The State of Maine passed a gay rights law earlier this year that would protect people from discrimination in employment, housing, education, public accommodations and credit based on their sexual orientation.
Well thanks to the Christians who rallied together, they have won the right to vote to repeal the law.
"Praise the Lord," said Tim Russell of the Christian Civic League of Maine. "Clearly, 56,650 signatures in 80 days is a big hill to climb, and we climbed it."*
Now whatever your feelings about homosexuals and homosexuality may be, I want to make sure everyone clearly understands this whole thing.
These people went to battle to fight for the right to discriminate against gays. That's right, they said a law that protects homosexuals from being discriminated against and treated as equals allowing them the same rights to education, homes, apartments, bank loans and jobs that everyone else receives, had to go.
Now I ask you. Is that what Jesus teaches? Does Jesus say to fight for your right to hate? Because that's exactly what this is. This is not against Christians, it doesn't impede them in any way, but it does prevent them from openly hating and discriminating against gays. So, is that what we learn from the Bible? To hate?
I don't seem to recall any episodes in the new testament where Jesus and Paul and John went gay bashing in Jordan or went trolling through the streets looking for fags out behind the temple. If this is so bad, how come there aren't any passages where Jesus heals the queers from being queer? That's because it's nothing but pure unadulterated hatemongering.
The alleged prohibition against homosexuality comes in the same section where followers are told not to eat any shrimp. It didn't say anything about the gay prohibition being more severe than the shrimp thing - they were given the same weight, they were ALL considered abominations. Why isn't there a massive outcry over that. How come there isn't any legislation being passed to protect people from Satan's favorite restaurant, Red Lobster, and their 30 shrimp special? Here's a real kicker, eating lobster would also be included in the acts that were considered an abomination, just like homosexuality. Are you telling me that none of these 56,650 Christians FROM MAINE haven't eaten any lobster?! And since their state is the lobster capital of the world, how come they haven't risen up and overthrown the state government? Hell with that many lobsters and all that lobster industry, it's a regular Sodom and Gammorah up there!
How about this? I assume many of these folks are married, so let me ask you, have you or anyone you know sat on the same couch or chair within three days of your wife while she is having her period? If so you are unclean and also an abomination. What? You're not following that prohibition either? How about the Sabbath? Have any of you worked or driven or done anything else that is forbidden? No, not bothering with that prohibition either, oh wait that wasn't a prohibition, that was a COMMANDMENT! Ooops, looks like you just broke your covenant with God, I guess your be looking at being visited with iniquity for 3 or 4 generations.
I only have one thing to say to these people - fuck you and the hypocritical high horse you rode in on.
All these people are doing is selectively quoting scriptures to justify their doctrine of hate. They are no different than the Nazi's or the KKK, and if you think they are doing the right thing by discriminating against gays, then you are in league with them. Because if you think oppressing people and discriminating against them to prevent them from being considered your equals is the Christian thing to do, then you better think again.
So remember the next time you have a nice bowl of New England Clam Chowder, or savor the succulent surf and turf or have mussels in Brussels or stuff one of those delicious jumbo shrimp covered in cocktail sauce into your hypocritical hatemongering mouth, you better start packing because your selective reading ass is off the eternal hot spot - right next your pal Maurice and his fabulous shoes and perfect, glistening, hairless body.
And to those 56,650 hypocritical Christians in Maine, you people make me sick - and you can take your Poland Spring Water and you Pepperidge Farm Cookies and shove them straight up your ass.
*reporting courtesy of GLENN ADAMS, Associated Press Writer|W|P|112264746979555312|W|P|Christians Win Vote to Repeal Maine's Gay Rights Law|W|P|
thordora|W|P|My fear, regardless of agreement or disagreement, is where does it stop?If it's ok to discriminate against gays, what about women? Black men? Tall kids?
Big problems have small roots. And can someone at some point PLEASE explain to me what the big fricken deal is about SOMEONE ELSE'S SEXUAL PREFERENCES?!?!?!?!
And here I thought Maine seemed kinda cool...
aBitWicked|W|P|I went to mass the other day (because i had to, not because i wanted to) and the priest said something about loving God's creatures, because god created them.so are gay people not created by God? they indeed are, and this group of christians or whatever should use a correct interpretation of the Word of God... not just at their convenience.. come on.
Phoenix|W|P|I've been trying to say as much for ages, and I'm glad that you said it. Rudicus|W|P|I just re-read it - it had a nice flow for a rant. I was pissed this morning when I pulled that story off the wire at 7am - can you tell?
Codesuidae|W|P|In the past Christians have told me that the whole Jesus thing nullified pretty much all of the old testiment stuff, so to be a good Christian you can pretty much ignore everything up to the N.T.I dunno if Jesus ever said that Good Christians should conspire to opress gays, but then religion has always been about making stuff up so you can get what you want, so I guess it doesn't matter what he said.
QOB|W|P|So I'd like to take an HONEST, THOUGHTFUL, RESPECTFUL look at why Christians feel it's necessary to take a stand against anything that legislates homosexuality as an equal option (or counterpart) to heterosexuality.I'm sure there are plenty of Christians who believe they are better than every non-Christian, without even realizing they think that, and many of them have an agenda that they don't realize contradicts those beliefs which they hold up as their foundation.
Let me tell you why I'm not as quick as the rest of you to vilify this fight, and it will be a different (I believe) point of view than those Christians with an agenda I discussed above.
I think some thought and discussion needs to occur regarding the precedence being set and what it will mean in 20, 30, or 60 years. Argue for a moment, logically, how you would incriminate a 25-year-old man who wants to marry a 15-year-old boy. What logical argument do we have when people say, "But this is MY sexual orientation, and I'm being discriminated against because there are laws that dictate I'm evil and cannot enjoy MY sexual orientation." Maybe your sexual orientation has to do with animals, maybe it has to do with marrying several people...I really don't see where we draw the line - or WHY. It's been drawn, thus far, by a foundation known as The Bible (correct me where I'm wrong)...that's what my experience says. And so the fight is, if we DO NOT continue to use this as our point of reference, what DO we use? Where DO we draw the line?
Rudi, do you want to step up first and set the tone so I'm not burned at the stake, here...?
Rudicus|W|P|I think you make a valid point, and I suspect that it will not do a heck of a lot of good to cite separation of church and state when suggesting that using the bible would violate that - but be that as it may.I agree that we need to set standards - but a 25 year old man marrying a 15 year old woman wouldn't fly either - so I don't see that as a concern - also every person I know who is gay - knew early enough to know as an adult that they were so. Law need to balance what is acceptable by society with what is good for society.
To me the gay marriage thing is separate from this which is about equal treatment as a human with equal access to housing, employment and credit and protection from descrimination.
The other issue to me is the idea that allowing something means allowing everything. Letting two adult men or women marry each other does not segue into pedophilia and bestiality. Each one is a separate issue. Also at the present time and for some time now homosexuality has not been viewed as a deviant behavior by respectable psychologists, wheras pedophilia and bestiality have been.
On other notes, I don't think one passage in the bible can outway the entire new testament which stresses loving your fellow person and respecting all creatures and doing unto others etc. This is why I'm saying that that passage is simply being used as an excuse to abuse vs. something legitimate.
Since I don't believe the presence of a gay person has any effect on those around them, I don't see how homosexuality is harful to society - especially given that homosexuals aren't the deviants that some would make them out to be. There are some that are pedophiles, but there are also loads of pedophiles that are heterosexual. Also most rapes are committed by heterosexual men - so do we link heterosexuality with rape?
Separate issues require separate solutions - but I think the core problem is that before we can go anywhere we have to agree that homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals and I think that is the current sticking point.
But don't forget there was a lengthy period of time where people in this country felt black were inferior as well. This is just another case of a population being persecuted because they were different. It's been going on since the dawn of man.
In 25 or 50 years when no one looks twice at gays, people who want to hate will just look at someone else to bother and find justification for it - I just don't want to wait that long.
QOB|W|P|I think I agree with almost everything you said. I think there SHOULD be separation of church and state. There isn't, but there should be. While an older man with a minor child is currently not acceptable, what logical argument could you make in court case to support incriminating such a person? What rationale will we use, as a society, for disallowing THAT person's sexual preference? Where's the line? I think this is why you are a moral relavist. But this is why I'm a moral absolutist. There's right and there's wrong...since we can't each decide because there are entirely TOO MANY different ideas with everyone believing they are right, there has to be a foundation that does not sway like the wind.How do you create a society, lay a foundation, and not do it based upon moral "right" and "wrong"?
You said, "I agree that we need to set standards..." We didn't set standards, e.g. a marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Because we didn't, there's argument around what the definition should be; if we HAD defined marriage more clearly, I believe the argument would be around the constitutionality of the definition.
Like I said, while we may consider certain sexual preferences deviant now, and others not deviant, in decades more preferences will surface as "norm" and the people who enjoy those preferences will cry out "discrimination" to create the norm within our culture.
Where do you draw the line? You Rudicous...you Phoenix...where do you draw the line? What's your suggestion? 'Cause I'm simply suggesting that you're saying, "Draw the line right after the homosexuals..." OK. What do we say to those in our society calling us to draw the line somewhere different in 50 years? What do we use as our compass?
QOB|W|P|Ooh, wow! That last paragraph sounded like fightin' words! Sorry! I was more saying, "Hey, fellow man in whom I have respect, tell me what we should do!"SORRY it came out wrong!
Rudicus|W|P|I agree that ambiguity leads to challenges - and you are correct if we HAD set marriage up that way from the get go, then there would be a different set of foci.As for logical arguments to prevent a 25 year old from marrying a 15 year old - don't forget that a few hundred years ago it was perfectly acceptable for a 25-35 year old man to marry a 12 year old woman with her parents blessing.
The rules of society are set by the society - don't forget cultures were living and dying and marrying thousands of years before anyone ever heard of the bible or moses or any of them - how did they do it? The native Americans had a flourishing spiritual tradtion until 1492, so did all of the central american and south american nations - how did they get by without the bible?
My point is, it's not the bible that dictates behavior - since I'm aware that nowhere in there does it say homosexuals shouldn't marry each other - I'm not sure where that would apply.
I also don't recall any biblical law governing the age of marriage at 18 or any other chronological age to my knowledge - correct me if I'm wrong. so even here we are taking the bible and interpreting what it meant in context of the current society.
However that does pose a problem - since if you are a moral absolutist (not you specifically, but everyone who makes that claim) Then how can you justify adhering to some biblical commands and not others since the very definition of absolutism is that it is absolute. Thus we go back to my point about the chairs and the sabbath and the shrimp. Absolutism dictates that they all apply equally or they cease to be absolute.
And that's why I'm a relatavist - so I don't end up in these logical quagmires.
What do you think?
QOB|W|P|OK. I can "put the Bible down!"So what do we do as a society?
Who decides what's acceptable and not?
If it's the society and culture, and currently we are a democracy where everyone's casting their vote, I think the votes are speaking loud and clear. Not everyone is ready (yet) to accept homosexuality as legislation. And they will at some point.
So if the change is simply a function of what the culture will currently accept, I guess we're just not quite there yet...
I don't know if it's discrimination so much. Just a function of our moral relativism.
As you pointed out, men WERE allowed to marry young girls...a few hundred years ago. So were they discriminated against when legislation was created to call that behavior deviant, inappropriate, against the law? I'm sure they thought so at the time.
I guess I just don't know where to go. On one hand, love thy neighbor, to each his own, judge not...on the other hand, I have real questions about how to create a functioning society that's fair and allows for individual rights. That's a real concern of mine.
I hate to do this to you...I'm truly enjoying our conversation, but I am going out of town in about ten minutes...so this is it until Monday. Enjoy your weekend, Rudicous.
Nathan|W|P|Hmm. I remember stating this fundamental in another comment, but perhaps that was too long winded.In short: mind your business because it is your's and no one else's.
Scratch the idea of society. Individuals make up "sociey", which is a very abstract idea. An average, if you will, and averages are inaccurate in the way that if you said the average weight was 180, but I picked a random name in a phone book, you know nothing about that person's weight.
Phoenix|W|P|Whatever happened to "Love thy neighbor"? In this society we are all neighbors of a sort. And that line did not make exceptions.
What's strange is that this is not a new issue, it's just reversed. The Spartans considered love between men the highest form of love, and such behaviors were considered acceptable for tthousands of years. And when it changed there was a fight to keep what had been the norm.
Now we have people trying to live in society like everyboy else. And there are those who are scared of change trying to claim that this is abnormal behavior. Now I will draw the line with bestiality, pedophelia and other forms of abberant sexual behavior. But for reasons of informed consent, if animals could speak in the human tounges and could consent we would have another issue, but they don't so we can consider it rape. And children cannot make an informed consent, because they are not learning of these things until later in life, so even if they say yes... they really don't know.
But also consider how society has changed things. A recent documentary about the life of the virgin Mary showed how even the medieval view was skewed. We often see images of her at about 20 holding the baby, but if you look at the society of the time she would have probably been less then 15 when Jesus was born, and scared. Now we make her image much older, because it is abnormal for such a young girl to be expected to be a mother.And Joseph was already much older.
So what I'm trying to say is that what's acceptable changes, even when held against the bible. It's been only recently that marriage for girls has moved over the 20 year old mark. But now, even with it being a recent change, at is considered odd for girls to marry young.
Also I need to throw in the biological reasons for the initial cries against homosexuality. It really started to be bashed back in days where wars could kill vast numbers of men and death rates among children were astounding. Men were expected to take a wife to procreate and advance the species, and homosexual behaviors were villified because it didn't produce children. But with advances in medicine we don't have the death rates in kids and wars have changed how men are killed in that arena, so some natural tendencies in the race are starting to show again.
Finally, I'll finish that this isn't an abberant behavior as some would have you believe. It has always existed, and was even revered in some societies. What the holdup is on this now is a throwback to times when this needed to be supressed for the continuation of the species, and the fears that were instilled during those ancient times to advance a political agenda.
Nate|W|P|I wish I could trackback to you, but a comment will have to do. My biggest complaint with this repeal of rights is that it is done in the name of Christianity. What a crock to those of us who have a true understanding of Jesus' teaching. I blogged about it here. Keep up the great posts! Glod|W|P|Maine's desert isn't even a real one, it's just a load of sand and bad agriculture. Rudicus|W|P|Nate, thanks for the link to your post - very nice, when I get a chance I'll go take a longer look.You made a great point and one that I was trying to make also, and probably one that QOB would also agree with. Beyond the issue of homosexuality, I don't see alot of these folks acting accoring to the teachings of the guy they are supposed to revere and worship - and the fact that they deign to claim to speak for all of you, to me, is a great sin second only to those who are Christians and hear this kind of hate speecha nd don't do anything.
The problem with haters in your midst is that someday they may turn on you.
Get-A-Free-House|W|P|How would you like to own a custom-built house at a 42% to 100% discount? Find out how today by visiting Get-A-Free-House.com hiro|W|P|Just thought i would say hi from Japan. Doing some blog surfing and found your site. Im looking for some cool styles of florida injury lawyer for my own blog. Theres some really amazing blogs about. if you have time check out my site you will find information on florida injury lawyer. Well when i get my blog running hope you come and check it out. |W|P|Hello!ball crystal free reading tarot is a very interesting subject and I really enjoy Your blog.
If You are really interested in this You must visit ball crystal free reading tarot
Here You find a complete directory regarding ball crystal free reading tarot
So please, don´t miss ball crystal free reading tarot
The decline of the western civilization continues as the Gay Army and their secret police force, the ACLU scored another victory against "right" thinking citizen's everywhere, when Judge Jane Phan(who we can only assume is a dreaded activist judge) ruled that Utah resident Elizabeth Solomon could display her vanity license plate: GAYSROK, in addition to the one pictured* above. The full story can be read here.
You would think this wouldn't be a problem, but as we all know, when it comes to GAY we're far from OK.
As dumb as this may sound, the plate request was originally denied by the state on the grounds that the plates were "offensive to good taste and decency" as well as this doozie that the plates "relate to sexual functions and express superiority of gender."
WOW.
That's quite a stretch. How does this argument not sound ridiculous? How do people hear this and go "damn right." Of course these guys are already planning their appeal.
I know this was a victory for the "immoral and intrinsicly evil" gays and their reviled ACLU attack dogs. It's a tragedy when you can't openly discriminate and oppress a population that you don't like or agree with - what's the country coming to. It must be that dang queer Sponge Bob and his little fairy cartoon pals.
So what's the big threat here? Is some kid going to read "GAYSROK" and be irrevocably damaged? OR is it more because some parent would have to explain why they hate gay people and why they are not OK and be confronted by their own nonsense. This reminds me of a conversation I overheard between two mothers who were discussing the American Idol T.V. program a few years back when Clay Aiken and Reuben Studdard were competing for the finals. One mother really really liked Clay the best, but she hoped that Reuben would win and would probably vote for him. When asked why she would do that, she explained that since Clay was gay(according to her), she didn't want to have to explain to her daughter why she couldn't cheer for him as the winner because he was gay - because that might make her daughter think that being gay was ok. And of course the other mother said "I know what you mean." but added, "it's too bad though, because he really is the better singer, but I know what you mean."
That must have been a tough day - having to choose between a black guy and a gay guy.
Meanwhile back in Utah, I can appreciate the fact that a state that has constituents who have 12 wives needs to be morally upstanding and defend their children from gay license plates. Also considering that Utah also offers a Boy Scouts of America specialty plate - a group that openly discriminates against homosexuals - as well as plates supporting several private religious universities - we can see how they might be offended by anything against their beliefs.
When will people learn that a license plate is only a forum to promote what the state supports, not what anyone else supports.
Hopefully the appeal will fail and the U.S. Congress won't feel the need to get involved. But we want to wish the best of luck to Elizabeth Solomon in her fight and add a special thank you for fighting in the first place. And while she is fully aware that if she ever does get the plate onto her car, it will most likely get vandalized, she's willing to do it anyway. You go girl!
*image courtesy of KUTV, Salt Lake City.|W|P|112255981568959016|W|P|When License Plates Come Out.|W|P|
Ailyn|W|P|"express superiority of gender"??? i guess they still think gay means men? i'd love to see a plate that said LezzieLve (just kidding).I KNOW!!!!! 3SOMS-ROX
that would be a good plate.
