Ending of Angels in America

I find the ending to the play to be very interesting. I have also be watching the tv series and it follows the book but seems to just give you more of the visual effect of what is really happening. I find it interesting how everyone is able to forgive each other but no on forgives Joe for what he did. Louis forgave Prior, and Ethel forgave Roy.  It is like why couldn't Harper forgive Joe? He was final honest with her, and what he did wasn't nearly as bad as what Roy has done his entire life. In the TV version you see Harper give Joe one of her pills. I think maybe Joe finally went off the deep end after realizing he could never find love.

Ending of Angels in America

The end theme of Angels in America is hope. Even though the story doesn't go on and we don’t see what the future holds it ends with the hope that there will be change. This change will not come fast and will not be easy but it will be a change for the better. Prior lives on in his Great Work. The Great Work will change the future. We live now in a world where everything is more excepted and we are living in that future the play talks about. Priors final words are “The world only spins forward. We will be citizens. The time has come. Bye now you are fabulous creature each and everyone. And I bless you: More life, The Great work begins". The ending sums up that the earth will continue to move forward, people will begin to understand, life will move on and change will happen.

My interpretation of Angels ending

I think the reason Kushner excluded Joe from the ending was because he wasn't honest with himself. Throughout the play, Joe struggles to find out who he his and compared to the other characters he remains lost. We see this when he comes out to Hannah and his affair with Louis followed by him going back to Harper and pretending that he wanted to be with her. It's as if he tries to go back in the closet after coming out. I feel that Kushner wanted to sent us a message which is that you must be true to yourself or else there will never be a resolution for you.

KUSHNER'S PLAY

There are a few themes I find recurring in the play and I wonder what the common denominator is...

why is there a cross between religions and lgbtq, sickness and, how reality vs fantastical connect to relationships all together.

Punk Rock Feminist Documentary on Netflix: "The Punk Singer"

Hello class! So, his post isn't about "Fun Home" but I just watched a documentary that is beyond relevant the themes that we have discussed in class and the class assigned literature, especially the evolution of feminism and gender roles in history. It is called "The Punk Singer" and it is available to stream on Netflix. It is about Kathleen Hanna, a punk rocker and feminist activist and it explores her life with emphasis on the evolution of feminism, particularly third wave feminism. It taught me a lot I didn't know about the overlap between rock and feminism. Below is the preview:

Normally I don't watch documentaries but "The Punk Singer" completely changed my mind about them. Normally I wouldn't have picked this movie, but this class has been leading me to explore more feminist works of art that I regularly would not be drawn too. I honestly wasn't into any of this stuff until I took this class, but now my mind is like a hamster running on a wheel, the wheel keeps spinning even after we leave class. Anyway, Kathleen Hanna questions gender roles and patriarchy in the same way that Jeanette Winterson and Alison Bechdel do. She seems more fired up than Alison though, more like Jeanette? Her ideas and thoughts are definitely different. I enjoyed it. Anyway, if anyone chooses to watch the documentary (steaming on Netflix)  feel free to comment your thoughts! Enjoy.

My analysis of Fun Home

Bechdel's novel revolves completely around the themes of gender roles, homosexuality and fatherhood of course. I believe that creating this autobiographical novel, she is connecting all of these themes into one piece to show the actual complication of her childhood itself. She goes back and forth in time during the novel to show how and when she realized everything her life was about and how a lot of things in her life were different than other peoples lives. She didn't understand at the time what was going on and she wanted the reader to understand what she was going through in her own perspective if that makes sense to everyone.

FUN HOME

I was trying figure out back in the first chapter she says "would and ideal husband have sex wit teenage boys." Is she trying to say that her dad was a pedophile or that he was just cheating on her mom with men?

Just a Fun (Home) thing to think about

So Fun Home may be my new favorite book .

The idea of a autobiography focusing on someone other than the main character is so interesting to me. But I was thinking a minute ago. How would Alisons life been if Alison lived with her father......and his lover?

