tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87093337504211718132024-03-19T04:05:58.129-05:00To Hold NothingReligion, politics, philosophy and more from a secular Buddhist perspective.Holding Nothinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01824563181864407961noreply@blogger.comBlogger202125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8709333750421171813.post-17767505784588683172017-09-10T21:45:00.002-05:002017-09-10T21:45:54.246-05:00The Nashville Statement-Poorly Titled AND Worded<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/>
<w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
<w:Word11KerningPairs/>
<w:CachedColBalance/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRHKx9vycay3eMNeDuBYbTxzr2uoMO_88nXJ6r9bdZCq8oe6ZPE14Qzu_DO-NXtlHrysb9yZRbFM7CkPNWr2k3gP57yWS1UW5MA01xfBPPoPpjtmnilEzEe1A5FzLvFtSoUCdmrLBjYFih/s1600/59a72fd91700002400287874.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="461" data-original-width="820" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRHKx9vycay3eMNeDuBYbTxzr2uoMO_88nXJ6r9bdZCq8oe6ZPE14Qzu_DO-NXtlHrysb9yZRbFM7CkPNWr2k3gP57yWS1UW5MA01xfBPPoPpjtmnilEzEe1A5FzLvFtSoUCdmrLBjYFih/s640/59a72fd91700002400287874.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement/</span>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The week before Labor Day, the Council for Biblical
Manhood and Womanhood (you need a council to discuss that like the canon of
Christian scriptures nearly 2 millennia ago?) released what they called the
Nashville Statement, codifying their views of sexuality and gender and how
everyone should conform to their particular view of Christianity and “Godly”
morals as relates to them. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The title is odd for a few reason: 1, they’re not
headquartered in Nashville, it’s out of Louisville, Kentucky. And the last
statement they released, reflecting a somewhat similar complementarian view of
male and female, was out of Danvers, Massachusetts. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Weird how they chose Nashville as the point for this
new statement, but it was because they convened at the Southern Baptist
Convention’s annual Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. So it could’ve
just as easily been the Atlanta Statement, unless they often go to Nashville to
talk about how their religious liberty is “at risk”.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The group is known for their reactionary views, the
Danvers Statement their first protest against “revolutionary” ideas like women
not being relegated to submissive roles and expectations about how they ought
to live their lives. They haven’t changed much, except that they’re not
primarily against feminism now, but gay and transgender people. In modern
times, it’s become less acceptable to reduce women to servants in one manner
when it comes to worshipping God.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">So I’ll be doing a point by point analysis of sorts
on this 14 part thing, including the preamble for 15 aspects total. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Preamble</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">First off, the Preamble, which is really just
complaining that the world is changing, even though that’s a core tenet of
Christian practice: believers are meant to stand out from the world, even as
they are involved within it. Put another way: Christians are supposed to feel
persecuted and be disparaged for their beliefs because, in a sort of pariah
complex to rationalize it all, they must be in the right when people point out the
inconsistencies or disbelieve in general. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Cognitive dissonance aside, the gist is that
anything apart from God’s “plan”; which they apparently think they know fully
in spite of God being a perfect entity, which even the Bible is arguably only a
portion of its complete nature, seen through a glass darkly; is making us less
good as a society at large. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">If anything, the evidence suggests the opposite:
we’re physically healthier than before in many respects, even if our
psychological health is questionable for a number of non religious factors, such
as socioeconomic pressures and unrealistic societal expectations. Obviously,
with a focus on manhood and womanhood, the group is trying to spin any
nontraditional sexuality or gender expression as the major threat to
Christianity without considering other factors as to why people feel alienated
by Christian groups, so we’ll just chalk this up to the echo chamber of the Southern
Baptist Convention reinforcing their own ideas</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Article
1</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The 1st article affirms that marriage is covenantal,
sexual, procreative and a lifelong union designed by God. And by association,
anything homosexual, polygamous or polyamorous is against that design. They
also emphasize that they believe marriage is not a purely human contract, even
though anthropology suggests that marriage was not primarily religious in
nature as economic, bringing families together for general benefits to their social
group at large </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Today we have an arguably better society where
people can elect to get married or not in terms of both the civil contract for
tax benefits/etc and the spiritual union that represents an important moment in
one’s religious worldview as a metaphor for worship of their deity, etc.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Marriage is indeed sexual and lifelong, I won’t
contest that. Physical desire is a part of it, especially in the beginning,
though it shouldn’t become the primary aspect, especially when intimacy is as
much about being open with your feelings as how you express love physically
with your spouse.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Covenantal is, I’m almost certain, meant to reflect
the Christian idea that marriage is likened to the church marrying itself to
Jesus as the core aspect for God’s grace and salvation. I’d meet them in the
middle and say that marriage should be regarded as unitive, something that
bonds two people for the rest of their lives, provided there aren’t problems of
infidelity/abuse/etc. People too often seem to regard marriage as something of
a fad and that IS a problem, as I’ve said in the past regarding how giving
marriage recognition to gay couples is hardly an issue contrasted with people
being able to nullify their agreement because they don’t feel like they’re in
love anymore versus actual harm to the couple’s trust in each other. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The procreative aspect is the most questionable
here, though it’s not uncommon for that to be a sticking point, since people
are so scared about immigrants overpopulating us, or, heaven forbid, Muslims in
a country that has far more issues alongside the religious fundamentalist groups
that blend with extremist political views. The problem is not that some groups
are “outbreeding” others, as if this was reducible to natural selection of
populations, but that people are unrealistic in how much they think they ought
to breed in the first place. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I’m no gynecologist, but I’ve heard something to the
effect that the average woman is usually only recommended to have, at most, 5
pregnancies before things become dangerous for their own health and future
children. 5 children is more than I think many people can reasonably provide
for and even China has in more recent years, loosened its one child policy
because of the unforeseen consequences of having too few girls and limiting the
field for dating and marriage by association. The inverse is also a problem when
you have multiple children born into situations where the parents sacrifice
more of their health than anyone would think reasonable to provide for them,
when a better solution is moderation, since, even if I don’t want children, I
can’t deny that they are a benefit to society at large. And isn’t self control
important in Christian ethics to begin with, sexual ethics in particular with
tempering one’s desires?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">So the 1st of 14 points already sets the stage for
making an unreasonable limitation on people, to say nothing of unrealistic
expectations of every couple conforming to so many qualifications that you’d be
lucky to find even a quarter that meet them all.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Article
2</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Onto the 2nd article, which is simpler and less
disagreeable, but still questionable. It says that everyone should be chaste
before marriage and faithful in marriage. Again, I can agree with the latter
point, because at its core, that’s what marriage is, trust and commitment
between two people with a deep romantic connection. But they further muddy the
waters by saying that no desire justifies any sexual immorality, but fail to
qualify what this category entails. Rape, abuse, infidelity, of course those
are a generally immoral group of sexual acts. And I don’t disagree that desire
and affections are not the determinant factor of a healthy relationship, but
mutual reciprocity and understanding</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">They also note that even if you make a commitment otherwise,
you cannot be seen as anything but sinful for having sex outside their
particular idea of what constitutes marriage. So even if I and my future spouse
decide not to get married, but nonetheless exchange rings and make such a union
that resembles it in all other ways, we’re still not good enough, even if
there’s the same spirit and intent of remaining faithful to each other in a lifelong
partnership. And this definitely means civil marriage is just a façade, since
it’s not Christian marriage either</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">So while the intent is good, we have a similar
problem of being too short sighted in trying to solve a problem that they think
only requires people to conform to how they think rather than considering that