Phoenix|W|P|nope can't have license plates like this at all, but a bumpersticker that read "my other ride is your [insert close female relative]" is amusing. Wish I would have got that one, but was sitting in traffic. Oh boy...
Matt|W|P|Maybe if the government didn't want people to have personalized licence plates they shouldn't have offered them in the first place. How could they not see something like this coming?Damn short-sightedness...
QOB|W|P|"That must have been a tough day - having to choose between a black guy and a gay guy."FUNNIEST. LINE. EVER.
(Okay, okay, so maybe I exaggerate...)
The funniest thing for me is, I used to be that person...the one who doesn't even recognize the message being delivered by the words coming out of her mouth...the one who's oblivious to the idea of speaking only what you mean, only what you've coherently constructed into sentences to be spoken to another in conversation. The idea of saying what you mean, that idea is so foreign to so many.
Other than that, I'm not really sure what I think about that license plate. Still mulling it over.
Rudicus|W|P|to me, it almost doesn't matter if you like it or not, since thats not the real issue - if you have rules and people follow the rules there you go.So as long as you are within the rules that they set up, they shouldn't have to be censored. The only way to change it is to eliminate all vanity plates or just live with it.
I get angry everytime I see a confederate flag on someone's pick up truck, but there is nothing I can do about it - and frankly I shouldn't be able to even if I wanted to, since we are in a free country.
QOB|W|P|Yeah, I'm not mulling over whether or not I like it - I DON'T like it...who cares? I'm mulling over to what extent laws should regulate personalized license plates. Not sure what I think just yet. QOB|W|P|And Ailyn, I agree. I could see if it was "express superiority of sexual orientation" - which still doesn't apply...it's not saying homosexuals are better than heterosexuals.See, the thing is, license plates are regulated by a government agency. So I think the point of the regulation is to say: let's all just have fun with vanity plates and not turn them into political or offensive media. That's all hard to discern, though. Who makes the rules? Well, I guess it has to remain relative, and the rules are made up as we go along.
And that's what's ticking people off - the rules are being made up as we go along, only it's not the voice of the majority, but the minority, that's speaking volumes over legislation.
OK, still mulling...
Jesse|W|P|"It's a tragedy when you can't openly discriminate and oppress a population that you don't like or agree with"You know Hitler said the same thing... I think.
QOB|W|P|You *did* read the sarcasm in that statement, right Interloper? Just making sure...It was a nice story about the Atlanta PD cracking down on underage drinking by sending undercover underage buyers in to try and purchase alcohol. In the sting, 48 citations were issued, meaning alcohol was pretty easy to get for underage drinkers.
While alcohol and drunk driving are major issues in this country, I wonder if the pervasiveness of underage drinking and drinking to excess is not a product of culture that could be curbed more effectively in another way.
In this country we like to stop things by prohibiting them. It's a very black and white approach. But like everything else it only works to a certain extent. Terrorism is another good example - we can round up or kill thousands of terrorists, but yet more and more keep lining up. It comes from not addressing the systemic causes of behavior be it terrorism or drinking. It even crops up in western medicine where we often treat the symptoms but spend far less time or none at all looking at the root cause of the affliction - especially in the case of mental health challenges.
So here we have 48 citations issued. Are kids going to stop drinking? No. Are bars and stores and restaurants going to stop serving underage drinkers? No. This is a temporary band-aid only. Places will crack down and it'll be a little harder for a bit, but within a short period it will go right back to where it was.
So what is the root of the issue? Well there are several. The first of which is why we are so prohibitionary about things. You get kids who encounter a substance; alcohol. Typically they have no exposure to it, have no idea how to use it responsibly or what they can safely drink without becoming impaired or ill. If you add to that a mystique of coolness as well as parental and societal prohibition and you just made a recipe that it pretty much going to result in use and abuse of that substance. It is not any different than the whole sex education issue. Teaching(preaching abstinence) does not only keep children from learning about sex and understanding it, but adds the whole "you better not" concept to it, pretty much guaranteeing that kids will want to try it. Add those hormones and viola! you have kids having sex without any preparation, education or experience - just like drinking.
What do you think would happen if instead we tried to educate and expose our kids to life instead of sheltering them from it. If kids have the opportunity to experiment with alcohol and or sex or anything else for that matter in a controlled way, armed with education - don't you think they would turn out with a different attitude and approach to those things? Certainly there will always be those who abuse and misuse, but that would be present no matter what.
Think about your life as a 21 year old when you could finally drink legally - it was great, but it wore off pretty quickly because the mystique was gone and you also were growing up. If you had been exposed to alcohol from a younger age and it was part of your family life and you understood what it was and what it could do, I suspect a great many of those binge drinkers would no go that route. Not only that, but if folks could get a drink here and there (which science has already told us is healthy), there wouldn't be an underage drinking problem. Again, there will always be abusers and alcoholism, but that will be present even if you outlawed it completely.
Part 2 of this discussion is why we get all this abuse. We already discussed the mystique and the rebellion and cool factor, but the other, and this applies to booze, sex, drugs etc. is the state of our society and how people feel.
There are plenty of people who are not addicts, alcoholics etc. who go out and binge or abuse to excess - often with disastrous consequences. When someone has a bad day, you'll often hear "I'm going to go out and get shitfaced." Half the time people will just do this to blow off steam and de-stress - this goes for drugs and sex too. But you take someone in a highly emotional state, with lessened self-control and a substance or activity that makes them feel good and you once again will get abuse. The result of living in a society filled with despair and hopelessness along with stress and pain (both emotional and physical) combined with a staggering lack of coping tools, education and support and you are assured to get the exact situation we are looking at today with stop gap measures, band-aids and less than effective strategies for dealing with it.
While taking care of our youth is always a good thing and drunk driving is a serious social issue (which coincidentally we could make a much bigger dent in if only we would spend the money on education, technology, support and infrastructure), unless we take a long hard look at the society and culture that produces those kids armed with that worldview and how we respond to them and educate them, we will never be close to solving that problem or any of our other social ills.|W|P|112247679664888233|W|P|Living In The Drinking Age.|W|P|
QOB|W|P|WOW! Dare I say, "Brilliant!"..? Not only a new vantage point for me, but also one with which I can agree. Thanks, Rudicous! Phoenix|W|P|I was exposed at a younger age to a different viewpoint and I must say that it seemed so much more appropriate. I went to Germany at the age of 16, and at that time I was legal to drink beer and wine, and nudity was acceptable on prime time tv. One of the flips was that 18 was the driving age, but it seemed to have a good effect. Teenagers learned how to hold their liquor before learning to drive, and with sky high prices to get a license there was immense pressure to behave while on the road.
Needless to say... when I returned I had a different viewpoint on how things were done here. The other way made sense because you didn't get the rebel teenagers doing something because it was 'bad'.
I also have to say that proper education in sex is important. My parent's took my education of this important and didn't rely on schools to teach me. They checked out library books that explained it in temrs understandable to kids and made sure I knew how serious a matter it was. They also stressed that it was my body, and my choice. And when they learned that I was active there wasn't screaming or punishment. A simple question sufficed to ease minds. "Did you enjoy it?" Simple, no pressure.
Nothing can replace parental involvement and education. Nothing can replace understanding like I recieved.
Ken Grandlund|W|P|Education is always the key, especially when combined with factual information instead of propaganda and taboo.This is a good post in that it reminds people that prohibition only causes more of the behavior that it purports to decrease, and that open, honest education is the best hope for combating unhealthy activities.
Matt|W|P|I don't agree with the "holistic" point of view on this one. I don't think we need to find the root of the problem, or explore what makes people binge drink, etc. Instead I think we need to make more practical laws, we need to look at WHY we believe someone should not be able to drink until the age of 21. I personally believe that the system most often used in Europe (as noted by phoenix above) is more practical than is ours. Driving accidents kill a whole lot of teens, I expect more than does drinking (though the combo is,of course, deadly). By allowing teens to ease their way in to drinking BEFORE being able to drive, rather than the other way around, I think we could save a lot of lives. Similarly I will bring up the most cliched of points...isn't it a bit ridiculous that an 18 year old can go out and die for his/her country, without ever being able to order a drink? That in itself is a call for change. Rudicus|W|P|I agree with Matt also, I was simply alluding to the idea that the "drinking problem" is not simply a function an age limit and a police crackdown.Another thing about Europe is that many people don't drive much and very few people drive if they've been drinking. I was in the Netherlands for New Years a few years back and we decided to go to a pub and we ended up walking 5km because noone wanted to drive afer having any drinks.
I also agree that it's stupid to be able to go to war and vote, but not have a beer. But then again we should have parenting licenses and free education and socialized medicine and we don't have any of that either.
Anne|W|P|This is beautifully written. In the UK we have a lower age of legal drinking and the same problems as the US. Only ours is fuelled by a 'yob culture' among our youth. I think that the US is worse for drink driving though.Also, I totally agree that drinking is representative of something else. We need to ask questions when people turn to drugs in their many forms instead of dealing with reality.
Cool blog!
Joe|W|P|Think of the advantages! Those who already have a propinsity to alchoholism would get a head start!
More and more kids would come to realize that drinking is the main way to enjoy social interaction!
Cirrosis of the liver would onset earlier, thus giving more time to address and treat the problem!
A teen could take Driver's Ed while slightly under the influence and so learn to drive thusly.
Really, really well thought out!
Rudicus|W|P|Thank You Joe!I'm glad Joe posted this response, because it is a perfect example of where the prohibitive response comes from.
Take a look at his comments:
"Those who already have a propinsity to alchoholism would get a head start!"
"Cirrosis of the liver would onset earlier, thus giving more time to address and treat the problem!"
"A teen could take Driver's Ed while slightly under the influence and so learn to drive thusly."
Not to take anything away from his point, but it so clearly illustrates what I am talking about.
If you take a look at what he says, all of those comments ASSUME the worst. It says people can't be trusted and left to their own devices would degenerate into anarchy and self-destruction. This is the same set of beliefs that fuels our current system and why we think legalizing marijuana would turn everyone into a weed addict or that teaching sex education leads to teenage orgies where everyone either gets an STD or get's pregnant.
This attitude doesn't believe education, exposure and example will teach anyone how to be responsible and approach things like drinking and sex in a healthy and respectful way.
Basically it boils down to trust - these kind of comments signify a lack of trust in people and indicate that we need to dictate life and control people for their own good.
Nothing against Joe, because it would seem that he shares the sentiment that most people share on this subject. All I'm seeing is that I think there is a better way, especially since the way we're currently going doesn't seem to be working well at all.
And Joe, let me ask you this. If your child was getting together with their friends who were going to be partying, would you want them to be going in having had experience with alcohol with you and a level of understanding and personal responsibility because you've talked about it OR do you want them going in armed with the idea that alcohol is evl and bad and you better not be drinking, but no real understanding or experience. Since your kid will be drinking regardless, personally I would rather have my kid armed with knowledge, support and life experience, rather than dogma and propaganda - call me crazy.
Of course this would mean parents would have to actually take responsibility for educating their kids rather than leaving it up to the schools, government and police, and we all know that that sentiment is in very short supply.
QOB|W|P|Joe, your comment was holier-than-thou; it was rude and argumentative. Not at all what Jesus calls of us. If you are going to take a stance, be respectful and present thoughtful arguments. We are called to be light and salt. |W|P|I think the point of not having trust in letting people be responsible for their own choices is really important here. We make so many laws prohibiting activities because essentially we dont trust each other to make choices. We feel the need to control others into making the "right" choices because we dont believe that people will make their own responsible choices. It would be amazing if through education we could allow others to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions. I wonder why we cant do this? Why in our culture do we have this incessant need to control and this fear of trusting and allowing others to truly have freedom of thought and action? Do we not think that people will make beneficial choices? Do we think people are at root evil/bad/stupid so that they need to be told?Personally I think by consistently underestimating peoples ability to think we promote a type of learned helplessness where people cant think for themselves and cant act unless they are told. We promote poor self esteem and poor thinking skills with our controlling laws.
In reading Matt's comment, it occurred to me that religion, like any other product or service, has a sales force, and a marketing department and customer testimonials.
Each of the major religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) come with a hefty dogmatical price tag, with lots of rules and prohibitions for living, along with lots of consequences for non adherence. The ultimate sale seems to be that you buy eternal life with your soul, but only if you follow the myriad of rules and regulations in order to "qualify." The "sell" consists of payment of time and money during life in the form of Meetings (church), community participation(church related activities), network marketing(mission work or proselytizing) and tithing - along with the verbal contract of a soul in exchange for an eternal life of bliss on the side of the creator. In addition there is a staunch level of product loyalty to the point of murder in some of the more extreme cases.
All of the products and their customers believe that their product is the best and frequently downgrade their competitors in an attempt to get more marketshare. They also engage in active discrimination against members of specific populations as well as customers of their competitors.
Let's imagine the "Big Three" are car companies, which is a good analogy, since they are like big companies with several different "models" or sects in their portfolio.
Let's say Christianity is GM and Islam is Toyota, and we'll call Judaism Saab, since they don't do a lot of advertising and nobody really knows a whole lot about them, but their customers love them and there is a certain mystique.
What do you think would happen if you went to the dealership and they gave you a huge book of rules and told you couldn't get the car until you die, but you have to follow all these rules and if you mess up, you don't get the car. But, you also have to pay for the car before you die, and you aren't allowed to even look at any other kind of car. Also if you start asking about the engine or the mileage or the safety of the vehicle, you are looked at with disdain and are given a copy of the company literature, but are not allowed to see any independent reports from other consumers or buyers or other companies or groups. How long do you think that company would stay in business?
What if you turned on the T.V. and the ads came on and said, "if you don't buy this car from this company, you will be tortured for all eternity" - would that make you want that car? What if the company said that if you bought their car, you would get a new job, a hot spouse, and everyday would be like a vacation - and then in the fine print it had all sorts of stipulations? What if they made that promise and the hope of those results kept you paying for the car, but you really had no testimonials from customers who had gotten any of those benefits, the dealer just told you you would and it was in the company literature.
It wouldn't exactly inspire confidence if you got to the dealership and they said "listen, we have no idea if this car will even work, and I have no idea if you will really get any benefits whatsoever, and heck you might get to the lot and there never were any cars in the first place, but we'll still keep all your payments, so why don't you plunk that money down right now?" How many cars are they going to sell with that pitch?
My point is that each of these religions is selling a product that most of the people in the world have purchased and continue to pay for. These religions are part of the life, society and government of the people and they get free advertising all over the place from radio and t.v. to politicians, even our money and the pledge of allegiance! That's an awful lot of free advertising. What do you think would happen if there was a Nike logo on the money or a politician came out and said Coca-Cola is the only soda I'll ever drink and if you elect me, I'll make sure that Coke is the only drink drunk by the people of this country and we have to make sure we only elect Coke drinkers, because the Pepsi drinkers are destroying our way of life and want to kill us?
Want to have some fun? Take a look at this FAQ about advertising for small business and see how many violations of the Fair Trade Commission Act a world religion would be guilty of. Let's take a look:
- advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive;
- advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and
- advertisements cannot be unfair.
- is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and
- is "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product.
- it causes or is likely to cause substantial consumer injury which a consumer could not reasonably avoid; and
- it is not outweighed by the benefit to consumers.
Do you find it strange that we hold our sinus medicine to a higher standard than our deity? Doesn't is strike you as odd that we know more about the effects of insect repellent than we do about the afterlife? And isn't it funny that we have more evidence about athlete's foot cream than we do about any of the claims of religion.
It just seems odd and seriously hypocritical that we have all these standards for the most mundane of daily items, yet none of them are applied to companies who deal with our eternal souls. AND we give all this free advertising, free product placement(like bibles in the drawer), and free endorsement and sponsorship by celebrities, civic leaders and government employees that is never examined for ethical violations, anti-trust violations or any violations of the other acts, laws and regulations that we hold the most minute and innocuous products and services to.
Let the buyer beware!|W|P|112238892862491514|W|P|The Hard Sell.|W|P|
QOB|W|P|I appreciated that Matt stated his comment was from a "rediculous religious fanatic". He was correct, his comment WAS fanatical and rediculous.What all humans ought to keep in mind - regardless of their faith in a God, or lack thereof - is no one is better than anyone else. Bin Laden was somebody's baby. A mother stared into his eyes when he was born, and if she is like most mothers she dreamed and hoped for that baby she was holding. He is who he is, and I don't presume to know who he is...but my point is, WHO AM I TO JUDGE HIM?
For whatever reason, I felt the need to start with that little speech. As for the game of car sales...
I don't agree with the idea of rules and prohibitions, or their consequences for non-adherence. I believe that's what humans do to the truth of...I'll use Christianity...because men (especially) are in constant need of obtaining power.
In my study and understanding (limited, mind you) of the Bible, I believe the words are alive. That probably sounds strange, but I believe there is power in the words themselves, and a believing person, a person who faithfully believes that there's truth in the Bible, will read and grasp and gain wisdom and knowledge that is difficult to explain or share with someone who does not believe. At the same time, that same person is human, fallen, and will get it wrong sometimes. That person will fall back into their human nature, their fallen nature, but that doesn't jeopardize their salvation. Nothing can jeopardize their salvation. That price was paid and there's no amount of good or bad that person can do to "lose" their salvation, their place in the kingdom.
That being said, no amount of going to church, tithing, etc. "buys" your salvation. Faith does. That's all that is required. And beyond that, a person who is trying to "buy" their way in simply doesn't get it. They are negating the blood shed.
In addition, judgment is probably one of the worst and most predominant of sins among believers of all faiths. God will judge. HE will decide how it all will end. There's a purpose and a plan, and you - as a Christian - are called to love, be light and salt, and NOT JUDGE. Can you see how much damage has been done by people of faith chasing power and judging everyone? It's rediculous how people have USED AND ABUSED the message of the Bible.
I have what I have to offer. I am what I am. I strive to love those around me in a resounding way. I do my best. And I fail often in the department of judgment, but I recognize my failure there and work at it every day.
When all is said and done, perhaps God's greatest gift of grace will be to lift every last person up and say, "No matter what you did, I already paid the price and you have always been my child." I don't know. He has it all figured out.