That's right! Let's suppose Alison was born and that her mother divorced her father because of gay early enough in alisons childhood that she didn't ever wonder about her mother but instead lived with an openly gay Bruce? How would her life be different? Would her father have lived longer? I'm curious to hear your opinions so feel free to comment your thoughts!

(Also I just found out Fun Home is being made a musical and I am currently listening to a song from it which you can download here <-------. It's about Alisons love for Joan and it's adorable)

(Edit: I read further and even Alison asks this so now I'm even more curious to know y'all's opinions)

Bechdel's use of maps in Fun Home

Ive noticed a theme of maps in Fun Home, mostly to give evidence that her fathers death was a suicide. I'm just curious if there are other reasons why she would use these maps and map points.

Coming Out Process: more diffcult for those who look straight??

For my paper I wrote about how the coming out process is a lifetime journey as opposed to a one time declaration. This is because LGBTQ+ people have to make the decision of whether to come out or not to each new person they meet.

Does anyone know the popular and feminine looking Great British Bake Off Contestant, Ruby Tandoh? She recently came out on twitter. See Ruby's picture above.

This led Bella Qvist, popular LGBTQ+ blogger and journalist (see picture above) to write an article for The Guardian about how coming out is a lifelong issue that is more diffucult and annoying for those who look straight or "cisgender". She argues this is because people assume they are staight/cis because of how they look, and even upon coming out people don't take their sexuality or gender declaratoin seriously because they don't fit the gay sterotype, brushing it off as a phase or something they are doing for attention. Bella paticularly points out that this happens for femme lesbians such Ruby or herself. Whereas people who "look gay," or a fit a gay sterotype have to come out less because people assume they are gay. 

What do you guys think? Is this true or is it equally difficult for everyone? Is she bias based off her own expierience? You can check out the artcle at a link below. I pulled two quotes below that explain the main idea of her article, if you don't have time to look at the article. Personally, I never thought of this point of view before. Maybe because I come from a part of New York where the LGBTQ+ community is very accepted, but if someone tells me they are gay, whether or not they look straight, I don't question it, I honestly did not know anyone did. On the other hand I do recognize that looking straight can create a circumstance where one has to "come out" more often.

1. Qvist states “Despite broadcasting her LGBT status to 52K followers, this won’t be the only time that Ruby has to spell things out. It shouldn’t matter, but it does. Contrary to popular belief, the act of coming out doesn’t just happen once; us gays come out all the time. Especially if we’re feminine looking gay or bi women like Ruby or me, because society assumes we’re straight.” 

2. “All too often “girly” looking women are quizzed about their sexuality at the doors of gay bars, and femme couples who campaign for femme visibility, are assumed to be sisters or doing it for attention. Really not the case, guys. (And what does that say about our view of women and femininity as a whole?)”

This concept can be applied to groups other than femme lesbians, such as to gay men who are masculine, asexuals who dress provocatively for fashion or other reasons, transgenders who don’t fit stereotypes, ect.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/03/ruby-tandoh-came-out-lesbians-bi

My ideas of Oranges are Not the Only Fruit by chapters:

*Writing my first post on the book we just finished reading* Part 1

Chapter One -
We meet Janette and her mother and we see that they have a extremely close relationship that she does not have with her dad (we barley see him in the book). There is a lesbian couple the Janette is fond of, but it not allowed to be around. As a reader we see the reason why Janette was adopted: to be missionary child whom she could train to be a servant of God. Her mother made Janette's fate without her even being able to walk yet. The fairy tales relates to Janette and her mother by Janette being the princess that takes over for the hunchback women, her mother.
Her mother want her to change the world, but it seems like she wants her to save it like she is Jesus or something. Her mother is very straight with religion and it seems like Janette is heading down the same path, as she gets older  but it changes when she needs to go to school.

