I was at the annual PYM Peace Picnic recently and spoke with two WWII veterans (Neil Hartman & Warren Sawyer) – pacifist COs in medical experiments intentionally infected with hepatitis by injection or by drinking fecal water. My friend Russ Tuttle wore lice underwear in typhus tests. These are my heroes…they saved many lives. (more…)
July 19, 2010
February 11, 2010
Backpacking in the Blizzard of 2010
It was a winter wonderland on our backpacking overnight camp in the woods in the middle of the Blizzard of 2010. Beautiful snow. (more…)
February 10, 2010
Demystifying Online Dating (NYTimes 2/13/10)
This article was a Valentine’s Day offering by the NYTimes. Click Comments for my posted responses.
December 2, 2009
The impossible search for “normal” in sexuality.
I contributed the following posts to the discussion that followed Women Who Want to Want – NYTimes.com by Daniel Bergner (November 24, 2009). A mediocre article generated some interesting comments. I feel sorry for some very unhappy, frustrated and confused people out there. Societal pressure is no help and often can make things worse.
My first post:
I am not impressed with the article, which is basically a rehash of the impressions of one clinician in the area who gives no hard data. I am a long-time reader of the NYTimes and am disappointed with the superficiality of its current “science” reporting. The range of human sexuality is enormous and natural. Partners need experience to recognize compatibility and incompatibility (not wishful thinking). Be it necessary as breathing, a finer sense like an exquisite wine, or “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” (some feminists of the ‘60’s) – it’s fine if your partner is on the same page. Surprising number of wives complain their husbands have no sexual desire or understanding, particularly after a few years of marriage. Getting out of shape is often a factor.
My second post:
The breath and range of sexuality is enormous and yet “natural.” As I mentioned in a previous post, it is important that partners are matched in their degree of interest/disinterest and how they go about it. I met the love of my life about a decade ago. It all goes together for us — social activities, intellectual pursuits, intimacies, sex, loving care and concern, family. We work to make it happen, but it doesn’t feel like work. We are prepared to adjust to change, and part of my Quaker vow was to help my wife live her life fully and authentically, where ever it might lead her. We know we are together because we want to be. We’re just back from a post-Thanksgiving camping/hiking trip in the woods, and we had a great time in and out of the tent, with near freezing temperatures and heavy winds. We consider ourselves so fortunate.
My third post:
What’s this about having to “work to stay desirable”? To me, “desirable” means respecting yourself enough to keep your body healthy and fit. In the bedroom, who cares about the latest fashion in clothes? I’m the one who posted #188. We’re not kids. Staying desirable is no work, it’s fun!
January 29, 2009
Journey of a Quaker Marriage (Published in Friends Journal June 2009)
A Quaker wedding may appear to be a relatively simple affair. During a Meeting for Worship for Marriage, a couple publicly declares their love and continuing commitment to one another. Nothing more is required. However, what Quakers reject in formalisms and ceremonial trappings, they more than compensate for in preparation, and that is especially true for significant life events such as marriage. A couple who wishes to be married under the care of a meeting is required to seek spiritual guidance concerning how they understand their current relationship, what they want it to become, and how they can best help it develop. When they feel they have achieved this understanding, a Clearness Committee tests their leading for marriage. This is no simple task but an extraordinary undertaking, valuable for its practical contribution to a successful marriage as well as for the spiritual enrichment of the couple as a family unit and as individuals.
My wife and I had many lively discussions in the course of writing our vows and discussing what they meant in the context of our intended marriage. We agreed that a basic requirement was that our marriage be an open and honest relationship between equals. Without a base of equal power and commitment, any attempt at this is fatally compromised. This sense of an open marriage should not be confused with the so-called “open” marriages of the 70’s that skirted marital responsibilities in the name of freedom.
We asked ourselves whether anyone could honestly promise to love a partner forever. We acknowledged that love can never be totally secure. Marriage does not change that fact. The heart follows its own course, and we would not pretend to promise the heart. We considered that perhaps it is preferable to make an ideal promise and fall short, because the promise provides a clear goal. Ultimately we realized that change is inevitable and can be seen as an opportunity for love to grow, not as something to be feared.