There's a lot more to this story, of course. I just thought I'd begin to speak from THIS side of the fence about the particulars of the faith in which I believe.
And I have to tell you, it saddens me that what you've written is not far from the "truth" that's currently being spread by The Big Three. Imagine there really is a Satan - he's doing his job, scrambling and distorting the message of love that's truly the underlying point of the Christian faith.
Phoenix|W|P|Rudicus... You're right. We wouldn't buy a car that way, it makes no sense.But As to the religion thing... I believe that humans are hard wired for some kind of faith. If we weren't than we wouldn't purchase religion. Even I have something of a religious belief, I just don't follow any recognized religion. But no matter how I try, I can't accept that there's nothing.
With that in mind... I'll say that established religions offer a level of comfort. It gives people a focus for their beliefs, and a place where the other people will not scoff at your beliefs because they feel the same. It fills some sort of need, and for many people it is exactly what they need.
Religion goes wrong when it is used to try and gain power. And unfortunately those who are using it in that way are screwing it up for everybody who just wants a focus for their beliefs.
Honestly, I don't think that the truly good churches are misleading anyone. I see people who are truly happy and comfortable in this life by going to church. The promnise of a nice afterlife is only like icing on the religious cake. The ones who are misleading are the religious cults, and they are the ones making the rest look bad.
With that said... I still didn't buy any of the big three. After the first test drive I decided that it wasn't for me. I made my own car.
Rudicus|W|P|Personally I like "I made it up because it felt right" vs. "My way or the Highway"I just think it's odd that we don't hold our religion to the same standards as we hold chocolate chip cookies, which no one to my knowledge has persecuted, been persecuted, killed or been killed in the name of.
Although now that I think of it, I bet the cult of chocolate could gain a good batch of adherants.
Matt|W|P|I wrote a paper that was quite similar to this post back in my freshman year of college. It explored the ways Christianity appeals to individuals' self-interest to gain followers. It's pretty crazy once you start thinking about it, hard to accept that it's a coincidence that such strategies just happened to be built in to the religion itself. QOB|W|P|My ex-husband has said that same thing before, that the truth behind faith is that people simply "need" to believe in something, and that his only problem is when it's a "my way or the highway" approach. I think there is a need for God, but I believe in God as a fact, as a truth. No matter who you are on this planet, or what you do, I am not called to judge you, but God still IS. So I don't find it to be a need to believe, just a recognition. But I don't think the "my way or the highway" approach is what God would have us resemble, either.It all boils down to one simple thing, I think: love. That's it. I will love as best I can. And you will do what you do. And I will not judge you, but always love you, regardless of whether or not I love what you do.
QOB|W|P|And Matt, it's no coincidence that the strategies are built into the religion. That's smart, if you're Satan. Use fallen man, his pride and his vanity and his need to control and gain power. Exploit religious beliefs and tenets. Create big business out of it. That will turn many good people off to religion right at their core. It's brilliant, really.I experience things I didn't experience as a luke-warm believer. I can't explain them, but those experiences have deepened my faith. And they are so wonderful and soul-filling that I wish them for everyone. All I can do is live the example, and when someone asks, "What's the difference in you? Why are you different?" I can say, "My faith." That's it. That's my proselytizing...walking the talk.
Rudicus|W|P|Here's my thing.If God is onipotent and omniscient and the creator of all things, then he knows me and knows that I'm a non-stop questioning disbeleiving skeptical bastard - so if he made me, he ought to know what I will and won't believe etc. So he can either reveal himself in a way that he knows I'll accept, or he can just say "that's just Rudicus" Let's have omse fun and see what he does, and then we'll have a chat after he kicks the bucket.
Phoenix|W|P|lol rudicus, That's it. IF god made you then he knows what you believe, and if he don't like it then why did he make you that way? QOB|W|P|I completely feel you on that one...have had that thought myself. It's hard for me to go back to that frame of mind, the frame of mind I was in at a time when I felt the same way. So, it's difficult to say anything back. All I know is, I hated that feeling.I remember hearing or reading (or watching on a movie, perhaps?) some line about us being ants and God being the big kid with the magnifying glass...can't really remember that one...I am just thinking of that now as I'm feeling what you said.
I'm really sorry people are who they are and evil is what it is and that brings you to the place you are with faith and religion.
Codesuidae|W|P|Religions may serve another important purpose, that of allowing large communities to develop. Humans tend to fear or reject outsiders, and they identify outsiders by their lack of cultural similarities. Religions, which have features that allow them to change only slowly through time, help large societies maintain a sense of identity. That is, the are less likely to fracture into 'us' and 'them'.
If religions were made up of ideas that allowed for the rapid change of ceremony and belief, they would not as effectively keep large societies together.
The systems of ideas that successful religions are composed of can be considred a meme, and as such they are subject to 'natural selection' (some of which would be unintentional, some of which would be directed by people with power to direct the religious orgainization). The elements that are not successful at making the religion popular and effective at self-reproduction are lost or modified.
It may be that cohesive large societies make an effective environment for the spread of religion, and so the tendancy for a religion to promote cohesive large societies forms a bit of a 'feedback loop' that leads to the kind of societies and religions we see today.
Do people have a 'need' to feel some kind of guidence that is often filled by religion? Without a doubt. However, I'm not conviced that this is biological need. Perhaps if our ancient ancestors were tribal, with a strong leader, similar to gorilla social structures we might have some biological propensity to want a strong personal guidence. On the other hand, this could very easily be a cultural feature. If as a child one sees seeking behaviour of that nature in others similar behaviour could very well develop in the child, especially if the childs social development is linked with religious events.
There are many who do not feel this need. One can't help but wonder if it is just a fluke of brain chemistry that seperates non-believers from the devout.
QOB|W|P|OH. MY.I'm entirely too simple to grasp all of that...
Unfortunately there were a lot of places that didn't have much fun this weekend. Bombs, bombs and more bombs. London, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq - the world tour of terror continues.
Has it occurred to anyone else that if you look at the timeline of terror attacks have gotten more frequent and more deadly than ever. More and more innocent civilians are killed everyday - that's not a war folks. I'm sure the idea that we aren't winning the war on terror or anything else is not lost here, nor the fact that instead of finding WMD's, "liberating" an oppressed people or anything else of that nature, we have instead, NOT gotten the precious oil at the heart of it and have only succeeded in getting Americans killed as well as creating a University of Terror where extremists from all over the globe can get inspired, learn and actually practice their craft in a live theatre in Iraq.
So it was with great interest that I read this article about the Pope's prayer to God to end terror.
"Pope Benedict on Sunday condemned violence in Egypt, Iraq, Turkey and Britain and asked God to stay the hand of terrorists.
'While we entrust to God's goodness ... the victims of these acts that offend God and man, we call on the Omnipotent to stay the hands of assassins who, driven on by fanaticism and hate, have committed these things,' the Pope said in his Sunday address to pilgrims at his summer holiday retreat in the Alps."
I thought this was interesting, not for the content, since of course he's going to come out with something. I personally never understood this whole "condemnation" thing. Everytime terrorists strike, we can a rally of condemnation from the people who struck and all their friends. I know it's basically a autonomic response and an easy way to get into the press, but what's the purpose? It's not like anyone is going to stop as a result.
"Walid, I don't think we should place these roadside bombs, The Pope, President Bush and Tony Blair all condemned the attacks from yesterday."
"You're right, I never thought blowing people up was wrong, but thanks to them, I now realize the error of my ways. Let's go back and tell our brothers to stop, and then I'll buy you an ice cold Infidel Coca-Cola from the new McDonald's in Sadr City."
"I'm Lovin' It!"
But the other part I liked was asking God the Omnipotent to stay the hands of the assassins.
That brings up a lot of interesting stuff.
Clearly they think God is on their side, since they are asking him to intervene. But unfortunately since it's the same God on the terrorists side(not sure if God is a double agent), that puts God in an unfortunate position, since I imagine they are asking him to continue giving them success.
So what do we think here. So far it would seem that God has been pretty wishy washy in his support for America's Team and it looks like the scrappy Islamic fundamentalist underdogs are actually doing some damage to the greatest show on earth. It's the Rocky story all over again, except this time, we're Drago from Rocky 4.
So, what's up with God the Omnipotent? Since he could clearly wave his hand and all this would go away, why hasn't he? Maybe he's being political and wants to come in on the side of the team that is going to win. Perhaps he's just having fun watching the game and doesn't really care who wins. Or maybe he simply doesn't care who wins because he wins no matter what. Like Don King watching a match where he owns both fighters, it doesn't really matter who wins because he wins either way and he can manipulate the contest in whatever way brings him more money and power.
Yeah that Omnipotence is a motherfucker isn't it? If your guy has it, then why isn't he using it? That's got to be demoralizing. Personally I would rather say there isn't anybody home, rather than think of the idea that he was there and just not doing anything, even though he could.
Imagine that you're in the street in front of your house and you're fighting your some guy and getting your ass kicked. And your Dad is watching from an open door and doing nothing - even though you are screaming for help. That's gotta suck, especially when your dad is Superman.
That doesn't sound very good to me, but let's spin it a bit and see what happens.
Same situation, but the guy you are fighting isn't just some guy, it's your brother and he's calling to dad for help too. How does that change the situation?
Yeah it gets a tad bit confusing. Clearly all this warring and jihad is not offending God or he would have done something to stop it.
It seems pretty simple to me - we're on our own and so are they. But that means we are responsible for our own fate and noone else. So what can we do? Tune in tomorrow to find out.|W|P|112229024665039818|W|P|The Xtreme! War on Terror Part 1.|W|P|
Phoenix|W|P|maybe he should pray for the American Gov. to wake up and realize that our policies fuel the flames of hatred. I think that would do ever so much better than to ask a god that supposedly is the same for both religions to tell one side to bend over. Unfortunately... as long as the sheeple keep buying the 'they hate us for our freedoms' bs, things will not change.
Nathan|W|P|The same principle applies in a lot of other places too, Rudicus. People not relying on themself to solve their problems. Matt|W|P|:::transforms into ridiculous religious fanatic::: "Whatever, say all you want but God loves me and I will end up with eternal bliss and happiness and the others will be in hell thirsting for water that is just out of their reach. I am right, I know it, and if you really loved God like I did you would know it too." Rudicus|W|P|Matt, you bring up a good point that I think might make a nice post.Smurf You! You smurfing smurf smurfer! If you ever smurfing smurf my smurf, I'll smurf you so smurfing hard you'll be smurfing smurfs for a week. Only a smurfalized, surf-face, smurf smurfer would ever smurfing smurf something so smurfy and then smurf the ever-smurfing smurf out of it and leave it smurfed and smurfed, smurfing in it's own smurf. You're not smurfing worth the smurf who smurfed you, smurfhole!
I hope you smurfing smurf up and smurfing smurf, you miserable smurfing excuse for a smurf.
Go smurf yourself!
Have a smurfy weekend everyone!
Smurficus.|W|P|112206440605690046|W|P|Weekend Smurf Rant!|W|P|
QOB|W|P|Smurfing smurftacular, Smurficus! Good smurf. Phoenix|W|P|laa-la-la-la-la-laaaa-laaa-la-la-la-laaaa Herge Smith|W|P|Get smurfed you smurfing eating mothersmurf! Rudicus|W|P|See how much fun this is! Glod|W|P|Smurfs give me indigestion. PapaCool|W|P|Did you see... MommyCool.com notes that the Smurf are making a return with a movie in 2008! Now you can write another Smurf rant! The Complimenting Commenter|W|P|A very smurftastic rant. Bravo for being so original. You made my day smurfect.According to orgnaizers, the Gay Games are expected to bring in between 50 and 80 million dollars to the Chicago economy. So I guarantee these Republican guys won't have a problem with all that queer money.
Tony Paraica one of the "chicken-shit 5" claimed that he must have been out of the room when the vote came up last month. C'mon Tony, who's going to believe that one? That would be like leaking the name of an undercover CIA agent and then claiming you actually heard about the agent from the reporter you leaked it to.
I continue to be amazed and startled at how openly descriminatory these guys are and no one seems to be bothered. This is exactly why I was trying to point out yesterday that the neo-nazis and these guys are one and the same. Want proof, what do you think would happen if the republicans decided to withdraw support for Black History Month or MLK's birthday because he was black? What if they decided to boycott Hannukah because it was Jewish? What if they chose to boycott the actual Olymics that were just awarded to London because Arab countires were going to be there. It's the same thing folks, just dressed up in a nicer way. At least the neo-nazis hate people to their face.
The other thing that kills me is how many gays they have working for them over in the Republican party. So gays are fine as long as no one complains or you get benefit, but otherwise they're the worst kind of evil - ain't that just like a Republican. But the worst ones are the gays themselves that are working for these hypocritical pricks - you guys are a disgrace.
So happy Gay Games everybody, and if you live in Chicago or are going there for the games, get out your pink pages and try not give anyone who is a Republican any of your money.|W|P|112204303836698166|W|P|Those Gay Games are Just Too...well, Gay!|W|P|
AVA|W|P|So let these Republicans throw their usual tantrum and let's all celebrate that these games are going to happen anyway. Phoenix|W|P|*sigh* my party shames me again... QOB|W|P|The only sentence I would argue is, "It's the same thing folks, just dressed up in a nicer way." (And I believe you'll agree with me, here.) It's NOT dressed up in a nicer way. It's simply, at this current date, more tolerated. SAME AS SEPARATE BATHROOMS FOR BLACKS. QOB|W|P|I meant to say, it's equivalent to the separate bathrooms (and drinking fountains, etc.) for blacks back in the 50's. It was absolutely tolerated then, while our current society would NEVER tolerate it (as a whole). Rudicus|W|P|Good point - thanks again QOB. Vulture 6|W|P|So if you do not openly embrace it your against it? Rudicus|W|P|No, you'd be a homophobe and/or prejudiced or descriminatory. If you embrace it then UNembrace it when somebody says something, then you are a chicken-ass hypocrite. Nathan|W|P|I agree.I found a statement made by a lesbian in the newspaper once (AP) extremely accurate.
The quote paraphrase was something like:
"The problem is not about the word marriage, it's about the word equality."
I went into that to provide some perspective for this story.
Resistance Records, who distributes neo-nazi hate music, has just released a video game entitled "Ethnic Cleansing." The game is a first-person shooter game like DOOM, in which the "hero," either a skinhead or a KKK member must make their way through the game killing blacks and latinos and their "Jewish Masters" before the final confrontation with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
You can pick your jaw up off the floor now.
Someone explain to me how this kind of thing flies under the radar. Do we have such warped values that we are more concerned about teenagers seeing cartoons screwing in a video game - even if it is porn flick level explicitness, than we are about something like this?
I realize that this game would have no market outside the white supremacist movement, but it certainly could be an indoctrination tool or ideological reinforcement tool for kids. Certainly if our civil freedoms were not strong enough to warrant our being able to hear the content and roster of Cheney's energy commission where they planned the collective butt-rape of the country, we can do a little selective crackdown on this kind of thing.
But even if we can't, what does this say about the state of our "free" country where obviously there is enough neo-nazi sentiment to support an industry that produces hate music and hate games like this. I'm not a protectionist by an means, but if we spent a quarter of the time and money taking care of the problems and people inside our borders that we do on people outside them, America would be a much different place.
And think about this. It's easy to revile and scoff at games like this, but take out all the polarizing elements and substitute gays for the blacks and latinos and it's not really that far off from what the CC's (who are the ideology department) and the redneck gay bashers (literally and politically) are doing in real life. If you want to understand how people can be so wrong-headed to condone murdering blacks and latinos and jews in a violent video game, look no further than the policy and activism against gays because it is based on the same exact ideology.
The neo-nazi's call the blacks and latinos "predatory sub-humans." Is this any different gays being called morally decrepit or as the pope calls them "intrinsicly, morally evil" or spreaders of disease and moral corruption as some church leaders would have you believe. It uses the same kind of inflammatory labeling and projection of evil to set up an us vs. them mentality, while branding the opposition as inherently less-than in some way.
The next time you hear some neo-nazi kook or KKK member spout off about race wars and race traitors and the great day of the rope, start thinking about militant homosexuals and their gay agenda spreading corruption and disease to our children and nation and the degradation of the institution of marriage and realize that it's the exact same thing.
And let's not forget - the latte drinking, treehugging hippie liberals that the CC's love to hate almost as much as gays are the extreme left wing of the liberal movement, but the neo-nazis and the KKK and Timothy McVeigh are all on the extreme right side of the conservative movement(which of course the CC's refuse to admit). But here's a interesting thought to consider. When ultra-left wing liberals act up, people get laid, get high and protest things. When the ultra-right wing conservatives act up, people die. Who would you rather hang out with?|W|P|112195392665841249|W|P|The Land of The Free.|W|P|
thordora|W|P|but of course, the porn that can be unlocked in Grand Theft Auto, THAT's the REAL enemy.I don't get what the big deal is with that-if it's rated Mature, doesn't that mean that only people 17 or 18 or older can buy it? Doesn't it then fall to the PARENTS to examine the content?
As long as free speech is used both as a curse word and a stupidity defense, shit like what you've described will just keep happening....
Phoenix|W|P|It saddens me greatly to see that these kind of hatreds still exist. dushan|W|P|Thanks for the article. It is so much harder to teach people tolerance than to spread xenophobia. (As it takes more heart and more brain to tolerate the different. It's a simple matter of putting both into "econo-mode" to hate everything that makes me think.)Let's work together switching on people's brains! (The hearts will follow.)
thanks again.
BTW: Nice writing!
Matt|W|P|First I think there is a big difference between calling someone a "predatory subhuman" and "intrinsically, morally evil." In one case there is a complete refusal to even aknowledge individuals as humans, not the case in the other. Though I will agree that they do both have an us vs. them element. Then again so does our language as a whole, as well as any language that uses the first-person.That opens up a whole new can of worms.
You can read the full story here.
If you read her poem doesn't it strike you as odd that the issue is about the fact that she used a bad word in the title rather than the fact that she had underage sex (apparently parental outrage is only limited to swear words and Janet Jackson's boob.) and had a very unsatisfying and detrimental first sexual experience which will probably have longer lasting affects than any hectare of swear words could ever do.
