. Thomas and Florian Znaniecki's 1918 study, "The Polish Peasant in Europe and America". From studying Polish immigrants in Chicago, they illustrated three forms of acculturation corresponding to three personality types: Bohemian (adopting the host culture and abandoning their culture of origin), Philistine (failing to adopt the host culture but preserving their culture of origin), and creative-type (able to adapt to the host culture while preserving their culture of origin).^[5] In 1936, Redfield, Linton, and Herskovits provided the first widely used definition of acculturation as:
Those phenomena which result when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact, with subsequent changes in the original cultural patterns of either or both groups...under this definition acculturation is to be distinguished from...assimilation, which is at times a phase of acculturation.^[6]Before efforts at racial and cultural integration in the United States, the main thrust was assimilation.

No matter how unjust or cruel, Gudykunst and Kim (2003) argue that the host way of thinking, feeling, and behaving constitutes the "higher level" of psychic evolution and any resistance to pressure to conform, to disintegration on the part of a minority person indicates that the immigrant is communicatively incompetent, immature (p. 381), mentally ill (pp. 365, 372-373, 376), weak (p. 369), irrationally aggressive or hostile (pp. 371, 376), lacking in self-control (p. 369), cynical (p. 380), pessimistic (p. 369), closed-minded (p. 369), simple minded (pp. 382–383) and "ethnocentric" (pp. 376, 382, . Evolutionary progress for the individual requires the individual to "abandon identification with the cultural patterns that have constituted who one is and what one is" (p. 377). These patterns are not just behavioral but "appropriate" ways of thinking as defined by the majority mainstream reality.

In contradistinction from Gudykunst and Kim's version of adaptive evolution, Eric M. Kramer, in his theory of Cultural Fusion (2011,^[9] 2010,^[10] 2000a,^[11] 1997a,^[10]^[12] 2000a,^[11]^[13] 2011,^[14] 2012^[15]) maintains clear conceptual separation between assimilation, adaptation, and integration. Only assimilation involves conformity to a pre-existing form. Kramer's (2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2003, 2009, 2011) theory of Cultural Fusion, which is based on systems theory and hermeneutics, argues that first it is impossible for a person to unlearn themselves and second that "growth" is, by definition, not a zero sum process that requires the disillusion of one form for another to come into being but rather a process of learning new languages and cultural repertoires (ways of thinking, cooking, playing, working worshiping, and so forth). One need not unlearn a language in order to learn a new one. Nor does one have to unlearn who one is in order to learn new ways of dancing, cooking, talking and so forth. Cognitive complexity involves the ability to code switch between repertoires, not a zero growth, zero-sum process as Gudykunst and Kim claim (2003, p 383). Learning is growth, not unlearning.

Gudykunst and Kim defined intercultural adaptation as an "upward-forward" progress of "acculturation that brings about change in strangers in the direction of assimilation, the highest degree of adaptation theoretically conceivable. It is the process by which strangers resocialized into a new culture so as to attain an increasing functional fitness...complete adaptation is a lifetime goal."

Gudykunst and Kim postulated a utopian or ideal type person they call an "intercultural person" or a "universal person" with "transcultural identity".^[25] They argue that this new ideal type of person and society can and should be engineered by all means available, including using the mass media and primary schools to manufacture them "by design".^[26] They argue that this not only moral but will be a "special privilege"^[27] for those so "trained".^[28] The same social institutions should be used for the "resocialization and acculturation"^[28] of unfit persons by means of the disintegration and reintegration of their psyches in line with the "conformity pressure" of the dominant mainstream culture. In this way they may achieve a higher level of "evolution",^[29] "competence",^[30] "operational ability",^[31] "functional fit",^[32] and "productivity".^[33] According to Gudykunst and Kim, any resistance to conformity or any lack of enthusiasm for disintegrating and unlearning one's original self on the part of the immigrant suggests that they are "mentally ill",^[34] "hostile" and irrationally "aggressive",^[35] weak,^[36] lacking in "self-control"^[36] and "maturity",^[37] "self-deceived," "unrealistic," deluded,^[38] and simply "maladjusted" and failing to "perceive the world and himself correctly".