maybe their god’s a bit bigger than people fitting its will into a narrow box
that doesn’t realistically align with the human experience with regards to
sexuality.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Article
3</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Article 3 gets into the first hints of trying to
make the reductionist ideas of male and female seem appealing even while they
further suppress any variation from their expectations at the same time.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">First off, it talks like Adam and Eve were actual
people, but even granting that they might see it as somehow metaphorical, not
sure how you can talk about that without betraying your own naïve ideas about
human evolution (which is very likely theistic evolution, 1 step from
creationism), to say nothing of speciation and biological evolution over the
demonstrable millions of years that Earth has sustained life. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">But here’s the part that has that vague notion of
being socially acceptable while also maintaining the countercultural idea of
fundamentalism. Any Christian worth their salt probably prescribes to part of
this in one form or another, unless you take that Genesis verse literally that
says women should be subject to men because God says so to Adam and Eve (in
which case, you’ve got bigger problems than just sexism). That idea is that
even with the divinely created differences between men and women, they are not
unequal in their dignity as people. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">As I said, this sounds great, and on its own, would
probably gel pretty decently with a society that treats people with equality and
equity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But we haven’t gotten to the
deeper parts of what they really mean here.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Article
4</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Article 4 exposits further on this complementarian
idea of a purely binary view of the sexes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It says that the “divinely ordained differences” between male and female
are for the benefit of humanity, but also note that it should not be said to be
from the Fall and something to overcome.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Few problems already: 1) there’s no need to invoke
the divine as to why male and female are distinct: science can explain why we
have sexual dimorphism in terms of evolutionary benefits, as well as a theory I
recall learning around age 13: that having male and female allows for much
greater genetic diversity and thus the species can survive better should there
be some disease that spreads through the population at large. With enough time,
you’ll have strains of people that may be more resistant or outright immune, so
it benefits humanity just because of how nature functions based on an innate
law of trial and error without needing a mind behind it. The species that don’t
function will die out and the ones that function better will survive.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">But there’s also the claim that this isn’t related
to the Fall, even though I’m pretty sure the Fall directly notes that at least
the aspect of a woman suffering pain in childbirth directly proceeds from Adam
and Eve being kicked out of the Garden of Eden. Does this mean epidurals are
against God’s design, since God gave a “just” punishment to Eve for being
tricked by a talking snake into eating a fruit that didn’t kill her, but
instead made her aware of good and evil (as if that was a bad thing for
creations that were intended to use their free will)?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">They also say these differences aren’t something to
be overcome, which is somewhat vague as to what they mean. I don’t think it’s
reasonable to characterize people wanting women and men to be treated with
fairness in regards to hiring, etc, as overcoming the differences between male
and female, especially if these extend beyond distinct physiological traits due
to evolutionary progress and necessity for copulation, etc. Someone having
sexual reassignment surgery is hardly something that should be done lightly
anymore than someone entering into marriage: they’re both very serious things
that should be entered into with a lot of thought beforehand and in the case of
SRS, steps that take at least a year or more to my knowledge to even qualify. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">A person wanting to use the bathroom of the gender
they identify with in a persistent sense of themselves and doing so without standing
out is hardly something worth the attention of a deity that apparently just let
its creation run wild after 2000+ years ago, because it gave them the best
solution to a problem it set the stage for: killing itself for redemption of
sins that it was angry about for millennia as long as people believe hard
enough. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">So we see a clear indication that this isn’t purely
about complementarianism so much as encouraging sexual and gender norms that
reinforce it because otherwise the world would be too scary and their god
wouldn’t want them to feel uncomfortable (which is absolute bollocks when you
consider what I noted earlier in regards to being persecuted for being “right”,
if the Christian view is even remotely correct in its views about an afterlife).
And we’re not even halfway done</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Article
5</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">This article is more directly about transgender
issues and how they think that one being distinct in their sexual identity is
essential to one’s concept of being male or female, even stating in no
uncertain terms that the differences of reproductive structures are integral to
one’s self conception as male or female. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">First off, that’s a complete load in even a cursory
consideration of what makes someone masculine or feminine. People can behave in
various ways, but not stop identifying as a male or female, among some other
categories (because as much as I do acknowledge transgender people are a thing,
I think even they would say that some of the distinctions might be a bit more
about attention than self realization). </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">A woman can be tough and dress more masculine in
society’s view, but still very much identify as female and appreciate
childrearing or more “traditional” female practices.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One’s idea of being male or female is as much
about the clothes you wear, what things you enjoy doing and how you act, being
more emotional or logical, among other dichotomies that aren’t unique to one
sex or the other, just tendencies in the same way that personalities vary from
person to person. Myers Briggs personality tests basically figure out
preferences rather than exclusion of one point or the other on the 4 spectrums.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The article then continues to note that both
physical anomalies AND psychological conditions don’t negate that their rigid 2
sex system is right and you can’t identify outside your genitals. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I don’t think anyone claims that intersex people or
hermaphrodites are common, but to be fair, transgender people are also a
minority. Intersex people are a whole other issue to tackle, but along with
hermaphrodites, the general differences are more physiological androgyny, to my
knowledge, and many may just be gender neutral or lean towards one gender
without being especially strong in their feelings. Much of this is based on
hormones and not even people born without chromosomal variations are going to
be perfect in regards to that, same as the related spectrum of mental illness
that can come about because of chemical dissonance in the brain and such. People
being different doesn’t mean they should feel ashamed about it in any sense,
but acknowledging that sometimes, there is harm involved, either to oneself or
others. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I won’t deny there can be an environmental aspect to
developing one’s concept of gender, since society is where we get the ideas of
what is considered conforming to a male or female identity, though that changes,
since the societal presuppositions aren’t always right and in fact are usually
misguided because of people not wanting to incorporate something slightly
different from what they’re familiar with. But this article is one of the worst
in saying that someone should reduce their idea of being a male or female to
their genitals when that’s something we use maybe a quarter of our lives and honestly
aren’t usually that fixated on as we grow up and appreciate life as more than
just physical experiences.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Article
6</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">This one is not so much anything problematic in the
statements they make, but more the implication that they felt the need to do this
as a way to avoid being accused of prejudice towards transgender people in any
way.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Put simply, they utilize a bible verse referring to
eunuchs who were born that way and connect that to people born with physical
anomalies such as being intersex or the like.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It then goes on to say that such things do not mean that a person isn’t
born in the image of God and that they can most definitely still live a life
dedicated to Jesus. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">All that is very much true, and I’d imagine no self
respecting person, let alone a Christian, would claim that someone being born
with some physical deformity means they shouldn’t try to live a full life. It’s
an admirable thing to see people with handicaps behaving in a way that
acknowledges that they are still a full person, not someone to be pitied</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">So really, this article is just reiterating a point