How in the nine hells did we become so afraid of swear words and real life that we have to censor and protect everyone from ever being exposed to vulgarity to any challenging or sexually themed material, but we have no problem whatsoever with death, destruction and maiming every single day on T.V. But 10 seconds of tit or a kid hearing the word "fuck" is a national crisis.
It makes me think of the shit curdling hypocrisy of all this fallout because of Grand Theft Auto San Andreas and the porn patch. I'm glad Hillary got so worked up about the idea that kids could download a patch that would allow them to see people having sex in the game that she started a congressional investigation about it. I don't seem to recall her outrage over the fact that the game itself is full of explicit murder, assassination, gore and cruelty.
That's right folks, you can cut as many people in half with a chainsaw as you like as long as we don't see anybody's dick in the process.
Where did we go wrong as a society that we are perfectly fine with blood, guts and gore, but a mere flash of pubic hair sends us into a militant moral froth?
I don't know about any of you, but I would much rather get laid than shoot somebody or cut their arms off - call me crazy. I would also much prefer images of naked people to faces of death any day.
So to the parents who complained about this poem, why not take that same energy and talk to your kids about sex and relationships, so maybe they don't have to have the same experience as Zoya Raskina and stop worrying about whether they read the word "fuck" one time in an entire magazine, because I promise you, they were using that word five minutes before you walked in and they'll be using it five minutes after you leave.|W|P|112187098881757135|W|P|Roses are Red, Violets are Blue, You Smell Like a %$#@!!|W|P|
Ailyn|W|P|i agree. awesome poem to. it's a poem like this one that should make parents, teachers, and counselors realize the amount of stress teenagers have concerning sex and try to help them with it through discussion. not try to stop them, but try to help them. this young woman tried to do that not just for herself but for her peers. but now that message is gone. it's too bad she didn't choose a different title. but sometimes titles like these are needed in order to engage the reader so that the message will be distributed and made clear. Phoenix|W|P|Maybe if the parents are going to get that upset they should watch their own language use. It's funny how often I hear parents yell at a child for such language and then turn and use it themselves in normal 'polite' conversation.Sidenote: I wonder if the parents of the jackass that didn't call were some of the offended parents?
But I agree, the entire point was missed when they pulled a poem for bad language, rather than use it as an example of why not to bend under peer pressure.
I'm reminded of the tagline from an austrailian newspaper that came out when the clinton scandal was going on: Thank god we got the criminals and they got the puritans!
AVA|W|P|That's a fucking good poem. There.
QOB|W|P|Wow. That's a strong poem. Brings back not-so-fond memories. Not sure how I would have reacted to my fifteen-year-old ninth-grader reading it. That's the place I'm trying to put myself. I hope that I will have created an open-enough dialogue with my children, by that point, that they'll feel as if they could discuss the poem with me - that it would open the door to a great conversation. I'm actually glad I saw this now, in preparation for the cool head I'll need to have in the near future. There's a very maternal instinct in me that wants to shield my children from ALL maturing and growing up - and that's just not fair. I'm glad I'm being faced with this now so I can recognize my problem and educate myself on ways to handle these situations in a constructive manner for my children - in a way that best helps THEM. 'Cause ultimately that's my job as a parent - not to build a robot, but to help them on this difficult road called Life. To offer guidance and education and support and most of all LOVE. Rudicus|W|P|WOW! See now that's what I'm talking about! Taking parental responsibility AND using critical thinking skills at the same time.Outstanding (clap clap) I wish everyone who has kids could read what you said. Being reactionary doesn't help anyone but pundits and politicians.
Thank you QOB!
QOB|W|P|I'm a multi-tasker...Thanks for the props.
Paranoid Android|W|P|That was a fucking good poem. And I also likes the way that Hillary was up in arms about GTA, because the way the Mirror put it, she was saying that Rockstar were the bad guys, which really showed her age - complaining about something that doesn't matter and that she doesn't understand AT ALL. I don't like Tupac, but I think he summed up censorship with the line 'Delores Tucker, you's a motherfucker', Delores Tucker being the main american campaigner for censorship at the time. Still, to see Seattle degrade into a such a pathetic example of creative restrictions from what it was 15 years ago depresses me. Especially when you think that about that time, one of the biggest and best bands had introduced themselves with a single called 'Touch Me I'm Sick' and went on to put 'muff' in one of their LP's titles'. thordora|W|P|ahhh, blindness.You had sex under dubious circumstances when you were 13, and likely never dealt with the fallout until now...you really could use an adult to talk about this with, but hey, who is there to talk to anyway?
Lorna Soules, whose daughter Natalie graduated from Shorewood High this year, supports removal of the poem.
"This is not the kind of things we need; we need schools that support healthy living and healthy language, that take a moderate view and help parents raise kids," Soules said. "When I came upon that I said, 'Geez, this is too bad and unfortunate — somebody didn't do their job.' "
I particularily like this lady. Cause we all know that HER daughter probably never HAD sex, never even kissed according to her. And I bet she talks about sexuality with her daughter all the time. "HELP PARENTS RAISE KIDS"
Last time I checked, that is the PARENTS job. A poem like that should initiate discussion as to WHY the title was so forceful, and in your face. She obviously wanted a reaction, someone to talk about it. Instead, the focus is on the word.
I write, so I remember shit like this in school. If this was one of my daughters, I'd support the word usage, while having a LONG talk. But hopefully, I'm doing my job such that they won't NEED to write stuff like this, as they will be prepared to say "no, FUCK OFF". Zoya should have said fuck then....
I don't think it's so much of a "oooh! bad word" thing for the author as it is a way to draw attention to what happened. Some people consider coercion to be rape......as a girl at that age, I would haev TOTALLY related..
stupid stupid people
Nathan|W|P|Old culture, embedded in our mind vs new culturual things not present in what parents grew up in, perhaps. Nathan|W|P|Oh, and QOB, your ideal is very possible. In a related note I once met a woman who had raised her boy in complete honesty. She never lied even about seemingly "small stuff", such as telling him she didn't want him to eat anymore skittles as opposed to saying there were no more.The result was that, 14 or 15 years later, he came to her saying he wanted to try smoking marijuana.
This is the funniest damn thing I've seen in a while - thanks I needed that!
|W|P|112180511399579020|W|P||W|P| Phoenix|W|P|lol, don't let the CC's see that. They'll try to burn you at the stake. QOB|W|P|It's funny that I consider myself a pretty conservative Christian and whenever I see that term - CC's - on your site I immediately think of myself.So in this case, I thought, "I dunno - I think it's pretty funny."
I especially like the part where God says, "Cover your pee pee."
Rudicus|W|P|we all have to laugh at ourselves sometimes. But you're not a CC, QOB, your just you, CC's only speak dogma and don't think for themselves and I know that you are not anything like that. Astrid|W|P|Yes, a very likely theory. However, I believe God had the name of his girlfriend tattoed on his left shoulder as well. Oh, well, they'll discover soon ... Rudicus|W|P|Hoi Astrid,I actually think that was Jesus with the tattoo, it said "MM" on his butt. God wanted to get one of Micky Mouse, but he kept breaking the needles.
Welcome to the site.
thordora|W|P|sweet.... The Lone Rangers|W|P|Brilliant, I laughed my ass off in training today reading this. Paranoid Android|W|P|Aah, the wonders of satire. John the Atheist|W|P|The Christians laugh at the idea that biological life began in a goo, but they believe that man came from dirt.This is a 10 question test. Each correct answer is worth 10 points for a total of 100.
Good luck Georgie Boy, you're gonna need it!
1. "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me."
I don't think GW was from Egypt, but I don't believe he has any other gods before this one - so CORRECT!
2. "Thou Shalt not make thyself any graven images."
Well, I think everyone who has ever taken a picture, drawn a picture or done any kind of artwork whatsoever is in violation of this one, but we'll go with violation in spirit, but not intent - HALF-CREDIT!
3. "Thou shalt not take the name of the lord thy god in vain."
Well if this is a prohibition against swearing, I think we can write this one off, but it has also been interpreted to mean not to use the name of god to justify your own actions - but either way we can mark this one INCORRECT!
4. "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy."
Well this one is a no-brainer since I guarantee he's done work on both Saturday and Sunday - INCORRECT!
5. "Honor thy father and thy mother."
While it is debatable if he is bringing any honor to the family, we'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one - CORRECT!
6. "Thou shalt not kill."
Governor of the state with the highest number of executions, plus the thousands of Americans and Iraqi's killed in Iraq, then there's Afganistan...I think we can mark this one as a whopping - INCORRECT!
7. "Thou shalt not commit adultery."
Since we have no evidence of any misconduct in this area, we'll give him the thumbs up - CORRECT!
8. "Thou shalt not steal."
One election in November, 2000, and one in November, 2004. - INCORRECT!
9. "Thou shalt not bear false witness."
Let's see "Iraq has WMD's," "Iraq and Al Qaida are linked," "Karl Rove has nothing to do with leaking info to the press," "I'll fire anyone involved in the Valerie Plame leak." and the list goes on and on - INCORRECT
10. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife...nor anything that is thy neighbor's"
Let's just change this to "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's oil" - INCORRECT!
OK, let's add up the score:
Congratulations George W. Bush, on the Ten Commandments test, you scored a 35.
35? Wow. I know he doesn't hold with no book learnin, but this is god's law, the law of the land, the very foundation for our legal system, if not our nation. Would you want a doctor operating on you who only got a 35 on his exams? Would you want to be represented by a lawyer who only got a 35? How about a teacher? Would you want a teacher teaching your kids if they only got a 35?
Hell, I did better than 35 and I'm a goddamned godless heathen liberal moral relativist who sleeps with other men's wives. But then again, I'm not president of anything, nor am I suggesting that I am in any way morally superior or on the side of righteousness.
So what does God say about this?
"I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments." (wow that's pretty vindictive and prick-like if you ask me)
But alas, a 35 doesn't exactly pass the keeping the commandments test, I guess the kids are in trouble now too.
Well George, you'll have to deal with your jealous and vindictive deity on your own, but as for the rest of us, we'll have to give you a big fat F.
Where's the "No President Left Behind Act" when you need it?|W|P|112178979997890457|W|P|The Ten Commandments and the Burning Bush.|W|P|
Ailyn|W|P|i only scored 15 Ailyn|W|P|10 if u want to be technical Phoenix|W|P|does sleepng in on sundays count? |W|P|I really like this post. Why keep it to yourself? All Americans, Floridans and conservative right-wing evangelical Christians should see this. Dude, get it out there!And, nice reply on commentarysingapore to that cockroack thread. Couldn't agree more about what it means to be the greatest nation...
Paranoid Android|W|P|Wow, 40, I'm a better christian than Bush. I can see the irony in that. Nathan|W|P|I believe I gave you a link once stating, in a humourous way, all the Christian influences in our world.Here is a list of Biblical contradictions (and the parent site has much more similar articles):
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
I'm sure you can find many similar things on the web.
You know, I'm surprised your website hasn't been overrun with indignant evangelical Christians.
Rudicus|W|P|So am I, frankly - I would say they either chalk me up to just another liberal, but probably more so because they tend not to do well with people who ask alot of questions and are not defensive and reactionary on the whole.I think it depends on your intentions, if you come here to be open and discuss, great, but if you are just going to spew, then this is not a good forum.
Look at QOB, she's a Christian and a Conservative, but I think she has made a significant contribution to the site - philosophical positions are just that, positions. If you can let go of the idea that your way is the only right way, you can have an intelligent, respectful discussion, even if you disagree, otherwise, it's just crap.
QOB|W|P|Aww, thank you. I love these discussions...look forward to them, even. Keeps me thinking and remaining open. I don't think anyone has ALL the pieces. How important do we think we are? If I stay in my "safe little circle", who am I serving? (That's not to say that joining these discussions is somehow "unsafe".) You are valuable - you have worth, purpose, and something to offer. Everyone does, to some extent. I would hate to get to a point where I forgot that.We start the adventure with construction - you know the street construction thing that makes everyone merge down to one lane and back people up for miles. This is not about that since they have to fix the road sometime. No this is about the prick - yes you, the one in the Mercedes CLK who doesn't feel like they should have to wait in line like the rest of us, who drives up the breakdown lane and then forces their way into the line just before the break.
Next we move onto the 4-way stop where everyone waits their turn. The guy on the left goes, then the woman across, goes, then the man on the right, now it's my turn...but wait, here comes the woman who just pulls up behind the guy on the right who just went and then goes right after him, almost ramming into my car. I extend her a quizzical, but incredulous look, and she stops the car and yells "What?!!"
Rudicus: "It was my turn to go"
Rude Lady: "Shut Up!"
So I finally get to where I'm going, when I see what off in the distance looks like a parking space, I realize I'm wrong when I get closer and realize the prick with the Dodge Magnum has decided to park his car right in the middle of two spaces. It wasn't a space way in the back where the guy in the Porshe takes up two spaces, no this one was right up in front. There has to be some kind of legal tire slashing law on the books in Texas somwhere that covers this kind of thing.
Finally I get into the store, and do some shopping. Everything actually goes well with this until I get back out to the car and realize I have the wrong item in my bag. So back I go to the return counter where I have to take a number - number 60, now serving...47. So the long arduous wait ensues. 57, 58, 59... here comes Blondie Richbitch to the front of the line that is now about 20 people long and goes to the counter where I would be walking to and says, "I'd like to return this." Thankfully the counter person says "Maam, there is a line right behind you, you'll have to get in line" She looks surprised to see all those people standing there and then turns back to the counter person and says "Yes, but I just have to return this one thing." Obviously seeing me getting my pocket machete out to handle the situation, the counter person tells her she has to get in line, period. Blondie storms off in a huff, probably muttering something about "daddy" and "suing".
The return goes well and back out to the car I go only to be confronted with everyone's favorite friend the close parker. you know the person who parks about one nanometer from your car so that you couldn't even get in there if you were a sub-atomic particle. Now I was only in the store for a short while, and I feel pretty confident that there wasn't a double-wide hummer on the otherside of him when he got there. No he just chose to back in to the space, and couldn't be bothered to straighten his car out.
Onto to another quick stop, where a man is putting his baby in the car and just let's his shopping cart roll off without a care in the world. Acting quickly I run and grab the cart before it hits someone's car and then walk it back to him. He is still playing with his kid and hadn't even noticed his cart had gotten away, nor my heroics in saving it and all of it's contents. Realizing he isn't even going to look up to see what happened, I fix the cart so it won't roll and walk into the store. I get my goods and come out and see that the guy left the shopping cart in the space and of course let it roll so it was now preventing anyone else from parking there. I looked around to see where the cart return was, and as I suspected it was directly across the row from his parking space. Less than 10 feet.
I finally pull onto my street to go home only to be backed up for a half mile because someone left their car in the one lane road and was waving cars around him so he could talk to a friend that happened to walk by.
What do all these situations and people have in common? A complete and utter disregard for other people, a complete obliviousness to the world around them, and a total me-first/fuck you approach to life.
All this happened involving all different people of different ages, races and social status so it would seem that it is a pervasive phenomenon. Have we descended so far from grace that we can't even take notice of the people around us? Are we so unthinking that we are only concerned if we either benefit or are inconvenienced in some way?
How do you walk past an entire line without seeing it? How do you intentionally park like an asshole and not even take the trouble to correct it or even care that you did it? How are you so out-to-lunch that you don't even notice your shopping cart rolling away with all your stuff in it OR notice it being returned and then have the gall not to even walk 10 fucking feet to put it back where it belongs and then add insult to injury by now leaving a parking space unusable as a result.
Now imagine taking this same kind of attitude overseas on vacation or broadcasting it on T.V. or having it be an everyday part of our culture, society and government and maybe you'll get to see why everyone hates Americans.
I want to get some low adhesive stickers or something to put on peoples cars that say something like "stop being a prick" or "get your head out of your ass" I also wanted to get a little third of a sheet flyer called "Parking Directions" - kind of like a ticket where you could check off the violation for people who park too close or take up two spaces or other things like that.|W|P|112170635046040804|W|P|All For One and More For Me!|W|P|
Phoenix|W|P|I wish that I could say that it's better where I live, but it's not. Of course I'm still in the US.
I guess the only thing us sane people can do is extend the "common courtesy" that these others don't, because if we don't then we are as bad as them.
That and pray that these people wake up and find that their disrespect is bad for them. *Hah* like that'll happen.
OK so that leaves only option a. Just be a better person. Raise children to be better people, and hope that the good eventually takes over.
Phoenix|W|P|of course that's not to say that us sane people can't complain about the others.what else would we do around the water cooler? The Lone Rangers|W|P|Rant on my brotha! It's the same all over really, but the law allows that the more expensive the car the more idiotic the driver.Low adhesive stickers?? Wuss! Get the kind with like steel epoxy and slap them in the middle of the windshield.
Matt|W|P|The only positive thing I could see coming out of this is....more jobs! The more inconsiderate people become the more "picking up," in various ways, has to be done. So we can hire more people. Then again we will have to pay for them with our taxes, which isn't so great...Please don't take "picking up" literally, it is meant as a catch-all term for all possible jobs that could come about because of inconsiderate people.
Rudicus|W|P|That's a very interesting connection. Good out of the box thinking. aBitWicked|W|P|you wouldnt like mexico either. people are rude too. but i like mexicans better than i like most americans... (sorry about this, but a lot of your country men are quite annoying. thank God for the exceptions, because ive met great people from the USA) Ailyn|W|P|awesome post. i also had the sticker idea, i think we should do it and sell them. make some money Paranoid Android|W|P|The USA is full of great people, and there's a lot of amazing things that have come from there. But there's one thing I'll never forget from my first time there, and it was people taking their kids to be picked up by the school bus. That'd be acceptable, if the bus wasn't five minuts away. I also remember seeing band practice as we drove past a school at about 7 or 8 pm US time. So, we have parents who'd rather pollute than force their children to walk, and yet they've no problem with leaving them at school so they can be in some stupid marching band. I'd go crazy if I had to join one of those. And there are assholes here in the UK too, although not as many. It's mainly people who have more car subwoofers than sense. Rudicus|W|P|We have people here that will drive from one parking lot to the other for store buildings that are adjacent to each other - and they wonder why Americans are all fat. Nathan|W|P|I was going to try to get across the point that a person's own happiness is more important than anyone else's and that you should never sacrifice anything. Sacrifice would be defined as something that truly pained you to do. Sometimes, actually almost all of the time, I feel a lot better helping someone out, and get my happiness dose that way.However I do feel that being a prick like this is bad, but putting it just like that contradicts a fundamental of my life.