Chapter two -
In the beginning of this chapter Jeanette's mother hears the radio broadcasts an account of the family life of snails and her mother calls it  abomination. Im glad that Janette doesn't agree with her mother, it tells us that she doesn't agree with everything her mother does and agrees its overreacting. Her "overreacting" was not the first time" since her mother had believed her losing her hearing was talking to god. So her mother never took her to the doctor and she went without hearing until Miss.Jewsbury took her.
Pierre was a old flame the Janette's mother thought was love. It was a story where Janette's mother thought she had feeling for a man in France, but turns out she was just sick. That story was support to be a learn for Janette what you like can be love can just be a sickness. I don't think Janette's mother believes in love, I don't think she loves her husband and I think that she believes in getting married, love god while following the bible and have children or in her case raise.
For the picture of the women I think she did have a relationship with a women since there was a picture in "old flames" and to me a women who is against gays would react worse. She would have told Janette to never go in the story owned by lesbians from the beginning and she would never see Janette when she got older. Her mother is probably ok with gay, maybe one of them, but keeps it in because the bible says no.
We see Jeannette at school and she is so smart and most like a adult then the other kids and even her teacher. I hate how everyone brings her down at school for doing so good.

Chapter three-
I find it hilarious that Janette's mother hears the neighbors might be having sex and she goes crazy. It is like a funny skit, it is bad when a person hears sex but even whose when someone reacts to it. It goes becomes weird when all three women sing a hymn for the benefit of next door.
The fairy tale of the prince look for a wife is telling the story of her and her mother. How her mother is trying to make create Janette the creation for the name of god and she is becoming great but not in her eyes similar to the book the prince got, Frankenstein.

oranges and feminism

Women has a strong and central story line in most of the story. But are they truly an image of what a feminist would especially when Jeanette mother conforms to the serotypes her pastor states. For one who tries to embody Jane Ear and the ideals of strong independent women she doesn't even come close caving into men's desires and expectations of her. Jeanette is her own person. She is different. Carrying her self and what being unique truly embodies. Plus she's much more fantastic than her mother.

                   "Feminist theory is the extension of feminism into theoretical or philosophical fields. It encompasses work in a variety of disciplines, including anthropology, sociology, economics, women's studies, literary criticism,art history,psychoanalysis and philosophy.Feminist theory aims to understand gender inequality and focuses on gender politics, power relations, and sexuality. While providing a critique of these social and political relations, much of feminist theory also focuses on the promotion of women's rights and interests. Themes explored in feminist theory include discrimination, stereotyping, objectification (especially sexual objectification), oppression, and patriarchy."



^ that basic feminist theory is from Wikipedia (:

Orange Is The New Black Vs Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit

Throughout reading Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit, I tried to make connections with things in my own life and things I know of. I pulled a connection between Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit and the popular Netflix series "Orange Is The New Black" (which happens to be one of my favorite shows). I know they met not seem related, but both works have an end result of showing, thus normalizing, LGBTQ and female empowerment (passing the Bechdel Test with flying colors). While novels may have been a great way to do this in the 1980's when Orange Are Not The Only Fruit was released, television such as Netflix has now taken popularity and will also play a huge part in molding the modern minds of our people.

1. Both Orange Is The New Black and Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit pass the "The Bechdel Test." As mentioned in class, passing The Bechdel Test requires females in a movie to discuss something with each other other than men. Being that it is set in an all female prison, Orange Is The New Black does this beautifully, and allows us to see the depth or the characters for more than just their relations with men. Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit does have women talking about men, but it is not the main point of the book. I'm really glad that I learned about the Bechdel Rule in this class. I'm a filmmaker, and a feminist. I'm astonished they did not teach us this idea at my old college, New York Film Academy. What we show people as media/content creators is so important because it molds the minds of others. Any projects that I have wrote have tended to pass the Bechdel Test anyway, but being aware of this idea gives me the power to pass it onto others. Hopefully female characters will be created with more depth- as we can show much more interesting things about a women than just her aspirations/relations with the opposite sex.