that should be a given from the start, as if it needs to be its own article out
of the 14 in this attempt at bridging a gap between the secular and religious
world. It works slightly, but it’s arguably an attempt at smoothing over public
relations so that they don’t look like heartless people who don’t care about
the disenfranchised.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Article
7</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Here’s a fun one to read, and by that, I mean just
retreading old ground with a new coat of paint.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Article 7 says that people ought to live as male or
female by God’s intended purpose of creation and redemption, which rings fairly
hollow if we consider that one being born male or female, while not comparable
to being born into a particular religious household, isn’t something that
should be so important to one’s identity to deny anything counter to that in
their self worth as a person. If a biological male feel like a female and have
for years since one was old enough to have a gender identity in any sense, then
it doesn’t mean they’re a broken individual. And even if it did, that doesn’t
mean the solution involves repression of those feelings, insisting that you’re
better off just going through the motions as what people expect, rather than being
true to yourself and respectful without being a doormat.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Here’s the weird part: they follow it up by talking
about both a homosexual and a transgender self conception, as if they’re meant
to be even remotely the same, when one’s sexuality and gender identity are not
innately connected. One can be attracted to females as a trans female and
consider oneself lesbian even if they are technically a biological male. Or one
could be polysexual or pansexual, not making an intimate connection based on
one’s sex or gender identity, more about the person themselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">And who are they to say that being gay or
transgender is in conflict with God’s design for people as humans? Aren’t these
the same people that said a few articles ago that people ought to be chaste
before marriage? So if someone feels that God has told them they should never
be married and live a chaste life, they’re in the right, but if someone wants
to be in a committed relationship, a union that is marriage at its core, then
they are wrong even if they are faithful to their spouse of the same sex? There
are straight and gay people that choose a chaste life, but if someone wishes to
participate in an institution they have deep respect for and understanding of,
denying it to them feels more than petty, it alienates them as a fellow
creation of a loving god.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The same applies to gender identity as with sexual
orientation: if you are a Christian and love God, believing that it created you
as good, only with a flawed core in desires not lining up with what is best for
you, then something that is not harmful to you, but helping your self-actualization
and improving your perception as someone with dignity is the exact opposite of sinful
or in conflict with God’s plan.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">So again, we have people taking the “straight and
narrow” path Jesus spoke of and putting it even more out of reach for anyone
who doesn’t fit into an outdated idea of what is considered appropriate for a
human created in the image of God, as if they somehow know God’s intentions for
people in regards to things that are primarily inborn, environment twisting
them more than complementing them.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Article
8</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Just to follow up on the trend of dismissing
transgender people, they go on to cover up their bigotry <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>with more platitudes saying that people who
have same sex attractions can still be good servants to God if they live like
every other good straight Christian (without directly stating that, of course).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">It then claims that someone who continues to be gay
and live as such is not in line with God’s plan, but is not outside of
salvation either, so they can have their cake and eat it too. They get to
waggle their finger in disapproval at someone being gay, saying it’s impossible
for them to be seen as good to their heteronormative God. But they also get to
act like they have a moral high ground, because they’re just concerned about
the well being of the poor gay people, trying to direct them to a way that is
better for them</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">So in short, this seems a lot like the ideas that
some Mormons put out there to seem more positive towards gay people, but still
having that disregard for any idea that they could be functioning and faithful
Christians just because they have desires for the same sex that they likely
realize should be tempered in marriage and fidelity to someone in a lifelong
monogamous partnership (or polyamorous or polygamous, however uncommon they are)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Article
9</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">We’re back to the “being gay is bad” angle, but with
a fun twist, trying to cover up the prejudice with a tinge of acknowledging
flaws within the flock</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">It states that sin is the cause of your desires to
commit sexual immorality outside of marriage, and this includes BOTH gay and
straight. I don’t think anyone denies that; the only difference is how people
make a mountain out of a molehill for a disproportionately small group and
ignore the proverbial plank in their own eye. Sure, there are bad examples for
same sex couples, but they’re far outshone by the horrible patterns that have
persisted for decades, if not centuries in regards to straight marriages,
rooted in unhealthy practices when marriage was less about autonomy and more
about utilitarianism sacrificing people’s feelings for the greater “benefit”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">And the follow up is just redundancy, as if anyone
is going to claim that an enduring pattern of desiring to do something immoral
justifies that action in any sense. If you want to murder and rape and are
compelled to do so, you should get help, no one’s going to say you’re confused
and need sympathy, so why try to say that anyone is claiming that gay people
just want to do this knowing that it’s wrong rather than others perceiving it
as such? </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Article
10</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Now we get into more of how approval of gays being
in a committed marital relationship or being transgender is in complete opposition
to God’s plan. Again you shouldn’t presume that you know the full plan from
books transmitted 4000+ years ago in a perspective when people didn’t think
about things beyond tribal identity and whose god was better (henotheism was
arguably a thing for the Israelites, considering they acknowledged a power from
the lesser gods, even if it paled in comparison to Yahweh)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Interestingly, they use the terms homosexual immorality
and transgenderism, not homosexuality and transgender identity. As I said
before, there can be immorality in homosexuality as much as heterosexuality,
which they noted previously. So just being homosexual and chaste is fine, but being
transgender in any way, even if it just means presenting as the opposite gender
without any SRS or hormones, is a horrible sin against nature? There’s a verse
suggesting as much in 1st Corinthians 11:3-15, like having long hair is an
affront to God when you’re a male.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The article then continues by saying that such a
thing isn’t just a matter of debate that Christians can agree to disagree on,
like whether the day of rest is Saturday or Sunday, or if women can wear pants
and be authoritative alongside men in terms of church leadership (which in most
circles stops at the point of counseling others as a priest/minister would, but
they can still teach kids in Bible school). Which makes you wonder why this has
to be so essential except in the most basic of agreements among any Christian
group: there shall be no adultery, no rape, no sexual impropriety that would
violate the autonomy and dignity of God’s creation. It’s not that complicated
to say that some groups could say that gay people ought to be chaste and never
be married because it’s “not their place”, but it’s hardly antithetical to
Christianity for people to want them to be happy and expect the same
restrictions of not being adulterous and violating consent as with straight
couples.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">So they really want to hammer it down that being gay
isn’t immoral, just acting on it, but being transgender, even if you don’t try
to transition, is something that needs to be erased entirely? If they qualified
transgender immorality, though, I guess they’d start to acknowledge gender
roles as variable and not monolithic, and that wouldn’t do for the Council of
Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, right?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Article
11</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">This article is shifting the conversation back to
transgender people and in this case, it’s saying that intentionally
misgendering someone isn’t a bad thing, it’s just “speaking the truth in
love…about one another as male or female”. And they even insist they are under
no obligation to speak to someone in a way that would ruin the idea of people
as created by God as male or female. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I’ve misgendered people before, many times because
I’m still used to their previous identity. And I don’t pretend to fully
understand the situation, mostly because I haven’t had the opportunity to speak
and ask about it with said individual. Accidentally calling someone by the
wrong pronoun is a genuine mistake anyone can make, regardless of generation.