Phoenix however said it for me. "That and pray that these people wake up and find that their disrespect is bad for them."
That disrespect really doesn't amount to much happiness for those people. And that, to me, is the bottom line.
I love saying that. To me. Not too long ago I finally connected that to the famous quote "I think, therefore I am."
paige|W|P|Wow - you're blog is full of good info. It's getting hard to find blogs with useful content and people talking about Shopping Cart these days. I have just started my Latest Shopping Cart News blog and would really appreciate you coming by - thanks againIf you ever wanted to see the deadly results of mixing dangerous hatemongering rhetoric, stupidity and religion, here you go.
In Tampa, Florida(Of course), 21 year old Ronnie Paris Jr. is on trial for killing his 3 year old son. How did the child die? He was beaten to death. Why? Because Ronnie thought his 3 year old son was gay and was trying to beat it out of him by teaching him to box.
So let me ask you. In this day in this country, why would a parent think being gay was so bad that he beat his son to death in an effort to make that not happen? I'll give you three guesses.
Let's see, if all we do is tell people day after day after day that being gay is so wrong that we need to pass laws keeping them from being together and barrin gthem from our churches and other places as well as equating homosexuality with pedophilia, incest and bestiality (thanks Rick Santorum). And we have Pontiffs pontificating on the evils of homosexuality and mobilizing everyone to fight any kind of gay friendly or non descrimination law (thanks Eggs Benedict) - what the hell would you expect. Now I guarantee that noone in the establishment will take any sort of responsibility for this because as we all know it's united we stand as long as everything goes our way and as soon as it doesn't...too bad, so sad - you're on your own.
Obviously this guy has problems, but I have to ask - how did he come to suspect his son was gay at age 3? Did he catch him having too much fun with the boy from across the street? Was he playing with dolls? Did he like the Teletubbies - WAAAY too much, especially that pink one? Did he start re-decorating the living room? Sing tunes from Cabaret? What was it that tipped him off?
And would this go a long way to substantiate the idea that homosexuality is genetic? After all, it's not like a 3 year old can be influenced by the liberal media and their gay agenda. It wasn't like the kid was exposed to all the gay-promoting cartoons in school.
But as disgusting as this story is, I guarantee that not a single person will question their fire and brimstone rhetoric and gay hating dogma for a milisecond.
If you read this story a bit deeper here. One section of the article really stood out.
You'll notice the highlighted parts - this is the same Department of Children and Families that was so hot to save Terri Schaivo from being "murdered" by the evil Darth Michael Schaivo. Bang up job they did here - they gave the kid back! Way to go DCF, glad we have you looking out for people. And take a long hard look at this bit in Red. "Removed from life support and died." Doesn't that mean the child was still alive on life support and when they removed it he died? How does that happen without a court fight, Jeb Bush and the U.S. Congress getting involved? What happened to the culture of life there? We villified an innocent man, trampled on the constitution and sent jurisprudence back to the dark ages so we could keep a blind, brain-dead woman alive for no good reason, but we can't go to bat for a little kid?Nysheerah Paris told the court that Paris would make the boy fight with him, slapping the child in the head until he cried or wet himself. She said that on one occasion Paris slammed the child against a wall because he was vomiting.
He was returned to his parents Dec. 14. A month later he went into a coma and was rushed to hospital. Six days later he was removed from life support and died. An autopsy showed there was swelling on both sides of his brain.
Wall slamming is a notoriously successful way to stop vomitting - good thinking.
The court was told there had been a history of abuse by Paris. Prosecutor Jalal Harb said that in 2002, the Florida Department of Children & Families placed the child in protective custody after he had been admitted to the hospital several times for vomiting.
Sounds like...what's that word we like? HYPOCRISY!!!
Boys, let's put down the dogma before anyone else gets hurt.
|W|P|112143763614441181|W|P|You Can't Be Gay If You're Dead.|W|P|
thordora|W|P|Doesn't anyone ever step back in the states and think that perhaps until people stop murdering their own children that NOTHING else is going to change?What kind of society produces people, PARENTS, who think it's ok to BEAT a 3 year old? And how can a society create organizations that then RETURN the child to these people?
I can't even comment on the dogma part as now I have the imagine of someone doing these things to my child because she "might" be gay, and all I want to do is cry.
Fuck...what is WRONG with people down there? I know it isn't everyone but geez...
Rudicus|W|P|Seriously Thor,If you could only raise the temperature in Montreal to about 55-60 in the winter, I could leada mass exodis - moses style up there.
QOB|W|P|Rudicous, this upset me so much that I decided to go out to the net and do some more research. I wanted to find court transcripts of this case to find out if the reports really included the word "gay".I couldn't find anything about this case having to do with the child being gay.
I found tons of articles and no transcripts. One article reported that the father didn't want the boy to be "soft". Only one. No other article discussed this issue at all. Granted, they may be leaving it out. I'm just wondering where the site you linked got their information. I'd like to see the transcripts, the direct quotes.
Ronnie Bernard Paris was a very abusive father. He never should have had his child back in his care. But I question the validity of the article you linked.
As for your other argument regarding the life support, I agree that it's hypocritical.
Rudicous, you make very important points and many people read your site as truth. I get the impression, from reading your site, that it's important to you to serve up facts and truth in an effort to open people's eyes. Just make sure you're serving up facts. And hey, if you have or find documents that support your article, by all means, share those as well. I'd be mortified, but it's better to know the truth.
Rudicus|W|P|Unfortunately, The Rudicus Report is not funded to have field reporters, So we have to rely on other media for stories.The comment comes from the testimony of the sister, so I'm not sure why you question the reporting. It was reported by a writer from 365gay.com who was covering the trial in Florida.
I suppose we could second guess reports all the live long day, but unless we were personally there, then there is no way to prove anything. All we can do is go on what people say - we can't look into their hearts and see the truth.
Kind of like when Scott McClellen reported that Karl Rove had nothing whatsoever to do with Valerie Plame being outed, now we learn that was not true. There were also many stories and many reports about WMD's in Iraq including intelligence reports by people much smarter than me, but that turned out not to be true either. There were also reports by board certified physicians saying a blind, brain-dead woman looked at them and interacted with them. Now we know that was untrue as well.
My point is it would be impossible to know if this is false, so we have to go on the assumption that it is true until we hear otherwise.
Also I never read anything that used the term "soft," but what do you think "soft" means?
Here is another quote from Tampa Tribune:
Even Sheldon Bostic, who was Ronnie Paris Jr.'s Bible-study friend, said he warned the father several times not to play so rough with his son.
"He didn't want him to be a sissy," Bostic said.[quoting what Paris said]
"Sissy" is a nice way of saying fag.
Seems pretty clear to me, but if it comes out later that the reporter was wrong, we can print a retraction, but I doubt that will happen.
Phoenix|W|P|QOB- I found another story saying the same thing. Other storyBut I think that even if we ignore the whole gay thing we find a fundamental problem in the system. This boy should never have been returned. The authorities knew that there was a problem, and prior incidents to his death should have alerted officials that he was not safe.
Also QOB I typed in Ronnie Paris into the search engine and the other articles that refer to the gay claim come up a couple of pages in.
Honestly... I think that they are trying to use it as some kind of lame defense to cover up the fact that this really was an abusive father.
cosmopolite81|W|P|Hey Rudy, sorry to have to post this here, but I lost your email. I have a tidbit I'd like to send you. It doesn't have anything to do with today's article, otherwise I'd just post it here. More on the London debacle. Rudicus|W|P|Send any tips, scoops or anything else to rudicusreport@gmail.com Storm Trooper|W|P|Damn...THAT IS HORRIBLE! QOB|W|P|It's not impossible to know if it's false. All we need are the court transcripts. If the word "gay" is not used - only sissy or soft - then the reporter made an assumption instead of reporting the facts. Could be that they are reporting based on a personal agenda? (That does happen in all walks, right?)Making the statement that the words sissy and soft mean gay is not a truth; it is your opinion. (Which is wrong, because it conflicts with my opinion, which is right. (Come on - good for one chuckle, eh???)
Also, I'd ask for a media source that isn't biased to the homosexual community. I refuse to accept the only two articles provided as fact against the more than twenty articles I read that were not related to a homosexual news source. Actually, even if you linked to more than twenty articles all from different homosexual community media sources. And further, I don't trust any of the articles *I* read as the total picture, either, because I saw minor discrepancies throughout. That's why I'd like to see the court transcripts. If there's testimony documented in court transcripts which states the father beat the boy (to death) because he was afraid the boy was gay, then God damn it all to hell. I'm just trying to argue with facts, not assumptions and opinions.
Liar|W|P|Vomiting is totally gay. thordora|W|P|He was trying to teach him how to fight," the boy's aunt, Shanita Powell, told the court. "He was concerned that the child might be gay." "He didn't want him to be a sissy," Shelton Bostic, the defendant's Bible-study friend, testified
Directly from http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2005/07/14/3
What does the guy have to do, BRAND it on his forehead? Or do we no longer listen to other people when they state what someone has said?
And does it really matter? A:The guy was 21-what in hell is a 21 year old doing with a 3 year old? Few people that young are ready for kids. B: It is VERY VERY clear that at the very least, this waste of air had some issues with masculinity and child development, which are most likely products of the current cultural enforcement that anything being even remotely gay is wrong. Isn't it bad enough that he was attempting to teach a 3 year old to box? Isn't it bad enough that he felt the need to teach a TODDLER to be manly?
No wonder nothing even changes. Instead of fixing the actual issue-CHILD ABUSE and the stunning failures the Florida Child Protection group repeatedly evidence, the arguement will end up focused on the "gay" issue.
There is no excuse.Period. And more dithering is only going to allow crap like this to continue.
|W|P|Ok---some people are missing the point here I think---the dude beat the crap out of his own son---and any justification that he gives (ie he's gay, is purple, ate all of his cheesey puffs, whatever) is b.s.I come from an abused background (the Oregon foster care system) so I have no sympathy for this guy.
there is nothing that can fix what this guy did....
sorry for the rant---this kind of stuff just pisses me off to no end.
Rudicus|W|P|As far as I know, the father didn't admit to anything, so I doubt that is ever going to come up regardless of transcripts. I also don't think it was the fathers intention to beat his kid to death, but he did do it in an effort to prevent his kid from being "soft" "a sissy" or "gay"The references in question come from others reporting on the accused who were intimately familiar with him.
I would love to get access to the transcripts, but I don't think that is in the public domain.
Also this is not a news site, this is a commentary site, so it is all opinion based on news. You are under no obligation to accept anything I say as gospel, nor should you use me as source material for any term papers you may be writing. But the information is there as reported - if the reporter is biased and presenting incoreect news or spin, then I have no control over that, but this story was reported including the term gay in different media sources and outlets - if you saw it reported differently elsewhere, I can't really do anything about that, but it doesn't mean it's wrong - reporters report news based on what interests their readers - which is why I don't report on things that would be favorable to conservatives, because that isn;t my audience, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen because I didn't report it.
Also for the record, some synonyms from the dictionary for sissy: pansy, faggot, fairy, poof.
Although it was the Webster's Queer Edition, so it may be biased.
Rudicus|W|P|Anonymouse brings up a good point, which I hope doesn't get lost in this debate.The guy beat his kid to death and should be locked away, period.
Also any system that gives a child back to the abusers is horribly dysfunctional and dangerous in it's own right.
QOB|W|P|What am I missing here? Is what I'm saying offending you, because if it is, I apologize; that's not my intent. I feel like this is the first time I've challenged what you've posted and that challenge is creating hostility and a defensive stance.And Thor, a point Rudicous has made time and time again, NO WE DON'T AND SHOULDN'T JUST BLINDLY BELIEVE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY SOMEONE HAS SAID.
Does it matter? Well, if you mean 'Does it matter in relation to what happened to the boy?' then, no, it doesn't matter. This barely-old-enough-to-be-fathering-children abuser is sick and twisted and I won't lose a wink of sleep for him and his sentence. But if you mean 'Does it matter in relation to Rudicous' post?' then, yes, it does matter, because the vitriol being spewed has everything to do with the fact that this father perpetrated this crime in fear of his son being gay.
And Rudicous, I'm simply attempting to respectfully disagree with your comments. Once again, if I'm failing miserably at the 'respectfully' part, I apologize.
Phoenix|W|P|I don't think you're being offensive QOB. I mean we all know that reporters spin the stories according to their purposes. I looked for the transcripts and couldn't find them. So unfortunately we have to go with the heresay of reporters. I am finding about half and half. Some say gay, others just saying that the father was abusive.
A couple articles I found 'quote' the testimony. But who knows how much that has been spun.
But I think that the whole 'gay' issue is covering up the real issue. And that is the failure (once again) of the system in Florida. Really this child should never have been given back to abusive parents.
Rudicus|W|P|I've never been offended in my life, so now is not a good time to start.And to be fair to QOB, the "gay" part does matter from the standpoint of half of my post since I'm using the story as an example of how preaching a dogma of hate and/or non-acceptance leads to stupid crap like this, so I understand her point, I just didn't understand the doubt in this particular case.
And while I don't understand and do disagree on some of the points, it wasn't my intent to be hostile, so I hope that wasn't prominent. But as we all know from email there is no emotional charge or intent with text, but there is plenty of room to see pretty much any kind of subtext.
QOB|W|P|Sweet! Thanks.Anonymous, I'm sorry you spent a part of your life in the foster care system. I have a friend who was part of the Oregon foster care system and I'm surprised he's as peaceful and forgiving (and sane) as he is, considering. And I'm sorry we spent such a long time debating an issue which doesn't even matter to the injustice perpetrated against Ronnie Paris Jr.
OK, everyone, have a great weekend!
Matt|W|P|Usually I find your rants disgusting...but for once I agree with you. Paranoid Android|W|P|Good rant. The stigma attached to homosexuality is bizarre and, sadly, everywhere. It's like when people say, I don't know, that The Beatles are gay. Despite the remarkable evidence on the contrary. Like, err, Yoko Ono perhaps. Rudicus|W|P|Matt,What exactly is usually disgusting about my posts? Glad you liked this one, what didn't you like about the others - opinion? liberal bias? anti-religion?
Just curious.
thordora|W|P|My point was merely that if the people around someone repeat the same message seperately from each other, than I have a little more faith in what they're saying, especially if it's quoted.From many of my male friends, I've learned that being heckled, and or beaten for being gay or possibly gay is not as abnormal as thought. So I think it is right to question this as a motivation. Domost cases involve a child so young, or someone being killed? No. But I would bet that this issue happens much more often than we think it does.
I wasn't trying to be crabby at you-the entire issue bothers me.
What should ALWAYS be at issue is the repeated demonstrated inability by MOST child protection services to do what their mandate states they do "PROTECT CHILDREN".
Touch your child once, gone forever. Period.
And there are always excuses-I take Ritalin, and I could commit a crime, blame my drug, and likely get off scott free. If we can stop encouraging "excuses", and boil it down to simple "don't do that" things might change.
I'm rambling again, but this story just bugged me. I wasn't trying to be cranky at anyone, and if I was, I apologize. I just find that the roots of things are never addressed because to often, we become tangled in the little issues more.
aBitWicked|W|P|I feel so sad. As horrible as this sounds, i think the little boy is better of where he is know, than being with his abusive father. Long agony for this baby, three years and having to put up with this beating. This was phisical and emotional damage. For three years my god. He didnt even have a chance to defend himself! his mother didnt do anything for him and the government people didnt either... too bad... shame on them all. :( SunGrooveTheory|W|P|Oh, my gosh-- that is really sickenning, Rudi. I came her via reference in "Puffer Fish in my Soup" btw. Nice blog :) tyvm for the info. JustWhoDoIthinkIam|W|P|I actually heard about this story from a local access show out of New York, called Gay TV. (It's broadcast locally in New York as well as carried on Dish Network on FreeSpeachTV)This story was just so shocking that I googled it and found your editorial.
Nearly a week later and I'm still reeling from it.
When will people learn that the climate which contributed to this crime is what's to blame?
Yes, it was a child abuse issue, as well as an anti-gay hate crime issue.
I posted the story from 365gay.com on another forum site and would you believe that the anti-gay rights folks their actually denied that this had anything to do with anti-gay hate?
I just don't get it!
I'm shocked, disgusted, and deeply saddened.
Yes, DCF should have stepped in and done something a lot sooner, but what lead the father here to even think such things about a three year old child is the real issue here.
Rudicus|W|P|First off welcome to the site.This is a tough one to deal with since it involves a child, and regardless of the intent, the father is obviously a sick and abusive person.
With respect to why, it seems to me that there are extremists on every end, and if you read through some of the posts on this site, you'll know that I believe the anti-gay sentiment is a hate issue on one end as a simple rallying point for some conservatives and a doctrine to the most extreme. Thus someone who was already mentally challenged coming in contact with extremist dogma could equal a result like this.
This is the very reason we need to continue to expose hypocrisy and extemeism so that more and more people turn away from it. There will always be extremists, but it's when they start infecting mainstream culture that things can go so badly.
A flyer posted at the California National Guard Headquarters suggested that the U.S. execute Islamic terrorists with bullets dipped in pigs blood to deny them entry into heaven.
Great.
This was only one of several anti-Islamic flyers found at the guard HQ.
The fact that this was posted and was completely condoned and supported by the administration (considering that the base commander defended the display of the flyers) shows pretty clearly how folks are seeing this "war."
Taken in context with things like the Abu Gahraib prison abuse scandal and flushing Koran's at Gitmo, it would seem very clear to me that our forces and our leaders are not in a conflict of nations, but are on an ideological campaign. That's not war kids, that's a crusade.
The thing that kills me is the idea of us somehow being the morally upright citizen's brigade of the world. Where do we get off telling anybody anything about right and wrong when what we have been doing in this war alone violates every treaty, convention and law in the known world. We are guilty of violating the Geneva convention, committing war crimes and a whole host of other things. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we go to war with Iraq in 1991 because they initiated an unprovoked attack on Kuwait? And didn't Saddam offer some lame justification for this attack. Sound familiar?