2. Both of these books broke LGBTQ barriers. Orange Is The New Black, for example, has broken into the laptops of Ameirca (most popular series on Netflix, according to Netflix) and shown us LGBTQ characters with such depth. One of the most interesting examples of this is the transgender character played by Lavern Cox, a real life transgender women, and her struggle of "coming out," going through with the gender change, and fighting to keep her hormone pills while in the all female jail. This show is a dark comedy that appeals to mostly everyone, with tons of feminist conversations and LGBTQ conversations sprinkled in. As I've said before, showing characters like this with depth makes a huge impression on public opinion. In this case it is a positive one. I have developed a certain dislike for filmmakers who use their power to do the opposite though (I don't watch shows/media that show or perpetuate rape culture, which is hard because many things do. I do this with media that perpetuates other things I disagree with as well such as anti semitism). While I was not around in the 1980's I would imagine Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit also broke down barriers with this novel. My parents were teenagers back then and they said being openly gay was harder for people than it is now (especially with the AIDS stigma about gay males). I like the way the book showed that she just felt how she felt as a child/teenager, not knowing that it would be seen as as "wrong." There are so many people who think sexual orientation is a choice. The only choice is whether one chooses to hide it or not, but it is still there. I know I am making modern people sound dumb, but many people have been raised in a bubble. They need to see someone's story of not "choosing" to be gay, just being gay, to understand it.

3. On a third and not as strong point, the relationship that Jeanette has with her mom is somewhat interesting compared to what Piper from Orange Is The New Black has with her mom. Don't get me wrong, Piper is a spoiled upper middle class women, where as Jeanette was poor. But both of their mother's are controlling and stubborn. Both of their mother's disapprove of their daughters sexual orientation, and either are in somewhat denial or are more concerned with how they look in the community. Below is a clip of Piper's mom visiting her in jail, and you can see that she is, as per usual, in a denial of her daughter's situation. There is a strange tension there that I imagine would have been there when Jeanette visited her mother after going away. I have a theory that the more controlling the parent is- the more rebelious the kid will be.

Anyway, I recommend Orange Is The New Black to anyone from class. It is based off of a nonfiction novel about a women named Piper, a successful, straight, and waspy suburban lady who was sent to a Women's Prison for a 10 year old drug charge that she committed as a young adult with her then lesbian lover. If anyone else watches it, did you think of it when you were reading the book? Listening to the way Jeanette describes men, I think she see's them all as the George "Pornstache" Mendez character from Orange Is The New Black.

RUTH - The Lesbian in the Bible

a few years ago I'd heard the analysis of Ruth and Naomi's relationship to be of a homosexual nature.
When Winterson mentions this idea as a chapter title, it made me dig a little deeper. not surprisingly, there are quite a few who seem to think the same;
"Ruth's declaration of love for Naomi is not only one of the finest and most profound in the Bible, it is the only speech in scripture that approaches our wedding vows. Indeed it goes beyond them, exceeding the promise of "till death do us part". And it brings Naomi back to life. Naomi is sunk in bitter grief and despair, but as the story unfolds we witness her resurrection, until at the end the women of Bethlehem celebrate her and Ruth as a couple, and declare of the child born to Ruth and Boaz: "A son has been born to Naomi", as if Naomi is the father and the husband." (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/oct/14/religion.gayrights )