But when you’re so stubborn you can’t even attempt to change your perspective
and try to spin your ignorance as a moral high ground, it’s no longer just a
mistake, it’s opposition to someone being happy and not making an attempt to
compromise because you don’t want to admit you could be wrong.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The whole angle here is that calling someone by
their preferred pronoun as a transgender person is somehow insulting them as a
creation of God. If someone is born male, but their disposition (apart from sin
nature, which is desires regarding actions and habits) is that they self identify
as a woman, then it seems to me it’s not the person that made a mistake, it’s
the one that created them. If someone wants to self realize AND acknowledges
they are a creation of God, who is supposed to love them unconditionally and will
remove male/female distinctions in the afterlife (Jesus even notes as such in
saying there is no marriage in heaven in the Gospels)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Speaking to someone from God’s love seems more like paying
lip service rather than actually being compassionate and understanding of someone
being different from, but not fundamentally opposed, to you. I’m borderline
antitheist at times, yet most of my best friends are religious or spiritual:
yet do you see me trying to “speak the truth of reason” to them and be a
caricature angry atheist? No, because I have empathy and a human conscience,
which means I understand that we can coexist without agreeing universally on
everything. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Just because many people see being a man as purely
based on what you have between your legs or your chromosomes doesn’t mean it’s
true, nor does it mean people have to take it seriously when the evidence and
experiences of many people, cisgender AND transgender, suggest the opposite</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Article
12 and 13</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">More fun pseudoscience and conversion therapy defending
malarkey here: these articles basically says that God’s grace lets you overcome
any sinful desire, strongly implied to connect back to same sex attraction and
outright stated for transgender self conception.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Again, I’m not one to believe in such things, but a
sense of purpose can motivate people to change from habits that are
demonstrably damaging, such as alcoholism (though that is lifelong, it doesn’t
just go away like a cold or the like) or abusive behavior to loved ones, to say
nothing of things like compulsive lying/etc. The difference is that being gay,
same as being straight, is not the same as the twisting of sexual desire into
something it shouldn’t be, it’s the default state. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Gay and straight people can have desires to rape, to
violate marital trust, to inappropriately touch others and justify it by saying
they were asking for it. But these are not the same as the innate desire to be
with someone in a healthy relationship. And I’ve already noted how being
transgender is not connected to your sexuality, plus, if you are better off as
a person when you present as the gender you genuinely and thoughtfully align
with, then it’s no different than someone correctly regarding sex as something
special between people, not just physical pleasure.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">When someone claims that conversion therapy doesn’t
work or that you can’t pray the gay (or transngender?) away, that doesn’t mean
they’re limiting God, should they believe in it. It’s more that God’s nature is
such that it doesn’t interfere with freewill and most certainly doesn’t force
someone to conform to societal expectations, since that would encourage a
person to be part of the world rather than just in it (see my comments on the
Preamble)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">We keep getting the insistence that this perspective
is right and that there’s somehow no debate among Christians in its entire
history about how self conception as male or female that clashes with one’s
assigned sex might not be sinful, same with how same sex desires can be used in
the same way as opposite sex desires, reflecting a healthy and God centered relationship
that follows respectful communication, mutual trust and fidelity to the
commitments made </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">You know what that’s called? Presuppositionalism,
circular logic that invokes the Bible to make claims that only work when you
believe the Bible to be true, and in the case of this inane thought process,
infallible and inerrant, as if nothing could be wrong when written by humans,
even under divine inspiration, or that people could misinterpret, using
eisegesis, which is inserting your own prejudices into an interpretation of the
bible. Ultimately, this is trite idealism that refuses to recognize the world
doesn’t work that way and that people should be willing to adjust to new ideas,
especially when they’re not forced down your throat from childhood through
church indoctrination and suppressing any other ideas.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Article
14</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">We end the whole torturous, needlessly divided set
of patriarchal ideals masked as better sounding “complementarianism”, with a
statement that no one is apart from God’s love as long as they repent of sin. Even
the “poor gay and/or transgender person” is not too far from God’s grace,
because they’re the people that the CBMW is trying to make peace with (and
failing utterly at).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Well, that’s nice and pithy, but it’s in
contradiction to any sort of claim that God is perfect love and that said
affection is unconditional, which is one of the major reasons many people are
less than impressed with Christianity even as it shifts with the times while
trying to remain “pure”. When the love requires you to follow such things, it’s
not unconditional anymore, because there’s a demonstrable condition there. One
could argue that it’s more like common sense, but the problem with such sense
is that it’s often too common and doesn’t use any kind of critical thinking, so
it amounts to conformity and peer pressure rather than principles like empathy
or compromise.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">If God is indeed such a loving being and created
humans good, even if they had some twisted dispositions regarding actions, this
is entirely different from stuff that is innate to their identity as people:
skin color, sexual orientation, gender identity, among other traits I could list.