If the shoe was on the other foot and it was the Iraqi government holding our people in another country without trial, torturing them, and flushing their bibles down the toilet - there would be an international outcry. Hell if we heard about that going on anywhere in the world to someone else's people, we'd be on the first unarmored personnel carrier over there to fight.
News flash kids, WE are the evil empire. And if the NGO's, UN, and other countries weren't impotent and scared, they would call us on it. And if our people weren't brainwashed sheep, WE might call them on it.
So let's have a new line of rhetoric shall we? Say it with me: "We are on a crusade to rid the world of anyone we disagree with or can't control or manipulate and we don't care how we do it. We use patriotism, religion, intimidation and bald-faced lying to get our way and anyone who says otherwise is a traitor(remember a traitor is not someone who lies to their country to take them to war or betrays their fellow Americans for political gain or flushes our international credibility down the toilet by committing war crimes and violating treaties - a traitor is anyone who doesn't agree with the Bush Administration).
I hear the plans for the Death Star are coming along well.|W|P|112134957873342463|W|P|It's Not An Anti-Islamic Crusade. No Really. Seriously, It Isn't!|W|P|
|W|P|"Oh I'm afraid that the defense shield will be quite opperational when your friends arrive."the emperor
Glod|W|P|I notice that yahoo only rates it as 3 out of 5. Bloody patriots dismissing any critisicm of their country. Phoenix|W|P|Kinda goes along with last night's nightline. Lodi, Cali was invaded by the FBI and people were arrested for suspicion that they had attended terrorists camps. Of course... these suspects confessed. AFter 15 HOURS of interrogation. Good lord, it's a witchhunt.
When we alienate our own citizens like this we only encourage the acts that they are supposedly trying to prevent.
The people arrested? Pakistani-Americans. Law abiding ciizens who happened to have the wrong skin color, or turn toward Mecca to pray.
What is there to keep these paople loyal to their country, or adopted country, when we treat them like this?
Think about that yellow bellied government. *grumbles... government is too scared to do any real work, so it terrorizes its own people*
Pat Kirby|W|P|I'm reading Naomi Hirahara's Gasa-Gasa Girl. It's a cozy mystery with nothing to do with terrorism. But the characters serve as a reminder how easily humans can slide into bigoted generalizations.The story is centered around Japanese Americans, many of whom were kept in camps during WWII as being threats to national security. Of course, the vast majority were law abiding citizens.
Can't happen in this country? Hmmm.
Rudicus|W|P|I've heard of that book, let me know how it is. QOB|W|P|That article made me want to hurl. John H.|W|P|Sadly Rudicus, I am forced to agree with you, if we are presenting two faces to the world then people will take us as being two faced.Nice Blog by the way
John H.
http://valisk.blogspot.com
Our old pal Rick Santorum is equating pedophilia, rape and the priest sex abuse scandal with Boston's "liberalism."
''If you have a world view that I'm describing [about Boston] . . . that affirms alternative views of sexuality, that can lead to a lot of people taking it the wrong way," Santorum said.*
So liberals who are natural born sinners who consistently engage in "wrong" behaviors like treating their neighbor as themselves, or loving their fellow person regardless of race, creed, gender or orientation and trying to help those less fortunate are fostering rape and pedophilia.
Isn't this a church we're talking about? Is God on the side of the Republicans?
I guess only if they are convenient, so if you are God-related and they can't ignore the scandal, then you are abandoned and called a liberal. Nice.
Even if the priest sex abuse scandal was limited to the Boston archdiocese alone, this would be among the more idiotic claims a person could make, but the fact that this is a worldwide problem, makes it even more ridiculous.
What about the kiddie porn ring that got busted in Italy a few months back that nabbed several priests? We're people from Boston visiting that week and their liberal cooties turned everyone to the dark side?
How a sane and rational person could even make this assertion, let alone say it in the press and then defend, it is beyond me.
Saying "liberalism" leads to child rape is about as stupid and irresponsible as saying you had eye contact and meaningful interaction with a brain-dead blind woman, let's call her Terri.
Oh wait, he did that too.
What about equating men having sex with children and/or dogs as equivalent to homosexuality in a group of "deviant" behaviors that threatened the institution of marriage.
Hmmm, he actually said that one too.
OK then maybe it would be like linking Democrats blocking Bush's nominees with Adolf Hitler. Because clearly "liberalism" also causes Nazism in addition to the other stuff.
I hate to break this to you Ricky, the liberals aren't Nazis, that's you.
So what do you do if you are a backward-thinking, Christian conservative moron with a warped sense of reality and penchant for making polarizing and completely asinine statements?
Run for President.
Hey, it's worked twice so far. See you in 2008! (that is if you don't lose to Casey next year).
*additional reporting by Susan Milligan, Boston Globe
Full article can be read here.|W|P|112127013812301069|W|P|These Are The People Running Your Country.|W|P|
QOB|W|P|Can you link to the article so I can read for myself and get a clearer picture of your argument? Although, I'm probably just going to agree that this guy is a hypocritical bumbling idiot...I'd just like to read for myself. Thanks! Rudicus|W|P|there you go - it's linked at the end of the article.EVERYONE should read for themselves.
If you DO disagree, I'll be very interested to hear your comments.
Phoenix|W|P|Wonder what group is paying this guy? It is stupid and ignorant to blame the views of a community for problems that go beyond the boundaries of said community.
OH boy, I could rant and rave until a word limit stopped me. (We had the gay-hating group from Kansas visit my home town a few months ago)
But I should point out that I feel that it is some of the church's own practices that lead to these incidents. The catholic ban against married priests should probably be reconsidered, and the closed mindedness of some upper leaders causes the hate against other groups.
Where do we draw the line? There are churches that preach love and acceptance, and those that preach hatred and absolutism. When do we say that by preaching hatred a church is being as bad as a cult? When judges acting according to the law instead of religious doctrine are asked to leave a church it sure seems like cult activity to me.
As a person who has met aethists who can be more moral and ethical than some christians I can honestly say that it is insane to blame "liberalism" for the problems of the nation.
I had better stop. Sorry for ranting Ridicus.
Phoenix|W|P|ok read the article (posted after I started previous post) That guy truly is insane. Rudicus|W|P|Rant till the gay cows come home for all I care.My point was that these guys are so buddy buddy with the Catholic church when it suits their purposes like Homosexuality and Terri Schaivo, but as soon as they do something wrong, then it's the "Liberals" fault.
QOB|W|P|I think it's a mistake for any politician to hold themselves up as a member of any religious sect and then speak out in judgment.God will judge. He's clear that we should not.
And once you get caught up in that cycle of judgment it's very difficut to continue to defend your stance. Why? Because you were wrong to judge in the first place. And as a Christian (or other religious 'leader') you should know better. God asks us to humble ourselves, but believe me, if you don't, He'll do it for you.
This guy needs to recognize and repent or he WILL be humbled. (This is the part where I say 'mark my words'...)
I am saying all this, not in judgment of Mr. Santorum, but to defend Christianity. These days, it seems Christians are in constant defense of their religion because of this very thing. It's difficult to read these types of statements (constantly) and know that it keeps hundreds of thousands of people from ever wanting to know more about Christianity.
Glod|W|P|They don't run my country.Does that mean I have to leave?
Phoenix|W|P|QOB I think you hit on something important. My parents tried to raise me babtist, but it never took. But it was my choice. When they noticed that I really didn't like what I was learning they didn't force me to coninue. Granted... there were some other issues with a bad church, but they never forced religion down my throat.
Fast foward to now and we see the extreme religious right trying to force us to live by their interpretation of the bible. And it's having the exact effect that most measures like that do, it's making many of the rest of us rebel against the church.
I think that there are many out there who could benefit from the good side of religion. But while the extreme right tries to control society these people will not venture in that direction. Fear of the repressive attitudes will keep them away.
Maybe it has to come down to the religious people letting these extreme groups know how damaging these attitudes are. I think that the tolerant groups in the middle will have to take charge and let the extreme relgious right know that the attitude of control is not welcome. They're not listening to us non-religious people, but maybe those in he middle will be able to be heard.
I still believe in freedom of religion, but if we don't find a common ground with the mainstream religious and non-religious then we will lose that freedom. And that is because the extreme right is the only voice we hear right now. Speak up.
Mr Wang Says So|W|P|Heheh, Rudicus, been a while since I last visited and said something on your blog, looks like you've been having fun.On my blog, I've been arguing with one of your fellow citizens about your country. He's from middle America, a God-fearin' man, yessiree, heheh, your favourite kind of guy.
Come by, if you're interested. The debate is in the Comments section of this post.
Oh, and I recommended your blog to him, heheh.
Big Dog|W|P|Hey you stole my post. Or to say it in a more positive way, GTMA: Great minds think alike. But my post is shorter...of course. thordora|W|P|Wow. The jackasses have a new king in Rick. According to an article, his salary is "Santorum's salary as a senator is $157,000 a year."Gee, I could stay home with my kids if someone paid me to make illadvised comments about things I know nothing about. And with those 5 kids of his, it's obvious that he and his wife are well aware of the current issues many people face when having children, not to mention birth control. I mean, really, I can't afford to buy my kid a new bed, so it has to be her birthday present from her Grandparents. NICE.
But you know, I looked at my budget, and I couldn't decide if I could cut out half the grocery bill or not pay the hydro in order for my to stay home. Because I only work due to my "radical feminist" beliefs.
You can't even take this guy seriously, so why waste the air. I'm sure just totally IGNORING him would work better. How on EARTH do the people in public office in the states get there?
If there is a God(s), I'm sure they are yelling "I'm sorry, I DON'T SPEAK STUPID!" at this guy.
truly incredible that this man can manage to walk AND breathe at the same time....
and I thought Paul Martin was a jackass...
jayne|W|P|This is only slightly related...Last night, a caterer friend of mine was working a dinner in Houston that had that lovely man Pat Robertson (The 700 Club on CBN) as a speaker. My friend calls me from a corner and tells me that he needs my help coming up with what to say (politely) to a man who just spent 30 minutes gay-bashing and actually used the term "Alabama nigger" to refer to some students in some situation he was describing.
All this in 2005. So incredibly nice to know that a religious "leader" is wholesome enough to behave in the manner that he preaches every morning on television.
People like Robertson and Santorum are the sort that turn waivering non-believers and new believers off. As a socially liberal Christian, I find it hard to believe that any behavior that is socially inappropriate (nevermind morally or legally wrong) is a result of liberalism. I mean, gosh, it's socially inappropriate to be non-P.C., and you hear more about the Radical Religious Right doing that behaving that way. Oh, wait...that's probably a product of the liberal media, right?
Gotta love this country.
Rudicus|W|P|Jay,I think you and QOB are right on the money, and personally it is nice to see Christians who hold to their beliefs, but say, these freaks don't speak for me.
Christians have been around for many centuries and on occasion a radical sect comes up and does some awful stuff, but to me there are far more aspects of Christianity that talk about peace, love and understanding (thanks Elvis), than they do about war mongering and hate.
You can still be a good Christian for your entire life without ever "gettin your war on" with anybody or beating up the homos next door.
The CC's have apparently hijacked the religion in the same way they hijcaked the Republican party.
Well as more stories come out showing them for the fascists they are hopefully more people will say, "none for me thanks."
We have been hearing an awful lot about the "culture of life" that is being promoted by the CC's, The Republicans and W. It has become a rallying call for everything from abortion to stem cell research to Terri Schaivo. In a nutshell, it is the belief that all life is sacred and that choices about life and death as it applies to you or your family should not involve you, but be left up to the people who know what they are doing, like politicians.
The Prez is a big fan of the "culture of life" he uses the phrase all the time to decry the godless heathen liberals and their bloodthirsty love of baby killing and senior killing. But thankfully we have him and his friends to protect us from people making decisions about their own futures or protecting mothers who's lives are threatened by pregnancy or from having children after being raped, even by their own father. I'm glad that they are also protecting us from having to deal with all the potential cures for diseases and other quality of life measures that may be gleaned from stem-cell research. Furthermore it is reassuring to know that people who are in constant torment with terminal illnesses won't have to miss out on a single day of that torture from those who would want them to die with dignity on their own terms by their own choice. Clearly your life is far too important to be left up to you.
So it is with great confusion that I try to understand this whole "culture of life" business with respect to Capital Punishment. Is it as the Pope says?
"The culture of life means respect for nature and protection of God's work of creation. In a special way, it means respect for human life from the first moment of conception until its natural end."
or as W. says?
"Surely this nation can come together to promote the value of life. Surely we can fight off these laws that will encourage doctors or allow doctors to take the lives of our seniors. Surely, we can work together to create a culture of life so some of these youngsters who feel like they can take a neighbor's life with a gun will understand that that's not the way America is meant to be."
Maybe someone can explain to me why it is then that "Death Row George" was the Governor of killinest state in the country? What about this little gem from the Terri Schaivo situation?
"...our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life. Those who live at the mercy of others deserve our special care and concern. It should be our goal as a nation to build a culture of life, where all Americans are valued, welcomed, and protected..."
Doesn't that seem hypocritical or contradictory?
So it is with great interest that I read this story. It's about how the Republicans in the house want to pass a law called the Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005. It sounds very business like doesn't it. But in a nutshell it is a limitation on appeals so the government can kill people faster.
AVA|W|P|This so called "culture of life" makes no sense in a country where the death penalty exists. Not that I am against the death penalty, but I bet CC's are not out there defending murderers and rapists, who are also God's creation, or are they? Phoenix|W|P|Now I'll agree that there are some who milk the system... but the phrase "beyond a resonable doubt" is still there. That's why we allow appeals. New evidence, baised anybody or tired lawyers can always ovrlook something. If this passes we efectively eliminate a critical phrase to our justice system.Might as well start training to be a Judge Dredd style judge right now.
Vulture 6|W|P|You see no difference between Terri Schivo and a convicted killer? Are you serious? thordora|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator. Rudicus|W|P|Of course I DO. But when you make absolutist statements to galvanize your power base on a specific issue and that absolutist statement directly contradicts another practice that you engage in you have one of two choices - either you are a bald-faced hypocrite who is intentionally defrauding and manipulating people or you must admit that your absolutist statement is inaccurate and that you are in fact a moral realtivist.Since I am a moral relativist, I am free from the taint of hypocrisy. The so-called "culture of life" people are not.
thordora|W|P|I will never understand the "culture of life" in a country where maternity leave is 6 weeks long, and a large majority of children are hungry.Apparently you're important when you are a possibility, but not once you escape the womb.
What I never understood with the Schiavo thing was how they considered a feeding tube a natural way of living. Shouldn't free will, and the "culture of life" have let her die in the first place, instead of meddling for years by forcefeeding her?
Remember, it's the same country that had a shit over a "wardrobe malfunction" whilst scantily clad cheerleaders sat and waited to perform. I'm beginning to think "oxymoron" and "contradiction" are part of the constitution.
But I'm Canadian. What the hell do I know right?
Rudicus|W|P|Unfortunately Thordora, it's simply "being American" We are by far the dumbest smart country on earth - but it is purely because the hypocrisy of religion and the rationality of government and society cock each other up.I love Canada - it's a progessive nation that has been consistently smart in their foreign policy as they are in their social policy, and if it wasn't so damn cold up there, I think you'd see alot of American people "going Canadian."
Glod|W|P|Do you think they'd still be against stem cell treatment if they could be aquired from the patient and doesn't involve embyros and what not? thordora|W|P|It's not that cold. Plus, our beer is good enough to warm anyone. :)It's funny, because as a Canadian, I'm consistantly upset that our foreign policy isn't as good as it could be. Living here, you forget that we do rise above SOME other countries.
I was never prouder to be a Candadian then the day when our Prime Minister told Dubya we were NOT joining the bully club...sorry the "coalition of crap", no that's wrong.....I cannot remember...axis of idiots...no, that's not it either....
We're peacekeepers. I like that.
Nathan|W|P|That's funny. I saw an article on almost the same issue at the Ayn Rand Institute. =)Here is the link: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=-1&page=NewsArticle&id=10953
Rudicus|W|P|Good old Nathan, thanks for another link!Damn Ayn Rand, always copying me.
Phoenix|W|P|The funny thing is, Glod, that the only debate is about embroyinic stem cells. The stem cells taken from adult patients has never even been an issue. It's just that it takes so much blood filtering to get even a miniscule amount.I never understood why the debate was even there. The embryos are left overs from in vitro procedures. There is already a baby going to happen and these embryos would only go in the garbage anyway, so it's not as if we're doing anything worse. In fact by using these to help people we're putting them to good use.
But adult stem cell treatments are alraedy being tested in some cases, we jus don't hear about them becuse they don;t require "baby killing"
Glod|W|P|Given the ideas these people hold I wouldn't be too surprise if they declared all stem cells holy ground because of the power they could potentially give. thordora|W|P|maybe you should ask if "terrorist" stem cells are ok.It always boils down to what is worth more-current life, or potential life. I see the pitfalls they worry, but frankly, I rather doubt that we'll have farms of people waiting to be harvested for their kidneys, or bowls of tiny embryos that someone wanted.
Surely, we can work together to create a culture of life so some of these youngsters who feel like they can take a neighbor's life with a gun will understand that that's not the way America is meant to be."
um....isn't this kinda dubya's SOP in Iraq?
Nathan|W|P|It's amazing how many problems in the world are caused by irrationality. Irrationality is illogicity.Before I go any further with this, I want the following point to be made clear: we cannot say what is normal for everyone, we only know what is normal for us; we can also only judge a "general" normal by taking an average of normality. Therefore we can document people who transmit pain as pleasure (masochists) because we have a general consensus. The consensus is not wholly accurate, and calling masochists abnormal is not accurate at all when speaking on the whole of humanity.
Genetics/life produces "normal" people on a regular basis. All of those people have one thing in common: logic. You absolutely can not deny logic. Aristotle has clearly defined what logic is.
For instance, the letter A is the letter A. We know that. Trying to say it isn't the letter A, for whatever reason, is illogical and a contradiction. Contradictions only exist on misconceived perceptions.