They claim that in order to achieve functional fit and communication, the immigrant must "unlearn" and "deculturize"^[40] themselves and avoid "ethnic communication activities".^[41] Since these negative traits are defined as "personality predispositions"^[41] or "adaptive predisposition",^[42] they could, as Galton and Pearson proposed, be bred out of the human population. For instance, according to the DAD theory, religious identity for a predominantly idolic person, is not perceived by them as arbitrary, or even questionable. By comparison, a predominantly symbolic person may be able to convert from one religion to another, but such a change in identity has very profound emotional consequences. For a signalic person, where everything is arbitrary, changing religion is like shopping: it is a matter of personal choice and convenience. Acculturation thus varies from person to person depending on what worldview they manifest.

***

(Indian Removal Act cont.)

Thomas Jefferson's policy had been to respect the Native Americans' rights to their homelands, allowing all Native Americans who had adopted Anglo-European behavior to remain east of the Mississippi. He planned to guide them towards practicing an agriculture-based society. However, Andrew Jackson sought to renew a policy of political and military action for the removal of the Native Americans from these lands and worked toward enacting a law for Indian removal.

In the 1823 case of Johnson v. M'Intosh, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision which stated that Indians could occupy lands within the United States, but could not hold title to those lands.^[7] Jackson, as was common before the American Civil War, viewed the union as a federation of sovereign states. He opposed Washington’s policy of establishing treaties with Indian tribes as if they were foreign nations. Thus, the creation of Indian jurisdictions was a violation of state sovereignty under Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution.

As Jackson saw it, either Indians comprised sovereign states (which violated the Constitution) or they are subject to the laws of existing states of the Union. Jackson urged Indians to assimilate and obey state laws. Further, he believed he could only accommodate the desire for Indian self-rule in federal territories. That required resettlement west of the Mississippi River on federal lands.^[8]^[9]

The Removal Act was strongly supported by non-native people in the South, who were eager to gain access to lands inhabited by the Five Civilized Tribes. In particular, Georgia, the largest state at that time, was involved in a contentious jurisdictional dispute with the Cherokees. President Jackson hoped removal would resolve the Georgia crisis.^[10]

The Indian Removal Act was controversial. While many European Americans during this time favored its passage, there was significant opposition. Many Christian missionaries, most notably missionary organizer Jeremiah Evarts, protested against passage of the Act. In Congress, New Jersey Senator Theodore Frelinghuysen and Congressman Davy Crockett of Tennessee spoke out against the legislation. The Removal Act passed after bitter debate in Congress.^[11]

Jackson viewed the demise of Indian tribal nations as inevitable, pointing to the advancement of settled life and demise of tribal nations in the American northeast. He called his northern critics hypocrites, given the north’s history; Indian tribes were driven to extinction, Indian hunting grounds replaced with family farms, and state law replaced tribal law. If the Indians of the south were to survive and their culture maintained, they faced powerful historical forces that could only be postponed. He dismissed romantic portrayals of lost Indian culture as a sentimental longing for a simpler time in the past—progress requires moving forward.^[12]

Humanity has often wept over the fate of the aborigines of this country and philanthropy has long been busily employed in devising means to avert it, but its progress has never for a moment been arrested, and one by one have many powerful tribes disappeared from the earth. … But true philanthropy reconciles the mind to these vicissitudes as it does to the extinction of one generation to make room for another … Philanthropy could not wish to see this continent restored to the condition in which it was found by our forefathers. What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms, embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute, occupied by more than 12,000,000 happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion?^[13]^[14]

Jackson, according to historian H. W. Brands, sincerely believed his population transfer was a “wise and humane policy” that would save the Indians from “utter annihilation.” Brand writes that given the “racist realities of the time, Jackson was almost certainly correct in contending that for the Cherokees to remain in Georgia risked their extinction.” Jackson portrayed his paternalism and federal support as a generous act of mercy.^[12]

On April 24, 1830, the Senate passed the Indian Removal Act by a vote of 28 to 19.^[15] On May 26, 1830, the House of Representatives passed the Indian Removal Act by a vote of 101 to 97.^[16] On May 28, 1830, the Indian Removal Act was signed into law by President Andrew Jackson.

***