To say that someone can be made so that even good desires are wrong is to
ascribe utter cruelty to a deity that you insist loves you. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">That’s like saying you love the mindless obedient
automaton you create to serve your needs or even to reflect you. That’s not
love, that’s pure ego masquerading as kindness, as if you’re some magnanimous
ruler, when you’re just a feudal lord looking down on their serfs.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Not only does this statement not represent
Nashville, but I can’t even say it represents Tennessee as the Volunteer
State.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At best it reinforces the
preconceptions of the Southern Baptist Convention to not stray away from
biblical fundamentalism and inerrancy, tow the party line of being the moral
majority and religious right, and generally be a fading group in terms of
relevancy to a generation that isn’t passive about mistreatment of minorities. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Call it the Statement on Biblical Manhood and
Womanhood, it’d be far more accurate and easily convey the same message, even
if you have to use more words than just the location to qualify the meaning. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In 30 years, all that’s managed to be done is change
the format of their presentation, the Danvers Statement from 1987 the same
thread of bemoaning change as some doom and gloom indication of the world being
worse off. But again, I have to remind them that the whole point is that the
world will never be perfect until Jesus comes in with the end times, a sword in
his mouth, unrecognizable as anything but the petty apocalyptic prophet who
cursed fig leaves and knocked over tables in the temple. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">And let’s not forget the most important thing here:
that many of the signers here also supported President Trump, some even in his
evangelical advisory committee. These “Godly” people have seemingly ignored the
swath of sexual immorality he’s engaged in, particularly divorce if there was
no infidelity on the part of either couple, though if he was unfaithful, it
only raises more questions of his morality. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Any sorts of statements about knowing proper sexual
morality fall apart and lose impact with these people saying that Trump is a
good Christian, which apparently means he pays good enough lip service to it
rather than acting in a way that’s remotely like a follower of Christ ought to
be (which is to say, doing more than empty charity by refusing the presidential
stipend and actually using his wealth for bigger things than casinos, golf and
frivolity on the beach)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I only know people who are Nashville natives or
otherwise are part of the city, but I still cannot imagine this represents
anything more than a dying breed of rural theology that insists that change
shouldn’t be accepted unless it’s on their terms: again, ironic, considering
that Christian doctrine would probably vehemently disagree on that, since it’s
God plan that is of prime importance, not what humans think is God’s plan.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">This group can continue to exist as long as people
keep encouraging this backwards ideology, but like Westboro Baptist Church and
the like, being on the fringe of society tends to not change and with time,
like the Shakers, you die out because there’s no real persistent interest. The
sooner this happens with overly traditional gender roles and ideas about
sexuality, the better.</span></div>
Kyouka Suigetsu, Mirror Flower Water Moonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11987548281629829982noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8709333750421171813.post-11787440931996244142016-09-14T17:33:00.003-05:002016-09-14T17:37:47.165-05:00When Charity and Kindness Are Wasted<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/>
<w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
<w:Word11KerningPairs/>
<w:CachedColBalance/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
It's been a while, but I got some inspiration and churned the bulk of this before I left a family reunion (lovely things, aren't they?) </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcd1hom2sXwAjCZa1uO4wd5tuuZuDzHLrdadx35gS-RBt80CbnskP-sPC1SoqPeRiCa6igyrIHJ2Eu3M01Zexzp_bMach_csA0QSJarWlodYsNdrNdpaL6mD7ekhqBG5ZpNX8Vqi4MNkkf/s1600/CMA6ZKOWcAAgh7m.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcd1hom2sXwAjCZa1uO4wd5tuuZuDzHLrdadx35gS-RBt80CbnskP-sPC1SoqPeRiCa6igyrIHJ2Eu3M01Zexzp_bMach_csA0QSJarWlodYsNdrNdpaL6mD7ekhqBG5ZpNX8Vqi4MNkkf/s400/CMA6ZKOWcAAgh7m.jpg" width="382" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
You tend to hear how good Christian people are the ones most
concerned about the wellbeing of those less fortunate, sending out gift boxes
and the like to people in impoverished areas of the world, such as through
Samaritan’s Purse. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But, to be blunt, I feel like such acts of kindness are less
than effective in the long run, same as witnessing through evangelistic methods
of talking to people about God’s love and the Gospel. Part of it is because
they’re so infrequent, parodied in The Simpsons’ Treehouse of Horror 24,
specifically in “Fat in the Hat”, with a line I find quite amusing and apropos.
“Once a year, we are not hungry, thanks to Christian charity,” where seemingly
homeless people at a table are fed the meat of Mr. Burns in buzzard form and
immediately spitting it out. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In other words, when you try to be devout, but don’t live
out charity in terms of your religious beliefs except when it’s brought to your
attention, you’re being an awful person, and I don’t regret saying that in
spite of your good intentions, as I’ll address.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“But, Jared,” you might object, “These people are giving
hope and love to those who have very little, who are suffering under oppressive
regimes. It shouldn’t matter that they’re motivated by religion or not, should
it?”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Well, my concern isn’t purely the religious motivation,
though that’s part of it in that the consideration they have is short sighted
and self aggrandizing more than anything genuinely humble and charitable in the
legitimate sense the bible speaks of. A poor woman giving up all the money she
has while a rich man gives a pittance is an example in the Gospel that Jesus
uses to talk about how those who have much and give little aren’t really
representative of God’s love. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When you spend maybe 5-10% of your annual income, if even
that, on putting together these gift boxes and the best you can say is that you
put in hard work, that’s the same kind of logic that keeps people in wage
slavery. The idea that you can work so hard for so little isn’t considered
acceptable, is it? So why is it fine when someone wipes some sweat off their
brow after putting in work for Operation Christmas Child and then doesn’t have
to worry about feeding their family or having central heat or plumbing compared
to those they send these paltry gifts to?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Giving someone hope is not a justification to do something in
a half-hearted fashion, even if you posit that in the long term it’ll be
better, because those people will know about the Gospel through those
“Christian” gift boxes. But do you really think that’s what these people want?