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/03/truth-of-coming-out/

Sexuality, self, and the world around us

While reading Oranges are Not the Only Fruit, I found myself becoming more timid and less able to participate in class. I have been trying to figure out what has happened to me! I think this novel is unlike any I have read before and when I thought, "I get it" there turned out to be connections I missed and certain, very meaningful, things have gone unseen and unexplored. Before reading this novel I didn't eat oranges often but now I eat one just about every day. I look forward to my after-dinner Orange. I've also been trying to think of a way to connect my eating of oranges with Jeanette's but I've had no luck so far. I try to relate to Jeanette and there are not too many commonalities between us. I did find that I can relate to her thought processes. There are moments I read and think, "how could such a young kid think this way?" I can relate to chapter 5, Deuteronomy, because in English 101 class my professor taught us about history and how whether intentional or not it can be manipulative. My communications professor taught me about the importance of storytelling. I have learned what Jeanette is telling us in that chapter but I learned that in my third year of college. Something else that amazes me is that soon after she makes this great comparison between storytelling and history uses a great and simple metaphor: a sandwich. As Professor Estevez points out, this homely metaphor is actually just amazing because one must eat in order to live, and the point is made that ideas and stories are one's daily sustenance as well. 

This novel is all-encompassing. I've always imagined that when I write my first book I will include poems, photos, drawings, stories that seem to come out of the blue-- all things to express my life and my imagination. 

The Coming Out Story is usually the hallmark narrative for people of LGBTQ experience. These stories are usually straightforward and autobiographical but Winterson's is not. She places us in her world, how she sees it, allowing us to really see how she feels about her mother, Jesus, the community, and everything else. Winterson's story gives me an opportunity to reflect on my coming out experience. I come out all the time to new people I meet and I haven't thought much about my coming out to my family because it was a few years ago. Storytelling benefits all readers because it allows them to see more, to gain a different perspective, and to self-reflect. Winterson writes an indirect story and I think that it helps us stop, take a moment and really analyze the words and the situation. We can begin to make sense of sexuality, the self, and the world around us.

I find autobiographical writing to be an important way of discovering and demonstrating one's one gratitude, life-story, and vision of the world. 

In class Professor Estevez spoke about fact and fiction and how they are not desperate and opposite but they are intimately connected. There is no history beyond narrative. History is storytelling. Everything is a version of something and I think Winterson really had a great way of showing that: don't just read this like it's a history book- and also don't read history books as facts. There is no absolute way of knowing what really happened. This is why she wrote a metafiction novel that constantly showed us that it is indeed fictional. This is a look into a characters world, imagination, thoughts, perception. This is for others to gain a different perspective on someone's life and to perhaps look inward and discover new things about themselves. 

Hannah Duffin

Demons - orange? brown?

What was the demon concept meant to explore?
what about her mom's demon? the color differences?
what's brown or orange referenced to?
Is it the fantasy delusion she experienced with her loneliness? confusion of oppression? starvation or the fever hallucinations from her sickness?

oranges

what is the significance of oranges?
why is that the fruit used?

oranges are not the only fruit/tongues untied

 if I may share My thoughts so far...

Having read the book (n not really liking it too much-for all of those interruptions mentioned)
I was doing some research to back up my hypothesis that the tongues language discussed in class and on the blog is a form of trance induced (by/and or ) hypnosis used in a spiritual setting ...  (it would be an interesting analysis having experienced something of the sort myself in my late teens and recently on a retreat in Connecticut - let's discuss some more )

Also,  I was contemplating comparing both authors Michael Warner and Jeanette Winterson ; their devout religious upbringing and the connection between their expression (via language = spoken and written English and or tongues) of their mental and spiritual status. the process of self identification and transitions experienced of an LGBTQ coming out of the closet as compared to leaving religious beliefs/culture and how it comes as a full circle for mental closure.

Just some thoughts...

thoughts on Adrienne Rich, Foucault's and Wolf's reading

thoughts;

1)why was lesbianism not mentioned in past literature as much as male homosexuality?;

“The often outspoken poems and the philosophy of Plato(427-347) have resulted in our expression "Greek principles" to describe male homosexuality. Unfortunately, we know hardly anything about female homosexuality. Of course, this does not mean that it did not exist (cf. the lyrical poetess Sappho), but we simply don't know much about lesbianism. Therefore, in this article, we will have to focus on male homosexuality.” Greek homosexuality http://www.livius.org/ho-hz/homosexuality/homosexuality.html

References to love between women are sparse. Phaedrus attempted to explain lesbianism through a myth of his own making: Prometheus, coming home drunk from a party, had mistakenly exchanged the genitals of some women and some men – "Lust now enjoys perverted pleasure."[4] http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHistory_of_lesbianism%23cite_note-4&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHBGsRFYUEBJksLUsuGv3v1A4P6Yw

2) why were female relationships not forbidden where male relations were? why would that be unheard of?