But how do we know that it is the letter A? Because we have the power of obersvation and intelligence. If a gorilla, if it could speak, could tell you that that banana is a fricking banana. This is an undeniable fact, unless you are "abnormal". My reasons for this are profoundly spiritual and not factual; therefore I will not try to prove the point with facts, instead I'll just trust in your sanity. (Scientists cannot prove this either. It is, in essence, our initial "spark". We've defined what zone of the brain controls what, but we cannot tell where the spark to use that zone comes from. It is life.)
Now that that point has been established, and I will happily debate anything I've left unclear, on to the slightly shorter point.
Many problems such as this arise in the world. In every aeon they will continue to do so and people will bicker. It's apparently an endless cycle. Poverty, famine, plague, right and wrong, this religion vs that religion. Always in history. Always. I realized a long time ago that there was a specific reason for this somewhere. That it was foolish to deal with each problem as it arises because it would just continue infinitely.
There are four fundamental underlying reasons that go hand in hand:
1) human beings stick their noses into other people's business.
An individual has no right to intrude on another individual's privacy without their consent. Attack in any form is never morally or logically consistent. Only defense, again in any form, is.
2) human beings allow others to think for them
Accepting someone's opinion as your own without consideration or as full understanding as possible gives them control over you. If this person's morals are warped by bad experiences (death in the family, no support when raised as a child, etc.) they will use the domination to further their ends. This can also be in a different form of evil with a prettier face; i.e., religion. You absolutely cannot arrive at the conclusion of an All Mighty, Mysterious, Unseeable, Unfathomable, "Just Believe Damn it!" God on your logic and rationale. If the god is seeable and touchable and can show you he's almighty, whether or not you're on drugs, then I guess he's real for you. But that's a slightly different point.
3) human beings allow themselves to be under a government, which is a mechanism for satisfying the "public"
The "public" is compromised of masses of individuals - all with different perspectives. In a democracy you cannot please every perspective, and thus even giving them consideration is a fallacy because then you get "do we use stem cells or don't we". In a dictatorship you force your opinions on others. Now you aren't even trying to please them, so you're fucked. If you eliminate the need for government by educating people to be wholly self sustaining and sufficient these problems mysteriously vanish.
4) human beings do not work for their own happiness and put other's happiness before their's
For instance, male A marries female B. Male A spends a lot of money on material items, even though he didn't want to/couldn't really afford it, to make female B happy. Female B later on splits up with male A and this becomes a source of bitterness. "I never wanted to do this" "I never should've done that" "Why are you always like that". The answer is because you allowed your partner to be like that and said nothing and suffered in silence. If you spoke up the relationship would have never gone that far built on wobbly foundation. If you served your own happiness first in disregard for her's, instead of putting up with her or other people's shit, you wouldn't have that problem.
This doesn't mean you have to be negative about it. Quite the contrary. People need to learn to be relient on themselves. Once you are completely happy on your own, spending time with someone else the same way is much, much, much more rewarding.
Certain complications may come into play in which you follow your morals and logic. For instance, sacrificing this thing of no small importance means more to your female partner than to you, and her happiness means more than that item. In that case, it is not a sacrifice.
I hope this helps. I'm not just a link poster, sometimes. :)
Please debate or ask for clarification. I went to the supermarket with a friend in the middle of this so I may have lost a thread of thought.
We hope all of our friends in the U.K. are alive and well.
As expected, everyone is outraged and all the world leaders have decided to go on with the G8 summit - as they should.
Of course our Prez used this as another pulpit to preach the war on terror. What happened to Al Quida being in tatters? I thought we broke the back of the resistance. I thought we were winning the war on terror.
Sorry folks, you can't win an ideological conflict with bullets.
So should we add these to W's body count for the "war on terror." Personally I'm waiting for the total to hit that magic number where more Americans are killed in the war on terror than in the entire 9/11 attack.
Of all the folks to chime in with their displeasure at the London attacks, my favorite is our old pal Pope Eggs Benedict. He called the attacks:
"inhuman and anti-Christian,"
Well, they ARE Islamic Extremists after all. But can you really say this? It's not like they attacked a church or singled out Christians. Also they were all humans, I haven't heard anything about Martian Muslims or Romulan Islamists. So what kind of rhetoric is this?
How can he say it's anti-Christian, but when Muslims claim Bush is on an anti-Muslim crusade everyone gets twitterpated?
The fact is that this is a ideological conflict that started with U.S./Israli policy and went into full gear 5 minutes after the first bomb hit Baghdad. Afghanistan was a legitimate target and remains an internal struggle between two interior factions. Conversely, Iraq is not only a quagmire, but the best Muslim extremist recruiting tool since Richard the Lion Heart.
We need to figure out why we're pissing everyone off and then figure out a way to stop it. Just look at history; at no point do you destroy an ideology by killing people. It hasn't worked for anyone ever unless you are willing to wipe out every person who thinks that way - which is the only way to win a "War" on terror. Imagine what would have happened if the U.S. Govt had bombed South Central L.A. during the Rodney King riots - how do you think that would have worked out? If someone doesn't like you swearing, and the next 5 words out of your mouth are fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck - do you think they will then calm down about it?
You can't put out a fire by throwing gasoline on it and every building adjacent to it.
If you want everyone to stop attacking you for being a terrorist, stop acting like a terrorist. If you want people to stop terrorizing you for being an imperialist conqueror, stop acting like an imperialist conqueror.
If we want to be the moral democratic poster children for the world to admire, we have to stop swinging our big American dick around and slapping people with it.
I'm sorry for everyone that was hurt or killed in London or Madrid last year or Baghdad or New York. Hopefully this pissing contest will be over before the 2012 Olympics - which should have gone to Paris (booooooo IOC!)|W|P|112075775298231198|W|P|Bombs Away!|W|P|
Phoenix|W|P|Unfortunately I think the first step is one that many will not take. We all have to admit that our religion may not be the end all be all of truth. We have to be willing to acept the viewpoints of others, even if we do not convert to their beliefs. Only when we have understanding can we work to solve the problems that plague our fragile planet.
We also need to accept the fact that we need to be willing to help our "enemies." People repressed, or in desperate situations will do whatever it takes to survive. We cause some of the hatred against us by refusing to help those who need it.
|W|P|Dude, you are right on! QOB|W|P|I think the Pope meant to say that the attacks go against the peace Christ taught - they are anti-Christian in that they come from a place in which the beliefs are opposite those of the Christian faith. And following that line of logic, they would also be anti-Muslim, anti-Buddhist, etc. They would be anti-any religion that teaches peace, love, respect.ALL PEOPLE WHO PERPETRATE ANY ACT OF TERROR ON ANY LEVEL, IN THE NAME OF ANY RELIGION THAT PROCLAIMS PEACE, ARE NOT ACTUALLY SUBMITTING THEIR LIFE TO THE TENETS OF THAT RELIGION, AND THUS SHOULD NOT BE USED AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE FOLLOWERS OF THAT RELIGION OR BE HELD UP AS AN EXAMPLE OF THAT RELIGION'S TENETS OR BELIEFS.
As for inhuman, you are silly! You knew he meant inhumane, which all acts of terror are.
Phoenix, I have to disagree with one statement you made: I DO NOT have to admit that my religion is not the end-all be-all of truth. I believe in an absolute truth and I believe in Christ and His teachings. However, your next sentence I ABSOLUTELY agree with, that we DO have to be willing to accept the viewpoints of others even if we do not convert to their beliefs. If I believe in God, God gave us free will, so WHO THE HECK AM I to judge what another person does with their free will or their relationship with God??? I will simply be an example, light and salt to this world. That's what Christ teaches. If I truly believe, that's what I need to follow. And as for you, you have free will. Do what you choose, within the bounds of your own life and choices.
Rudicus|W|P|See now that's great. To each their own as long as you are not hurting or infringing on anyone else. I wish there were more Christians like you, we'd be in better shape - you should go into ministry.I know it was probably supposed to be inhumane, but there is always time for comedy and I can't resist making fun of the Pope. Besides you can't pass up a chance to say Martian Muslims, because how often doesn that happen.
As for the post, I guess I'm saying that NOONE is acting in an acceptable fashion in this whole deal Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Athiest or otherwise. Obviously not the terrorists, but not the coalition either.
Phoenix|W|P|Didn't mean to offend QOB, but I have met too many who think that it's their religion of fire for eternity. It's just that with so many religions in the world it is almost silly to believe that there is that one correct one and the rest of us are doomed.
and I didn't say that we have to admit that it is not the end-all-be all of truth, just that it May not be. I mean in the grand scheme of things who knows what's right? Not me. I could be wrong.
Rudicus|W|P|I'll say it again for all those of you who didn't hear it the first 200 times:The only absolute is; there are no absolutes.
QOB|W|P|Oh, no Phoenix, you did not offend me at all. You have a position and I have an alternate position. I was simply stating an area where we disagree, which is perfectly non-offensive. You have always been very respectful, and we can enjoy situations and conversations where we respectfully disagree.As for the idea of absolutes, I disagree. (Here she goes again!) I think that's a cop-out the same way you think religion is a cop-out. Without absolutes, what is there to submit yourself to? Why believe you should or should not do anything? How do you find any moral or ethical judgment, or your idea of right and wrong or good and bad if you do not have a foundation? (So I guess I'm equating absolute with foundation.)
I think, with these questions, I'm going to open up a dialogue that proves truly educational.
Rudicus|W|P|Well we can go ahead and start things off:Without absolutes:
What is there to submit yourself to?
Well that's my whole point, without absolutes, there is nothing to submit yourself to - why must you submit to anything - it's your life to do with as you please, by submitting it to anyone or anything for any reason, you are giving your power away. And for what gain other than a comforting belief that someone is looking out for you and has a plan for you, but without anything to substantiate that, then you are really giving your power to those who would take it for their own purposes and possibly abuse it - all other humans.
Why believe you should or should not do anything?
Again, exactly my point. This is the very reason why there are no absolutes. What is right or wrong for you may not be right or wrong for someone else. And whay may be considered illegal in one culture may be perfectly acceptable in another - if this is true, how then can you say one way is more right than the other without anything other than a bible to substantiate it - especially if they have a bible of their own. What you "should" or "should not" do is a product of the culture and society you live in and is based upon consequences. If a baby touches a hot stove, but doesn't get burned, do they really learn not to touvh hot stoves? If a person lies all the time and never gets caught and actually reaps many benefits from lying, would they really learn that lying is wrong?
How do you find any moral or ethical judgment, or your idea of right and wrong or good and bad if you do not have a foundation?
You can't, but the foundation is based on the society you are born into, and in some cases that foundation comes from religion, but since each religion is different, how can we say that there is any "right" way to do something. That would indicate some sort of a priori knowledge that each person was born with, and I do not think that exists otherwise different cultures wouldn't have different mores - unless you want to rule an entire culture as evil or corrupt. If your 30 year old male next door neighbor was caught having sex with a 13 year old girl, he would be locked up and branded a sex offender. Conversely, if the same thing happened in Italy during the rennaisance, those two would be married and not be considered odd at all. Who is right? If we took people out into the public square this afternoon and stoned them to death we would be considered barbaric and ripe for regime change, however this was common practice centuries ago in Judea. Is it then wrong or not? Society is fluid and so are morals and values - they flow along with the culture and the people who inhabit them.
We murder cows every day for meat, but society doesn't consider a person eating a steak to be amoral, a criminal or unchristian. Now imagine a race called the Xylon came to earth and started eating humans and domesticating them and carving them up and putting them in grocery stores on Xylonia. do you think we would consider the Xylon evil and amoral and unchristian?
But I suppose you have to take into consideration that I am a moral relativist, which the Pope has said is one of the greatest threats to the church. But an absolute doesn't leave room for interpretation and grows more and more improbable the more it is challenged. If you want to see what I mean - give me an absolute that you believe in and let me throw some examples and what if's at it, and you will quickly see the ridiculous lengths you have to go to to keep it intact.
There are so many positive and life affirming aspects to faith, but it is the absolute nature of them that keep them from being truly reasonable or viable.
Glod|W|P|Is that last part because France is home to free-thinkers? Last time London got the Olympics a war was on, so we had to rush it four years later. Anyway, it'll be a good oppotunity for whoever will be prime minister to cock up. QOB|W|P|Faith, by definition, cannot be reasonable - it cannot be "reasoned". Faith is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. I don't think the absoluteness of faith has kept it from being reasonable, I think the definition of faith keeps it from being reasonable.And I think faith has proved its viability. It is still around and it is still effective. It has survived for centuries.
Let me see if I can come up with an absolute...hmmmm...okay...how about 'water quenches thirst'. Will that work? If not, why don't you throw three or four 'absolutes' out there, and I'll tweak and resubmit.
cosmopolite81|W|P|Thanks for the comedy Rudy! It's much apreciated at times like this. I heard the news on the radio this morning while buying some groceries. Immediately, I emailed my relatives in England to make sure everyone was alright. Metropolises like London, New York, Madrid will always be inviting to people with a terroristic agenda. Now, finding out who these people are is not nearly as important as trying to understand why they felt that this was their best or only choice. From what I've observed, situations like this generally come with ample warning (9/11).
I, for one, am not prepared to point any fingers or assume any motives. To say with unwaivering certainty that this was an attack by "Islamic Extremist" is rash. Extremists? Absolutely. Islamic? Not necessarily. Correct me if I'm wrong here. Last I heard, no one had a clue as to who was responsible for these attacks. We shouldn't be so eager to blame. Dare I say it could have been Westerners? British, Irish, American even! No, not possible, communists perhaps, but not good, old-fashioned, peace-loving Westerners. Our society could never spawn such individuals as this - relying on brute tactics, to purposely attack the innocent at random. Sorry about the sarcasm. My point is, it could have been any group with any ideology. If people feel strongly enough about something, and don't feel they're being heard, they are often led to drastic or "extreme" measures.
I think we, as a species, have to come to terms with our realationship to each other BEFORE we can ever expect to understand anything of the divine. I feel that by allowing ourselves to get caught up in these semantical debates about religion we sell ourselves short. We are only feeding our all-too-human(e) egos and wreaking havok on any sort of connection we might have with what is simple and natural in this world. What ever happened to humility?
Rudicus|W|P|Your point is well taken, although I do beleive that they established and Al Qaeda link earlier.People forget that one of the biggest terrorist attacks on the U.S. was in Oklahoma City done by an American who was also a decorated U.S. Soldier.
Phoenix|W|P|I heard it said once that humans are hard wired for faith. Whether it be a standard religion or something completely different we are still wired for it. An aethist who believes that your body turns to dirt and no more quarters for respawn allowed still believes that, and they live their life accordingly.
In the end though, before any diety can judge you must answer the questions you ask of yourself.
Because of that I submit to my own feelings. If I know that I will suffer guilt or other negative feelings I do not do something. On the other hand, if I know that good feelings will follow an action than that is the course I take, but only when I am confident that the feelings will be lasting and not turn negative later.
As to foundation... I agree with rudicus. our foundation is what we know from experience. But we also see some evidence of built in morals. I know a person whose situation is so bad that all of his siblings are constantly in trouble with the law, but this person decided that he wanted to go another direction. He volunteers with children who come from circumstances like his to show them that there is another way. so while built in morals may not be standard, maybe we can assume that there is a fundamental goodness and that circumstances can force us otherwise?
cosmopolite81|W|P|Thanks for the recongnition, and the invite here J. I've been cruising the BBC website and the "connection" has only been made by presumptuous reporters. Rudicus|W|P|I hate to use the E word here, but evolution could play a role here. Cultures and societies that were based on crazed murderous behavior would not survive or thrive - likewise societies that were purely pacifistic would not survive, so it is probable that our culture and morals developed from those before us who developed models that provided for long term success.Those cultures also used religion as part of their society - so it is likewise it is probability that that trait develoed over time as well - especially as folks saw a benefit to it.
Rudicus|W|P|Cosmo,it was my understanding that it was claimed by that group, but they just hadn't independently confirmed it yet.
cosmopolite81|W|P|Phoenix, I think your "fundamental goodness" is still relative. Unless by "goodness" you meant "naturalness" in which case I would be inclined to agree. Or perhaps, what you meant by assuming goodness was giving common respect. I think people tend to over-complicate their feelings by trying to intellectualize them or by placing too much importance on them. It is very easy for us to get into the habit of seeing one view-point as being "good" or "right" and others as veering away from it and becomming "bad or "wrong". Dig your Blog by the way ;-) Phoenix|W|P|which one cosmo? bumpersticker or ramble? Even though I should know... most like the stickers.
cosmopolite81|W|P|Rudy, this is a new group that no one has heard of before claiming responsibility for the attacks. Who is to validate it's legitimacy. I'm not inclined to take the easy way out by latching on to the first mention of al-qaeda. cosmopolite81|W|P|I must disagree with you Rudy. Purely pacifist societies existing before written history remain today - take the Australian aboriginees for example. I would go so far as to argue that these "old-world" cultures, being pacifist by nature, provide the ONLY viable model for the long-term success of our species. Rudicus|W|P|Well I would agree that the tribal model is the only viable sustainable model, and I wasn't saying that pacifistic societies and cooperative cultures were impossible, but they tend to flourish in more remote areas like Australia, the Amazon and the South Pacific, although those areas also had an equal number of hyper violent cultures as well - perhaps there wasn't as much direct competition for resources in those places.We’re going to start today's post off with a fun game called “Who’s Going To Hell.”
- A woman who lives in India, next to Mother Theresa who does exactly the same work and has saved thousands of lives as well as providing comfort for the dying and is widely revered by all. She is also an atheist.
- A man who lives in
- A woman who lives in
- A man who is a Government Official in
I assume you would still have to go to church every week and listen to some sanctimonious jack-off drone on for a couple hours while you miss the Angels vs. Demons game on ESPN HELL.
You’re the one that fell for that free trip to
Phoenix|W|P|remember that book: who's who in hell?Why go to heaven when hell has all the interesting folks?
Seriously though. There is something to be said about living in the now and doing good. And trying to make things happen for yourself instead of praying to some invisible person to make it happen for you.