Isn’t it more virtuous to give out of the kindness of your heart rather than
out of an obligation to a deity’s command to do so in order to appease it and
make yourself seem more pious? And isn’t it better to change the infrastructure
through advocacy rather than just trying to fit something through cracks in a
vastly broken system?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Atheist charities exist, but they’re not promoted as much
because of people likely not thinking they’re worth the time because they don’t
get as much success in shipping out hundreds or even thousands of boxes to
places like embattled third world countries in Eastern Europe or communist
dictatorships in Southeast Asia. But that’s a battle of numbers, which isn’t
something that should be waged in the pursuit of charity and generosity, now
should it?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When my middle class family thinks more about their own
bills and how to save money on getting dime store quality items for children in
need, it makes me see them as hypocritical in caring more about their own
standard of living and not undermining it rather than truly putting effort into
being kind to children that have so little. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But worse than that,
they also seek to maintain a façade of being good Christians who are generous
and care about the poor and reflect Jesus’ love by sending cheap Tupperware
containers of items they get on sale from stores that sell off brand
merchandise and toys that break within a few weeks because they cost less than
what you paid for them in production. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How does it speak to kindness in the true
sense when you just shop around for deals to buy in bulk and ship them off to
people who work themselves to the bone to manage even a tiny bit of the profit
you enjoy in a bloated American economy?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Does it really affect change? Perhaps in some particular
manner of people being encouraged over their lifetimes, as there are stories
regarding people being inspired by the gifts and becoming better people,
succeeding in their present.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But the source shouldn’t matter, nor should it be about
spreading a fundamentalist Christian Dominionist message of Jesus loving you
and the rest of the world being two faced traitors unless they really believe
in the crucified Messiah and his message or some variation thereof. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It should be about being kind to people and sharing the
plenty that we in America have and arguably are obliged to an extent to share
with those less fortunate. You earned your money, sure, but to say you aren’t
remotely privileged in American society to have the money you do with your hard
work is hopelessly naïve and even insulting to those you supposedly care about
to say that they don’t deserve your money, because that’d just be a handout. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This comes out of the same Republican mindset that says
welfare in America is just a nanny state that creates codependency. They don’t
see a conflict in saying that and then giving what are basically handouts
anyway to internationally impoverished citizens under some rationale of America
as a superpower.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A similar sort of attitude manifests in speaking such
anguish about how children suffer in gangs or how other problems in society are
so terrible and yet seem to do little action in regards to actually working
towards change, just talking about how bad they are and leaving it at that. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If all you have is empty platitudes, then it’s the same kind
of sanctimonious drivel that makes people regard religion as little more than
lip service to appear socially acceptable to an in-group that you want to
ingratiate yourself to.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When all you can manage is showing some iota of
sentimentality about the plights of those who don’t have the opportunities you
do or didn’t work hard enough or just didn’t have your upbringing, then the
change you affect is hollow, if at all. Saying that you want to help kids
should start after you have the sadness at them suffering, moving to action for
education reform or genuine charity and not just the general appearance of
putting in work but not making the sacrifice. Same logic applies to sending out
boxes of low cost items to people who aren’t so stupid as to not realize the
low quality of what they get, but take it because they don’t have any other
choice. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All you manage to do is put a shiny new coat of paint on the
peeling infrastructure of something you do nothing about 90% of the year.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It sounds terrible coming from me, a black sheep atheist in
my family, who’s seemingly regarded as someone that can be tolerated until they
start expressing controversial opinions to their homeschooled children, because
that might corrupt them into thinking for themselves (what a terrible thing to
use free will that your god gave you…). </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But I don’t make some sappy saccharine maudlin act that I
care about people to get people to approve of me or see me as some bastion of
morality. I do it because I care and want to try to help in some way, even if
it’s just through dialogue and discussion, but still getting across that all
talk and no action is the worst kind of apathy, even if you sound like you
care. I’m not great at making a significant change in the world yet, but that
doesn’t mean I can’t communicate things to those who can.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimFFiz2fw0PACVsMkoARCW2F1x0FwbB4jFpWf_NpVEImyc9ASlF_FJ4jOihd_4313_3DZiZmF17AX6nwZwfcEgpL9y1G_rNN6PbFK6U9FUMvVpFZFn4ghILrtsim0OGUU1XRc0tw9K1jMj/s1600/FjNpH.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="298" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimFFiz2fw0PACVsMkoARCW2F1x0FwbB4jFpWf_NpVEImyc9ASlF_FJ4jOihd_4313_3DZiZmF17AX6nwZwfcEgpL9y1G_rNN6PbFK6U9FUMvVpFZFn4ghILrtsim0OGUU1XRc0tw9K1jMj/s400/FjNpH.png" width="400" /></a> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Until next time, Namaste and aloha </div>
Kyouka Suigetsu, Mirror Flower Water Moonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11987548281629829982noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8709333750421171813.post-29700596649536464962012-11-17T16:28:00.000-06:002012-11-17T16:29:21.826-06:00God's Will Versus Human Will In Abortion<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFrF88idoD-mok0-1hQQ993kq245cgGScXRZT3S6hsuOtzTT7YzWT-6W3U3mn1cra5zuGqgwbcYQW6inPEWsoziuBMeZPTsnoZW6FO2qC57S8zP2r5w2PginPZw9nxYQ_F305Kr8j7fyc/s1600/24958512.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="193" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFrF88idoD-mok0-1hQQ993kq245cgGScXRZT3S6hsuOtzTT7YzWT-6W3U3mn1cra5zuGqgwbcYQW6inPEWsoziuBMeZPTsnoZW6FO2qC57S8zP2r5w2PginPZw9nxYQ_F305Kr8j7fyc/s320/24958512.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/10/25/i-stand-with-richard-mourdock/">http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/10/25/i-stand-with-richard-mourdock/</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/11/02/pro-life-burn-a-hummer-and-prove-it/">http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/11/02/pro-life-burn-a-hummer-and-prove-it/</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Less than a week ago, a woman in Ireland died
because the country’s abortion laws apparently prevented even a health based
procedure to save a woman who had miscarried. Apparently the Irish government
neglected to learn that abortions can be elective or spontaneous and that not
all abortions are done because people are “whores” or “sluts”. In the case of
this woman dying, the line that sums it up is “They valued the life of a 4
month old fetus over that of a 30 year old woman” I am glad our own country
isn’t so stringent and ridiculous on such things, but there are still people
that insist that every pregnancy is a gift from God, including those that
result from rape or incest, as well as those that would threaten a woman’s
life. <a href="http://toholdnothing.blogspot.com/2010/02/pro-choicelife-ad.html">My very first blog pos</a>t spoke about this topic and how it was irresponsible and selfish of Tim Tebow’s
mother to insist on the pregnancy when she and her unborn child were in danger.