In another dialogue ascribed to Lucian, two men debate over which is better, male love or heterosexuality. One man protested that if male affairs were legitimized, then lesbianism would soon be condoned as well, an unthinkable notion.[5] http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHistory_of_lesbianism%23cite_note-5&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHegS5jJ8PaT40R2ZpohxIiw7uGwg

5)at which point did it/ homosexuality- lesbianism specifically become a sin?

The canonical New Testament usually mentions homosexuality in only general terms (i.e. mentioning both gays and lesbians) and both are equally convicted.[7] The only specific mention of Lesbianism is Romans 1:26, "For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature" (NKJV). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Romans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_lesbianism

It is quite clear that paiderastia and lesbianism were not held in equally good light, possibly because of the violation of strict gender roles. Seneca the Elder mentions a husband who killed his wife and her female lover and implies that their crime was worse than that of adultery between a male and female. The Babyloniaca of Iamblichus describes an Egyptian princess named Berenice who loves and marries another woman. This novelist also states that such love is "wild and lawless". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_lesbianism

The Rambam (Maimonides) (Rambam Issurei Biya 21: 8) says that to this conduct we apply the verse (Vayikra 18.3) "Do not follow the ways of Egypt where you once lived, nor of Canaan, where I will be bringing you. Do not follow [any] of their customs."

The Semag (Lavin 126, Sefer Mitzvot Hagadol of R. Moshe of Coucy [born 1200]) holds the same view as the Rambam, as well as the Tur (Rabbi Yaacov b' Harosh) on Even Ha'ezer 20.

The quoting of the verse is to say that lesbianism is prohibited by Torah law. [See Otzar Haposkim on Even Ha'ezer 20, which quote many commentators (Levush, Tzofnat Pa'neach, Atzei Arazim) who understand the Rambam's opinion that lesbianism is forbidden by Torah law.] The Rambam, Semag and Tur all quote Chazal in the Sifra- Torat Cohanim on Achrei Mot (this week's Parsha) which brings an example of the "ways"of Egypt that a woman would marry a woman.

Finally, the Shulchan Aruch Even Ha'ezer 20:2 that lesbianism is prohibited based on the verse in the Torah (Vayikra 18.3) "Do not follow the ways of Egypt where you once lived, nor of Canaan, where I will be bringing you." and the other sources mentioned above. The ruling of the Shulchan Aruch is uncontested by any other sources in Jewish law.  http://www.yeshiva.co/ask/?id=4910

http://www.starways.net/odfaq/

It is worth noting that up until this point, there is no indication that nashim hamesollelot is forbidden, even rabbinically. The point at which this changed was the Rambam in Issurei Bi'ah (Laws of Forbidden Relationships) 21:8:

Women who mesollel with one another are violating a prohibition, and it is among the ways of the land of Egypt, which we were prohibited from, as it says: "You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt". And our sages said: "What would they do? A man would take a man, a woman would take a woman, a man would take a woman and her daughter".

Even though this act is forbidden, we do not give Toraitic lashes for it, since there is no verse that forbids it in particular, and there is no bi'ahinvolved in it at all. Therefore, she is not forbidden to marry a Kohen because of zenut, and a woman is not forbidden to her husband if she has done it, becuase there is no zenut involved.

But it is proper to give her rabbinic lashes since she did do something forbidden. And a man should take care to prevent his wife from doing this and to prevent women who are known to do it from visiting her, or her from visiting them.