Glod|W|P|I just try to avoid being an un-nice person, and if there is an after life I may qualify. Though there is a rather lot of commen sense to suggest all I'll do is make the world a slightly nicer place. QOB|W|P|I didn't see anyone on that list that will be going to heaven. :-)Just kidding.
Seriously, though, I don't understand how anyone feels justified in judging who will go to heaven and who will not. (And I recognize the purpose of this "game" was not for YOU to judge - simply to make a point. I'm speaking more to people who stand up with their religious label fastened securely across their forehead, and then condemn and judge others.) And besides, I feel like I need to be much more concerned with how I treat others and my personal example of these beliefs I hold - I don't have the time or energy or level of authority to determine who will and who won't be going to heaven.
That's between you and God and God and you. Not me.
Rudicus|W|P|See, now we can agree on that.I'm glad you saw the point. Most of my challenges are with certain organized relgions and the hypocrisy they espouse.
Having some sort of ecclesiatical get into heaven free card is really no different than the Muslim idea that blowing up people is a free ride to the promised land no matter what. I wouldn't want to be in heaven with a group of bomb crazed lunatics either.
I'm glad you are participating, I'm sure you'll bring a fresh perspective to our discussions.
John the Atheist|W|P|Everyone's going to hell. The Christians will go to Muslim hell, the Muslims will go to Buddhist hell, the Jews will go to Christian hell and so on. I think it's only the non-believers who's going to enjoy heaven (hahaha!) Rudicus|W|P|That's why I always say I'm waiting for The Rapture to take all the religious people away so I can get some peace and quiet. jayne|W|P|"Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation that He is."--Blaise Pascal, Thoughts: Of the Necessity of the Wager
***I won't embroil myself in a battle of ideologies with you. But, as a Christian (a liberal one at that), let me ask this...if I believe and can gain all or lose nothing, what is to be gained by not believing?
Rudicus|W|P|Well, I would say that depends on what comes along with that belief. Pascal's gamble is really set in a vacuum without considering all of the variables, it also presupposes a benevolent deity, which given tsunami's and terrorists and such seems incongruent.But be that as it may, I don't think the choice not to believe leaves very much flexibility. Given the number of believers vs. non believers, it would appear that belief was the default position. As such those who continue to disbelieve face growing pressure and not much happiness as a result - being devoid of all the trappings of faith etc.
The challenge is that once you cross that line into disbelief, you can't really go back. For me it came after many years of exhaustive research and experience, so to go back would be fundementally impossible unless all of the myriad of questions that I asked that went unanswred were somehow explained to my satisfaction.
Just like anything else, once you learn how the magic trick is done, it's not really any fun anymore.
The only real benefit is in knowing that al my life decisions are made by me and that I am in complete control of my life and destiny as much as that is possible, but it also means that I have to take full responsibility for it and can't blame god, fate or satan for anything.
All told, I think faith is probably a preffered state of being since I sense that more people are happier in that state. I just can't go there because I can't stop asking questions. So I would say not much is to be gained by non-belief, but for the perpetually inquisitive, that's where you end up.
If you don't want to end up there. Just don't ask the questions or you'll spoil the magic trick.
thordora|W|P|I've always agreed with the perspective in Good Omens. Heaven would be boring, and full of a bunch of people you won't want to talk to anyway.Screw heaven.
Phoenix|W|P|love that book. AVA|W|P|I so agree with you on this one. Heaven and hell are just a bunch of nonsense. This is a wonderful post Rudicus.
boneSmith|W|P|Wonderfully incredible post... Thanks!--BS
http://bonesmith.blogspot.com/
Josh|W|P|Your blog is great! It's hard to find blogs with good content and people talking about tarot cards these days! I have a secret tarot cards exposed if you want to come check it outBut what happens when you win? What do you do when you have defeated your adversary and the field is yours? The Theocons are facing this very dilemma.
As I read through the myriad of conservative blogs which we all know are little more than propaganda tools churned out by robots for the empire, one of the many things that struck me was the overwhelming sense of oppression. Initially I blew it off as more rhetoric, but then I started thinking, who exactly is oppressing them?
To listen to them, they are under the heel of liberals wherever they may turn. But exactly how is that possible? The Conservatives control all three branches of government, the supreme court, most major corporations, the church, the military and the hearts and minds of the majority of the population. So how they hell could anyone be preventing them from doing anything? Who has more power than they do?
Is it the activist judges? Can't be, first of all most of them are on their own team. The majority of those appeals courts and "activist" judges are actually card carrying conservatives and Christians to boot! Secondly if the decisions were being made by rogue judges, wouldn't there be an ethics challenge that could be made or at the very least another court would overturn it?
It must be the ACLU then. I agree that the ACLU is a thorn in the side of CC's everywhere, but are you CC's now willing to admit that a bunch of lawyers are more powerful than the whole of the U.S. Government? Also shouldn't the conservative judges be denying the ACLU their rights? Unless they are ALL activist judges, I would think so.
Well then it has to be the Liberal Controlled Media. Exactly which aspect of the media do the liberals control? Not most of the newspapers, certainly not Fox or the network that lost Dan Rather. Even Public Broadcasting the so-called liberal haven, has now been taken over by Conservatives. And let's look a little closer. Remember Bill Clinton? This guy put his cigar in his girlfriend's "cigar box" and then said he didn't and the media went crazy - it was all over the "liberal" controlled media for months, and then the impeachment took everything in a whole other direction. Conversely, When Bush lied about WMD's and took us to war, and then when the downing street memo came out and now the Time magazine notes naming Karl Rove as the traitor who "outed" one of our intelligence agents in the field out of political revenge - you would think the Liberal Controlled Media would be having a field day, but instead...[cue crickets]
Nothing.
So who is it exactly that is oppressing the Conservatives and Christians? Who is stopping them? Who is behind this grand conspiracy? They are.
That's right it's just one more fabrication to churn up their base and get more of their agenda pushed through while retaining the appearance of fighting the good fight and keeping the sheep afraid of the wolves and under their control. Sheep who aren't scared don't do what they are told.
The only thing keeping these guys from world domination are some pesky gnats like ethics, law, freedom, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
So the next time you hear about how the poor CC's are being oppressed by the jackbooted liberals who somehow control everything, don't forget to call bullshit. The only real freedom fighters and underdogs are those fragile blogger voices who are fighting for truth, justice and the American way.|W|P|112059133285003868|W|P|Where's Satan When You Need Him?|W|P|
Glod|W|P|I think you need to use more explosives and banners to get your point across. Phoenix|W|P|it sucks when you are your own enemy AVA|W|P|Or you could start selling T-shirts. Rudicus|W|P|Kind of like that "I'm The NRA" campaign a few years back.It would be great to have an "I Am Satan" t-shirt, but here inthe bible belt I don' think anyone would get it.
I was thinking about doing some Rudicus Report T-shirts, I just don't want to do white ones so i'm looking for a supplier like Cafe Press that will do other colors.
Phoenix|W|P|cafepress has some colors, just not red or black.I think I've seen gray, yellow, and neon green
Rudicus|W|P|In other words nothing good - lolI'd really only want to do darker colors like green, blue or black - but they're more expensive.
I'll do bumper stickers to so you can put one on random SUV's
Phoenix|W|P|lol Nathan|W|P|http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=649961&lastnode_id=124 Rudicus|W|P|Nathan,That's hilarious - I'll give you credit, you got me - I got to #7 or #8 before I got it.
Thanks!!
greeneyed_lady|W|P|I don't see anyone oppressed or depressed at all. I see both neocons and liberals alike being propaganda tools for their particular god of either Democrat or Republican. I think both extreems "think" they are winning. I think its the people who aren't playing this stupid game who are depressed. Sassy|W|P|Well this facination with Clinton and the cigar also helps to explain the media coverage when Americans purchase more Enquire scandle sheets then the New York Times and Wallstreet Journal combined. American people love entertainment, we don't care so much about the issues. That helps to explain why cigars get far more coverage then WMD - they aren't very entertaining. Molly|W|P|First off, I'm with you 100%. Second, one of the descriptions on your banners has a typo in it. I got distracted and now I can't remember which one, but I think it was a repeated letter or something. Maybe you don't care, but I'm obsessive about that sort of thing. PATCAM2005|W|P|you had my attention at: "propaganda tools churned out by robots for the empire".Excellent post, I'll have to come back and check this blog out again.
Rudicus|W|P|Molly thanks for the tip, I couldn't see the typo, but that banner will be gone in a day or two and i'll have a new one up, but thanks.Patcam, thanks for visiting, please come back, there is always something going on here.
QOB|W|P|I'm a conservative Christian. And I'm free-thinking. Do YOU believe that's possible?I appreciate this post even though, at times, it was difficult to read. I realized, towards the end, that you equate cc's with republicans and a political agenda. Once I caught on, it was an easier post to comprehend and follow.
I find it a sad fact that your equation is the majority of non-Christians. I would challenge anyone who considers themselves a Christian and yet is not in daily relationship with God, or on a daily pursuit of wisdom regarding Christ's teachings. And I'd ask you to do the same. I hate being lumped into the same category as others who simply use the label "Christian" but don't really stand for anything truly "Christian". It really is more than just a label. And to me, it's equivalent with those pesky gnats.
Rudicus|W|P|I appreciate your comment. I understand and agree that there are numerous Christians who are good people who do not subscribe to the Christian Conservative/Republican dogma. There are plenty of Christian liberals and moderates as well.I do not beleive that a person can be a Christian and a Free-Thinker - to me the two are mutually exclusive(we can discuss that in further detail if you feel like it). However I do not hold anything against Christians as long as they don't think that they are always right and that everyone else is wrong.
If you are that Christian, then I'm pleased to meet you, we've been looking for you for a long time, Neo. If you do not share the agenda or the tactics of the people I'm calling the CC's please say something about it - to them! They believe that they are always right and everyone else is wrong.
I'm glad you visted and appreciate your thoughtful comments. Feel free to come back and comment, although I can't imagine you will like much that you read over here.
QOB|W|P|Who am I to have to like everything I read? I believe it may prove interesting. And I vow to remain open-minded and simply offer an alternate - but respectful - opinion, when I feel so inclined. Thanks for the welcome.I used to participate in the Philosophy Forums and had a great time for a few months - then the questions started to repeat themselves. I then ventured over to EPhilosopher and they had the very same questions and very same answers over there.
Then I started to see patterns. The believers could never be convinced to abandon their beliefs no matter how much evidence was stacked up in front of them and non-believers likewise wouldn't abandon their position without some evidence to the contrary, which of course there is none. But this phenomenon didn't change between liberals and conservatives or any other group on any other level. So the conclusion I drew was that you cannot change someone else's beliefs about anything if they already believe in it, no matter what you say, show them or persuade them to think differently.
The other thing I've noticed is that there is nothing new. The same thoughts and ideas that were milling around ancient Greece are the same ones we talk about today, just with different packaging. I also noticed that the vast majority of discussion was less like an actual debate and more like a presidential debate where each side simply waited for their turn and spewed out their agenda of belief.
So, what is the point of philosophy?
What are we hoping to accomplish? How does it better anyone's life or the world? Has society progressed to the point where everything is so dogmatically polarized that the questions of philosophy no longer have relevance?
If there is nothing new under the sun and minds cannot really be changed in any real capacity, has philosophy simply become an intellectual circle jerk? It seems to me that philosophers are little more than lawyers who are arguing a case that can't be won.
Years ago before we had any form of mass communication, it was possible for people not to have thought about things philosophically. There was still much that we didn't know about the world, ourselves and each other. Time, technology and philosophy changed all that. These days - all of the great philosophical questions have been asked and answered. Since we can't know the answers with any certainty, there really isn't anything further left to do.
Right now, the only people thinking about these things is students - people who are newly asking these questions. Everyone else has either decided not to ask them or has already asked them and developed their opinions. Even today, most discussions of philosophy involve people "debating" a topic by quoting other philosophers. No understanding is gained, it is simply a soapbox for competing dogmas to battle - and the only real victor is in which philosopher made a better argument (just like in court where the case is not decided based on right and wrong or justice, it all rules and who makes a better argument and/or exploits the rules to their advantage).
So where does that leave us? Is philosophy dead? I think it may be. What was originally a very broad field, has now been factionlized and specialized to the point where the great thinkers are no longer asking new questions.
So what do we do? If you have a limited number of questions and a library full of answers to those same questions already in existence, where do you go for there. If you can't change what people think, then the only way you can progress is in changing how they think. You can only move forward by getting people outside of their dogmatic camps and thinking differently.
We have to change the way we think about life and the world. We have to re-examine our processes and make decisions for ourselves and not falling into the trap of having others make our decisions for us.
Let's all start today. Declare independence for yourself and your thoughts.
What do YOU think?
|W|P|112057756509649666|W|P|The End of Philosophy?|W|P|
Phoenix|W|P|The problem isn't the questions. The problem is the answers. Moreso, the problem is the people. That closed mindedness.
Why ask the questions if nobody is willing to actually discuss and consider the answers?
I do see some use for philosophy, however. When you apply it to ethics you reach into a whole new realm of philosophy.
It may only be a direction in which only a few will roam, but you can use the questions of old to help solve a problem of now.
As to my beliefs. I think that we haven't found everything yet. Having that knowledge makes it easier to be able to actually consider the views of others. But don't shove your beliefs down my throat.
:-)
AVA|W|P|Definitely, these days there is probably nothing we haven't asked ourselves already and that we haven't already answered. As you said, by now, people that care the slightest bit about Philosophy have already developed their own point of view on mostly every issue, and there is no changing it. I'm sure you wouldn't change yours, and I wouldn't change mine based only on arguments.
Yes, Philosophy is dead as we know it. But as long as we still think for ourselves, question our own's or other people's beliefs and keep forming our own opinions based on what we think are reliable facts, Philosophy will always exist.
The problem is that every day there are less and less people who are capable of doing just that, and there are more things that distract us from the questions that really matter.
Nathan|W|P|I have yet to see a good, original question concerning metaphysics on the philosophy forums. What I see is a bunch of hoo hah people quoting other people. The couple people I have seen that said "I think" or "I believe" are shot down.But the people that say "I think" are out there. Philosophy will never die.
Rudicus|W|P|That's the problem right there - there is this belief (especially in academia) that anything YOU think can't possibly be as good as what Descartes or Hume or Russell or Plato thought and whenever you bring your own thoughts into is, it's all about proof.That's the whole point of philosophy is is to think for yourself - and if you have others thinking for themsleves - you might actually get somewhere.
That's what we need a thinking for yourself forum, where only your opinion counts.
Thanks for the comment.
Nathan|W|P|That's quite the original idea!You know, it has merit. I do have a web domain I could set up the forums at. Would you like to try it? I wouldn't be very good at advertising it, though. I suppose the blogging community might be a good way to initially spread it.
For sometime now, since the Theocons became emboldened because people didn't have the good sense to say anything or stand up to them when it was happening, gays have been their target. There has been an ongoing campaign to marginalize, demonize and brutalize anyone or anything that even has the connotation of being gay. They've gotten their entire base of robots all up in arms about and have even gotten Pope Nazi all frothed up about it and now that kind of crap is spreading.
The more you put a religious or ideological wall in between people, the more violence, intolerance and hatred will result.
So yesterday at what should have been a cause for celebration at the Gay Pride Parade in Jerusalem, another positive event was mired by religious fanaticism. Not the usual "God Hates Fags" or "Homos Burn in Hell" crap that you see over here. No, this time a fundamentalist ran into the crowd in the middle of the parade and stabbed three people. NICE!
This is exactly why hate-speech and rhetoric are so dangerous. This is why people get arrested for yelling "fire" if there isn't one - because people lose their minds and do crazy things. Beatings, stabbings, shootings, bombings all perpetrated because religious fanaticism churned them up.
A moral person does not bomb abortion clinics. If a person were raised without religion, the likelihood of them committing crimes in the name of religion is minimal at best. But when you take a person who is probably already of questionable stability, fill them full of rhetoric and then preach hatred to them - what do you think they are going to do?
Can anyone find an article talking about how religious fundamentalists did something positive for humanity? Any pieces about them committing selfless acts or being especially compassionate or tolerant? If you can, please let me know.
Fundamentalism is infecting this planet like a virus and it only leads to death and destruction both figuratively and literally. So when you hear people crying about moderates being liberals in sheeps clothing or how relativism is destroying the church - hear it for what it really is.|W|P|112024505366897804|W|P|You Reap What You Sow.|W|P|
Phoenix|W|P|It's strange that it is really just the people on the fringe.My grandmother is extremely religious. She thinks that the science is wrong and that the world was really created in 7 days, but she understands that I am a scientist and she doesn't try to change my views. She is also extremely tolerant of gays and other people.
This is the path that religion needs to take, tolerance. By forcing us to adhere to religious ways they are only alienating those who might understand them otherwise. But by restraining themselves we will be able to live in a better harmony. They need to learn that you don't have to have religion to have morals, and that for some people religion just isn't the way to go.
So why this seemed to get slightly off topic, I can explain. We hear about these religious psychos, but they really are on the fringe. These are the ones screaming the loudest, and I think that in some cases really good people are getting the shit.
So let's fight against the religious fundamentalists, but let's try to avoid getting those who actually care and are tolerant caught in the crossfire.
jane|W|P|What an excellent entry that was. I think you're right on, its extremists of any faction thats so very dangerous.great blog!
Rudicus|W|P|This is why I think the revolution is actually going to come from the middle. It'll be a Mod Revolution.I guess why I like to point out these extreme cases is because not only are they happening more frequently, but the rhetoric is getting more and more fundemental by the minute - which will only increase this kind of thing.
I think thebig difference is in attitude - my grandmother does much the same thing - holding all sorts of zany beliefs, but she doesn't think everyone she meets needs to think, do and be exactly what she is, nor does she want to use her beliefs to infect every aspect of life. "I can eat my broccoli without Jesus thank you." "Jesus will not help me clean my fuel injectors" etc.
But it's the militancy and fundelentalism that's the issue - I'm just afraid that their extremism will become mainstream.
CT|W|P|Good post... Yeah Religion is not only a crutch for the weak minded, but also a way to try and control the masses... As we can see there are many flaws... It's a shame so many people have to be told whats right, and can't think for themselves... FUCKING SHEEP!!! LOLGood Times