Pro life as a position should not mean you get to endanger lives on purpose and
say you value life and hold it sacred at the same time. By no means am I
suggesting forced abortions, since that would contradict my values of
individual choice and liberty as a libertarian at heart. But inversely, someone
should not be able to claim their liberties are being trampled on when they
are, in their own general metaphysics, forcing a child to be born in cases
where teens could get an abortion and move on with their lives, learning from
their mistake. Societal pressure is a strong influence, however, and you have
women feeling like they commit a horrible crime, even a sin, when trying to
make a choice between themselves and something that isn’t even remotely human
in appearance in many cases when the pregnancy is discovered. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Any involvement of God in these situations is next
to nothing, especially if we assume from the get go that God cannot interfere
when it comes to human free will. And it also makes perfect sense to say that
rape children cannot, in any way, shape or form, be a part of God’s will,
because that would mean God either forced a human to rape or had no problem
with one of its creations being violated for some greater good that could’ve
been advanced in a far less violent manner. I’m not saying there can’t be good
that results from evil, but rape is one of, if not the most horrible things a
human can experience and survive next to attempted murder. A God that would
create good things from such horrors is far distanced from the human experience
and could accurately be termed a sociopath with no empathy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Partial birth abortion, strongly opposed by many so
called “pro life” advocates, is simultaneously death and life, but is a life
saving procedure similar to some abortions (ectopic pregnancies or the like,
for instance) in that if you don’t do it in particular cases for which it’s
performed, both the mother and child will die. Do you want that on your
conscience or do you think that death is preferable to life? If the latter,
then how can you really consider yourself pro life? A more overarching idea of
what pro life means is preferable to using the term to mask your anti abortion
stance because you don’t want to be anti something, you want to be pro
something. Be honest and just say you’re against abortion instead of saying you’re
for protecting life and yet care nothing about people’s liberties to manage
their reproduction or otherwise. Valuing life over liberty may make sense
sequentially, but it makes no sense ethically. Basic logic does dictate you
need to value life in order to truly value liberty, but to preclude liberty in
order to protect life is far more counterintuitive than accepting that
sometimes life must be sacrificed for liberty, especially if it cannot be
adequately provided for or is not viable in a world where artificial womb
technology does not exist.'<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">A middle ground can be met. One should not take sex
so casually and irresponsibly, which will prevent unintended and unwanted
pregnancies, leading to a decrease in abortions for reasons of pure convenience
and selfishness. The abortions that are absolutely necessary are those that
would save a woman’s life from accidental pregnancies that threaten her
physical or mental health. Abortion is not birth control and shouldn’t be used
as such, not only because it’s more expensive, but it becomes wasteful of
potential life, which has its own value, especially to prospective parents,
especially adoptive ones who either cannot have children themselves or want to
provide for what amount to orphans. Instead we can “waste” what are renewable
resources: namely the sperm the body produces. So that’s yet another abortion
related post from me. We’re getting close to 200 posts and I’ll be doing
something special for that, I hope. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Holding Nothinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01824563181864407961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8709333750421171813.post-74880513930754532102012-10-27T16:57:00.000-05:002012-10-27T16:57:22.957-05:00The Death Penalty Is Not A Useful Tool<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJHJ2CKjFx21ycSSwuVggN8XpQPqjTnLWnLz2ELfeRSOrrcxzZLxIDewmjLDQMTS9hfZbr8Gl8f9xfJicCwEj6iiKRd2hdPWTN4dUMryiIYQukNXKZfBsd-9kyzVq4VjXSM37XL_tp0dQ/s1600/death-penalty.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJHJ2CKjFx21ycSSwuVggN8XpQPqjTnLWnLz2ELfeRSOrrcxzZLxIDewmjLDQMTS9hfZbr8Gl8f9xfJicCwEj6iiKRd2hdPWTN4dUMryiIYQukNXKZfBsd-9kyzVq4VjXSM37XL_tp0dQ/s320/death-penalty.jpg" width="241" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/10/02/the-death-penalty-is-californias-last-useful-tool/">http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/10/02/the-death-penalty-is-californias-last-useful-tool/</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I’ve experienced death as a reality only so much in
my still young life. Both my grandfathers passed away in my late college years
and we’ve had to euthanize three cats since I started college, two strays and
one we’ve had since I was in high school. The most recent one I watched with my
own eyes, overdosed with a barbiturate and slowly drifting to a permanent
sleep. Death is something we must accept as unavoidable and natural, the flipside
of life. But the enthusiasm to exact justice through it has always troubled me
as an ethical quandary. Why kill people to make things right, even if those
people have killed others? It won’t bring the victims back and it won’t bring
any sense of closure to the survivors or those close to the victims. There’s
even cost measures to consider of how expensive it is to hire people and put
together the shots that first put the person into unconsciousness, then
anesthetize/paralyze them and finally stop their heart. The idea is that it’s
more humane than electrocution or hanging, but I would think treating even
criminals with some sense of dignity, even in incarceration, is better than
taking their lives into your hands and snuffing them out. I can’t be sure of
the comparison of maintaining jails, even if it was strictly for the most
heinous of crimes (murder, rape and abuse), against taking the lives of those
who have done such atrocities to other human beings, but my conscience tells me
that we should not try to accelerate mortality for the sake of morality.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Death might be a final solution, but it is not an
effective or permanent solution to crime, however horrible those acts may be.
Rape, murder, and many other things might be argued to deserve this execution
of justice in a conclusive manner, but I don’t see how this really addresses
the issue of crime as a whole committed by people in the future or even as we
speak. Killing criminals here and now will only stop killing for a time before
more killings are committed. Premeditated or otherwise, the mindset of someone
intent on doing such things is not so much whether they’re caught, but how to
get away with it. Capital punishment of this degree is not a deterrent to
criminals, especially when you consider that they may not even value their own
life if they think others’ lives are fodder to them. When you claim it’s
effective to kill people for crimes that may require it ethically is like
making the comparison to amputating an arm that has irreparable damage. The
limb is part of a body, while individual humans are part of a community that
can function without them directly in it. Of course these people shouldn’t be
treated as those who do lesser crimes of theft or the like, but giving them
basic dignity, as terrible as they may be, is as ethical as punishing them is a
basic ethical prerogative. And regardless of if you think criminals deserve to
be treated as humans, does it make sense in any way to prevent others from
being killed by completely different assailants by eliminating an assailant
that, barring escape, is unable to kill others if incarcerated. The mere
possibility of them escaping should weigh less heavily on your conscience than
the fact that you decided they weren’t permitted to live anymore.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">While it may cost significant taxpayer money to keep
prisoners in jail, it is preferable to killing them and trying to take
mortality into our own hands and play a proverbial God. And this is nothing
compared to the shared guilt the entire country would share if the person
executed happened to be innocent because of a rushed trial and ruling. There
could be streamlining of the process and the benefits involved with prisoners,
to say nothing of decriminalizing marijuana and giving different punishments
for misdemeanors, such as forced community service or the like. The idea that
the punishment should fit the crime can be taken too literally. Perhaps a
better principle would be severity of punishment fitting severity of the crime,
but it still could be interpreted to take retributive justice instead of
rehabilitative justice, where the criminals, in many cases, can be improved
with some form of treatment or otherwise letting them stew in their guilt and
see the gravity of their crimes. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I know this seems very passive, but in terms of
ethics, we cannot always be proactive in solutions, especially if they’re
intended to be expedient instead of effective. Efficiency doesn’t always mean
haste. And even speed is not essential to solving the persistent problem of
crime, since it likely takes a generation or two to make lasting change on how
people regard the desirability of actions like stealing or assault. Time heals
wounds of both a personal and societal nature. You move on past someone’s death
by mourning, you prevent crime by showing the inherent issues with it. When you
start using the threat of death to motivate people to restrain themselves, you’re
using fear as the impetus, which is only useful so long as people continue to
fear. When they either abandon or overcome that fear, you no longer have the
power you possessed before in terms of rule of law. People should avoid being
both illegal and immoral in their behavior. It shouldn’t be merely the
consequences of their actions as regards law enforcement, but their own
conscience that makes them contemplate whether to go through with it or not.