One of the fascinating things about this source is the difference between what the Rambam writes and what he wrote in his commentary on the Mishnah. In Peirush HaMishnayot L'HaRambam (on Sanhedrin), Chapter 7, he writes:

And likewise that ugly act that occurs among women as well, bringing a woman upon a[nother] woman, it is an act of toeivah ["abomination"]. But there is no punishment for it neither from the Torah nor from the Rabbis, and neither of the two [women] are classified as a zonah, nor are they forbidden to their husbands or to Kohanim.

And this is what the rabbis called "women who mesollel with one another", it [the word] being derived from maslul, which means a paved path.

And although there is no punishment, this act is counted as being among the toeivot of the Egyptians, about which the explanation says: "You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt. What would they do? A man would take a man, a woman would take a woman, and a woman would be taken by two men."

(Maimonides wrote his commentary on the Mishnah in his twenties and didn't finish his Mishneh Torah until he was 42, which may account for the difference in the two sources.)

“The apocryphal Apocalypse of Peter describes the punishment of lesbians and gay men in Hell:[6] ”http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHistory_of_lesbianism%23cite_note-6&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFleDa-f3pLwfIw7bNkouJCYE_FzA

 In the book Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit, Jeanette dedication to her church and her love for god is so surprising in my eyes while reading this story everything she does for her church is incredible. Church groups, teachings etc…But they resent her so much for who she really is. They cant look past something that has nothing to do with them. They take one part of who she is and resent her for it even though it has no effect in there lives. But Jeanette’s love for god and her church stays strong though out the story though all of the resentment and emotional alienation. Even when the church agrees that demons are inside her she is still faithful to her church. When she does decide to leave it seems to be because of the tunnel vision that they all seem to have. Believing that there is only one way to be. I cant imagine how someone could be so dedicated to something that is constantly pushing them away for who they truly are on the inside.

This is a test

test

this is a test

After talking about speaking in tongues in class I became curious on what it was. I typed in to Google “speaking in tongues” I clicked on the first video I saw and was very surprised. It is very odd to see either one person speaking in a unknown language to a group or an entire church all doing so at the same time. People who were involved explained that it is a gift not all people have. And those who do not have it can not understand the power of it or even become close to the holy spirit. As I watched and examined how they spoke in tongues I began to realize what they all say is different. Also when they are deeply expressing there emotions though tongues each one is circling around similar phrases or sentences. They are saying and repeating themselves as if they cant think of anything else random to start saying next. The people involved say they sound different from one another because it is personal between them and god. I don’t know how I feel about speaking in tongues initially I found it extremely odd but I still do not understand what exactly it is or the goal and purpose.
Thought I should share some feeling about our discussion in class thanks for reading - Adam

Speaking in tongues/ Homosexuality and religion

As I mentioned in class about how my teacher in 8th grade prayed and started speaking in a weird language is exactly what happened in the video shared by Professor Estevez so I really did witness some one speaking in tongues before and in person it can be a very unnerving thing to see. Also as for the other video I Just never understand why certain religions and people take their book (the bible or the Qur'an etc...) so literal and use to excuse certain acts or say certain acts are bad (evil) and that those committing those acts should be punished. which brings me to my point of why I don't understand why some people in the LGBT community who are Christian continue to follow in their religious views even though supposedly those spiritual books say being gay is a sin and hated by they own churches....just something I was thinking about while watching the videos

Made it finally

Test Post

Hey im in

Apparently everyones doing test posts sooooo *jumps onto the bandwagon*

This post has no intellectual backing to it

uhhhhhhh

potatoes am i right

what do you think Marge

Thank you Marge

(ps while looking for this I found a blog dedicated to nothing but Marge Simpson porn.... has the world gone too far?)

Test, I made it ;)

It took a while, but managed.

I'm in

Hi, I finally figured out how to join/post. Stay safe in the snow!

-Aimee

Hi, i'm in.

Test post

Test post

test

I'm in

I'm in!

Hey, I'm in.

I'm now apart of the blog

Test

Test

Hey,I'm in.