We acknowledged that the root of Quaker marriage is spiritual responsibility. The root of love is continuing revelation. You must accept spiritual responsibility in marriage for the continuing revelation of love. Although love is spontaneous, with mutual seeking a couple can construct the contexts that favor love’s growth and development. At the same time, we recognized that even the best-intended spiritual seeking is not necessarily rightly led. If either of us ever felt the need, we would call upon our Clearness Committee to help us test the source of significant leadings. Such testings can generate valuable insights to help guide a successful marriage.
A loving relationship represents commitment to the partner, not ownership. Because we are still growing as individuals, what we should wish for our spouses is no less than we would wish for our children. As I said to Fran at our wedding, “My love is intended not to encumber your freedom, but to support you along your life path, so that you may live fully and authentically.”
I experience my love for Fran as unconditional love. I find this to be a life-changing feeling. It does not mean that I never get angry. Fran and I are blessed to be amazingly well matched, but we are not perfect. I do believe that perfect love, in the sense of being forgiving, understanding, and having total confidence in one’s love, is achievable. Such love blesses both the giver and the receiver, and even the world beyond.
I have long been an antiwar activist, our marriage is a source of inspiration and empowerment for my work in this area. My love for my wife leads me to understand that war is totally wrong because it destroys the lives of people who also love and are loved. This is an example of how the continuing revelation within marriage becomes part of the evidence of God’s love for all humankind, and how the marriage partners become a channel for expressing this love in the world.
Fran and Paul have shared their lives for seven years, and they publicly declared their marriage at Lansdowne Friends Meeting (PA) in October 2005.
January 28, 2009
Thoughts, Ideas, and Principles
In response to a query on my Facebook page, I posted twenty-five “Thoughts, ideas, and principles” recently. Since this material might not be readily accesible by some, I have added it as a comment below for those who don’t have Facebook accounts.
July 6, 2008
July 4, 2008 — Peace is Patriotic
It’s 4th of July, and I have my peace flag flying as usual. My most recent peace activities have focused on the Relgious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Bill and the 12th International Conference on War Tax Resistance and Peace Tax Funds. Here also are some comments about my lovely and fascinating wife.
1. In late May I carried a Minute from Chester Quarterly Meeting to Interim Meeting of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting requesting that Philadelphia Yearly Meeting send a letter to all members of Congress asking for their support of the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Bill (currently H.R. 1921). For those not familiar with Quaker lingo, the preceding sentence describes a process by which a large group of Quakers (more than 10,000 in PYM) reach unity on a decision (we don’t vote and don’t have representatives). After some discussion at the Interim Meeting, PYM approved sending out such a letter in their name. The Relgious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Bill would enable those conscientiously opposed to participation in war to pay their full taxes into a government fund that did not go to war-related purposes. For many pacifists, paying for a gun for someone else is just as wrong as doing the killing yourself. This puts such pacifists (myself included) in the quandry of either paying taxes for war or being civil disobedient by refusing to pay. The refused tax money is not retained but given away to charitable institutions. More information and links are available at my website www.peacefulways.com/ To read an informative draft of this letter, click Comment #1.
2. During May and June I have been working with regional Quakers (including PYM) to get their support for my attendance at the 12th International Conference on War Tax Resistance and Peace Tax Funds, to be held in Manchester UK in early September. I have attended these biennial conferences twice before and found them informative and practical. Philadelphia Yearly Meeting agreed to Minute their support of my attendance at this conference and to pay my expenses. For more information and to see my Minute, click on Comment #2.
3. This 4th of July weekend Fran and I went foraging in a nearby park along Darby Creek (there is also a prior post on this topic). We had our milkweed peas last night (excellent) and spice bush tea and various other wild edibles. We are getting more skilled at this (particularly Fran), and pictures are on line at sheldontimes. com. Now when we go backpacking she is prepared to make fresh bread on the spot and cook it (something like pancakes) on a flat rock over a small flre, along with our foraged foods. She never ceases to amaze me with her ideas and innovations.
