Outcasts of Today

'He shall dwell apart, making his abode outside of the camp.' They would be outcasts, prohibited from the security and protection of the community.
The command is from the reading in the Christian liturgy for the last Sunday before Lent. The book of Leviticus is proscribing treatment for the Israeli man or woman afflicted with the dreaded disease of Leprosy, a scourge of humanity well into the last century. Only recently- within the last seventy years- have we understood the anti-bacterial protection offered by hand washing and developed medication for those afflicted with Leprosy, thereby making the exile of the infected unnecessary. In Biblical days, the infected individual was required to constantly cry, 'Unclean' in order to announce the danger of touching him or her to others; a practice we now decry as barbaric and cruel.
No longer do we need to exile the outsider due to disease or illness with our 21st century knowledge and medical systems, right?
Only three months ago, we witnessed the fallacy of that statement. One man returning home to Dallas who lied about his travel to Liberia was the catalyst for a short term panic. Had the number of Ebola cases continued to increase one could see easily the panic escalating to hysteria followed by easily imaginable consequences like isolation and exile. But that's Ebola... justifiable due to terrifying risk of contagion and then of death, right?
It was Sunday morning and I was writing, working to complete my second novel when I heard my husband approach from the several mile walk he takes along the beautiful Oceano coast where we've been staying through the winter.
"Is it OK to bring in my friend Umberto?" John was talking about a homeless man he has met, a schizophrenic veteran who lives under the bridge.
I stared at him, mouth agape, realizing he was going to bring the man in here... to our RV, the RV I work so hard to keep clean. I looked at the stack of prayer books for the Divine Office I had been praying earlier, before dawn and nodded, wordlessly.
"Beautiful roses, a belated Happy Valentine's day to you," Umberto said as he sat on the leather chair where I just had been sitting, writing on my laptop.
Hastily grabbing the laptop just as he was about to sit on it, I smiled at Umberto, shook his hand, and thanked him for the good wishes and asked if he'd like a cup of coffee; working hard to ignore the pungent odor surrounding him and to stop wondering when the hand I had just shaken had last been washed.
"I prefer to drink rather than eat," he replied to our offer of something to eat but did accept the deviled eggs I had made the night before and graciously accepting the beer John offered him. Umberto agreed that yes, a glass would be nice for the beer and a fork too would be very nice to eat his egg.
My husband, a retired psychologist, worked for over twenty years with former combat veterans. His respect and affection for these men is profound; at times like yesterday morning, he shows me what real hospitality looks like.
Lin Wilder, DrPH is a former Hospital Director. She now writes full-time.
Her web site is http://www.linwilder.com. Lin suggests that you check her recently published novel at Amazon http://www.amazon.com/The-Fragrance-Shed-Violet-Wilder/dp/1630632619
Contact Lin at lin@linwilder.com

Who Makes the Better Father?

A few months ago, I caught part of a talk radio show. The woman being interviewed had just written something (either an article or a book, I'm still not sure) that celebrated men.
It may have gone unnoticed by the general public but the vast repository of articles written about men the last few decades have been decidedly derogatory in nature. Simply put, men possess few qualities that modern society admires.
The author - I never did catch her name - probably decided that writing something positive about men would let her stand out among current writers. The woman was discussing a few qualities that she admired about men and how much men meant to our society, when the male host asked two revealing questions.
The host lamented the absence of so many fathers in our society before asking something like, "Do men still have something to contribute to the family?"
Without pausing, the author enthusiastically replied, "Absolutely!"
The host continued, "Do you believe that all things being equal, having both a father and a mother is better for the children than having two parents of the same-sex?"
Without pausing, the author eagerly asserted that, yes, having heterosexual parents would be preferable.
There was a commercial break, and when the show continued the author interrupted the host to announce that her last answer had been mistaken. She explained that all things being equal, having a mother and a father was in no way preferable for the children than having two mothers. The interview continued for a few minutes before I either turned it off or it ended.
The first point I wish to make is that I believe her initial, instinctive answer to the second question is what she really believed. Deep down she probably did believe that all things being equal it would be more beneficial for children to have two parents of different sexes than two parents of the same-sex. But considering the social climate that we live in today, the author must have quickly decided to change her answer so that she would not be accused of homophobia. This is purely speculative on my part, of course, and only she knows the truth.
The second interesting point is that the author claimed to be championing men's importance in society and the family. Yet, in what is arguably the most significant responsibility in our society - child rearing - she felt that a father could offer nothing to the family that could not be replicated by a second mother. Consequently, even in a role that is uniquely male - fatherhood - she believes that another woman could easily fill that role and do it just as well.
But what then does she really believe is so great about men? If a woman can fill the role of fatherhood as well as a man, what good are men in relation to the family unit? Her argument was that men have a very important role to play in the family - unless another woman was available. Which means, of course, that there is nothing uniquely male to contribute to the family and she just contradicted her previous answer.
There is also a third aspect of this that I find interesting. Without knowing much about the author's socio-political views, I would wager that she is a strong advocate of cultural diversity. Diversity is our greatest strength, we are told by society - politicians foremost.
Our society has decided that diversity improves everything. Corporations, religious institutions, personal associations, political parties, youth organizations, community service groups, news and entertainment, and even the armed forces, are all enhanced when they diversify by sex, race, ethnicity, and even religious affiliation.
I'm sure the author would agree on diversity's importance in our society. Except, as she stated, when it comes to parenting. Parenting need not embrace diversity by having a male and a female parent. When it comes to parenthood, the current politically correct acceptance of homosexuality supersedes diversity.
Men then offer nothing to the family. At least nothing that is uniquely male - not even as a proper male role model. He can offer no advice, no personal experience, no wisdom, and no discipline to either a son or a daughter that could not be easily replicated by a woman. That would be the logical conclusion of one of the few female authors that celebrates men.
I invite you to visit my website, The Soup of Life. Each week I add another column where I give my thoughts on culture, politics, religion, health, science, and life.
Pondering the questions and possibilities of life continues to be my lifelong passion. And, I am never done learning. I am looking forward to your thoughts and comments.
For more insightful articles, please visit my website at http://www.thesoupoflife.com
Subscribe to receive email notification of my latest article at http://www.thesoupoflife.com/subscribe/