4. About a month ago we attended a Memorial Service for the last relative of Fran’s mother’s generation. The extended family was gathered, and I saw a chance (re my last comment in #3) to discover if Fran has always been as interesting and lively as she is now. She always describes herself as being very shy and quiet most all of her life, and only starting to come out of her shell quite recently. This struck me as unlikedly, so I asked a number of her cousins about what she was like when younger. They said “least shy of all…bubbly…striking… redhead…glamorous…just like she is now” and everything OPPOSITE of how she describes herself then. I was not in the least surprised to hear this, but Fran was absolutely astonished. Isn’t it interesting how others can know us and think about us in a way so different from how we know and think about ourselves?
February 1, 2008
All people deserve an opportunity for a healthy and productive life.
1. There is an undeniable value to every human life.
All war is a crime against human life. “Human” life is defined by its distinctly human quality, and thus euthanasia and early abortion would be acceptable only if they did not destroy that human quality of life.
2. Every human life must be given adequate opportunity to develop.
Is it right that humans enter life with vastly different opportunities before them? Currently some are born rich, some poor. Humans are diverse and vary greatly in traits and talents; all must be given sufficient opportunity to develop their unique talents. It is natural that results will vary, with some being more successful than others. There continues to be a basic value and protection of every human life, including those lives which are less successful.
Inherited wealth, passed from those who are dead to the living who have not earned it, is a crime against the value of human life. Those who have earned goods justly, deserve them. Period.
3. The natural world is a gift to all humanity and thus individual humans can not “own” it, to do with as they wish.
Humans cannot own or inherit the natural world. It is a gift we neither earned nor did anything to deserve. Individual humans cannot control the use of the water or the air or the land. Accumulations of land, minerals, forests, water and their immediate derivatives, beyond what is sufficient for one’s personal needs, is a crime against humanity and nature All humans have a right to personal property, a private life, safety, education, and health care. Property that is strictly personal property and not income producing, can be inherited.
These three basic values are a vision for the future and not a political or sociological blueprint for how they might occur. Human values require that we look ahead not in terms of years or decades or even lifetimes, but for centuries.
March 5, 2007
Unconditional Love
There are two things of which I am certain. That I love my wife Fran. That I cannot particpate in war. I experience them as complementary. The tangible love that I feel for my wife enhances the more conceptual abhorrence of war. Love for my wife helps me directly comprehend that war, in destroying such life and love, is totally unjust. I describe my love as unconditional love. I find this to be an amazing and life-changing conviction. It does not mean that I never get angry. Fran and I are blessed to be amazingly well matched, but we are not perfect. But in this instance I believe that perfect love, in the sense of being forgiving, understanding, and having total confidence in one’s love, is achievable. Such love blesses both the giver and the receiver. It is a feeling that is so rare and special, that for me it is experienced as a gift from God. This experience becomes part of the tangible evidence for the love that God has for all human kind, and has the effect that I become a channel for expressing this love to the world through my resistance to war. War destroys love; war is a denial of God.
December 20, 2006
What is the meaning of marriage?
Here is my letter published in the August 2005 issue of Friends Journal:
I found your recent material on marriage to be particuarly relevant for me. I am getting married this fall under the care of Lansdowne (PA) Meeting, and this has sent me on a journey to consider the spiritual meaning of marriage and its relationship (if any) to the state’s concept of marriage (defined strictly as a legal contract). I had intended to be married under the care of the meeting but to not apply for a license, and then ask to have the marriage recognized by Pennsylvania. But Pennsylvania abolished common law marriage as of January 1, 2005. So I will be getting a license to get married, just like folks have to get a dog license or a driver’s license. But at least for a driver’s license, the state requires some exhibition of capability with respect to what it is allowing. How can the state “allow” marriage at all? Governmental history in this regard is abysmal — less than half a century ago, interracial marriage was still illegal in Virginia (until this was oveturned by the U.S. Supreme Court). In the first half of the 20th century, many states (not just in the south) had miscegenation laws regarding marriage.
Paul Sheldon