Until next time, Namaste and aloha.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<br />Holding Nothinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01824563181864407961noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8709333750421171813.post-11987115108385195602012-10-13T14:35:00.000-05:002012-10-13T14:37:08.987-05:00Religion No Longer Essential For Ethics<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgU-jihyphenhyphendpGsqQbHXZJ2cg4X8OrwRVr9xh8UJw1JM8hkkduaM9nysdc3OP75D4lSHRiUSXjew_7SI7DUJpezMYGttwwzxhzIUfKewMqpc8OB9Ynp0aqXXDkOV7f6sS5CdybPk0MYJ_A0uw/s1600/dalai.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgU-jihyphenhyphendpGsqQbHXZJ2cg4X8OrwRVr9xh8UJw1JM8hkkduaM9nysdc3OP75D4lSHRiUSXjew_7SI7DUJpezMYGttwwzxhzIUfKewMqpc8OB9Ynp0aqXXDkOV7f6sS5CdybPk0MYJ_A0uw/s320/dalai.jpg" width="237" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/dalai-lama-facebook-religion-is-no-longer-adequate-science_n_1880805.html?utm_hp_ref=religion">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/dalai-lama-facebook-religion-is-no-longer-adequate-science_n_1880805.html?utm_hp_ref=religion</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-derr/beyond-religion-altogether-religious-notes-on-dalai-lama-post-religious-ethics_b_1885346.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-derr/beyond-religion-altogether-religious-notes-on-dalai-lama-post-religious-ethics_b_1885346.html</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/news/regions/asia-pacific/dalai-lama-tells-internet-religion-no-longer-adequate">http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/news/regions/asia-pacific/dalai-lama-tells-internet-religion-no-longer-adequate</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://markandrewalward.blogspot.com/2012/09/dalai-lama-religion-is-no-longer.html#.UF54Vo1lRXM">http://markandrewalward.blogspot.com/2012/09/dalai-lama-religion-is-no-longer.html#.UF54Vo1lRXM</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The Dalai Lama has brought himself into the
spotlight yet again with a Facebook and Twitter post 2 weeks ago stating, in
brief, that “grounding ethics in religion is no longer adequate.” He’s brought
praise from atheists and humanists, to say nothing of preaching from Christians
and others who insist that you can’t have ethics without a spiritual or a
religious basis. I spoke in part about Gyatso’s text “Beyond Religion: Ethics
For A Whole World” which he referenced in a Facebook post I spoke about in <a href="http://toholdnothing.blogspot.com/2011/12/ethics-for-everyone.html">“An Ethics For Everyone”</a> These claims are controversial, but a remotely objective look at them, without
presuppositions on either the sacred or secular, we can see there are commonly
held values that we can utilize in a shared ethics and morality. The
distinction between ethics and morality is difficult, but I have one
perspective I’ve read on that is both concise and accessible. It is also
pertinent to lay out these shared ideals about right and wrong, of good and
evil, and elaborate how they make sense in a secular worldview, with no
recourse to divine revelations. And finally, the supposed inconsistency of
absolutist and relativist ethics can be resolved by a moderate point of
realism, or even pragmatism if we want to be more philosophical. Ethics and
morality are complex areas of life, but we shouldn’t needlessly complicate them
with unnecessary or otherwise irrational factors that aren’t pertinent to our
basic determination of what is right and wrong.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Ethics can be explained as an individual’s code of
what is right and wrong, developed through experimentation in a sort of
practical fashion. Morality, on the other hand, is a shared societal or
cultural code which people are expected to conform to. The former is more
individualist, but not so opposed to collaborative efforts, while morality
creates a sense of collectivism that is concerning, but doesn’t deny
individuals to a certain extent. In short, ethics are personal tenets and more
experiential in nature, developed by an almost scientific methodology, while
morality is a cultural set of beliefs concerning what is good and bad, almost
to the effect of mores and norms, which are closer to taboos; related to
acceptability instead of culpability. The distinction of individual and group
values could potentially create a polar dichotomy, where each opposes the
other. But instead I would suggest a prioritizing of the individual without
eschewing the collective, more specifically, the community of which we are
inevitably a part of in one way or another. Any community is composed of
individuals to begin with, so the nuance is recognizing that there will be some
disagreements, but there will also be common ground that exists by necessity of
the average human being functioning remotely normally (i.e. not a sociopath).
In that way, you have coexistence without conformity to the letter of the law.
The spirit would still be recognized, so that’s not gone either. A society
where one can have ethics that don’t necessarily conflict with morality, but
morality doesn’t override ethics is an ideal and possible existence we can work
out.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The values that are essential to ethics, according
to Tenzin Gyatso, are:<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"> love,
compassion, patience, tolerance and forgiveness: and can be found and discerned
outside of religious authority. Objectors will claim that in scientific and
secular reasoning, since ideals and values are non material things, they can’t
be verified or demonstrated in the way we demonstrate gravity or other things
with clearly physical properties. The problem with that argument is that it
applies to numbers, yet they are believed to be extant in their own sense, just
like concepts of truth, justice, even logic, which are immaterial and abstract
in their nature. The verifiability and falsifiability of something isn’t strictly
limited to the physical, especially when, by its very premise, it is admitted
to be non physical. It’s more important in some cases whether it has practical
value or relevance to human affairs. Love, compassion, forgiveness, patience
and tolerance all have some basis in neuroscience, no doubt. But our experience
and practice of them is more important in considering their universal value to
everyone. When you love, you can understand compassion; when you are
compassionate, you can practice forgiveness; when you practice forgiveness, you
gain patience; when you gain patience, you develop tolerance. The interrelation
of these values is complex, no doubt, but I would say the basis is compassion,
which is a form of love that is nuanced, not granting it without some degree of
reciprocity, but nonetheless understanding and not becoming either selfish or
abusive. With compassion, you understand love, forgiveness, patience and
tolerance, since they all have their connections to compassion, the core value
and the one commonly misunderstood as passivity, but should be an active
practice.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Ethics can be objective, true regardless of our
opinions one way or the other, without being absolutely and ultimately true,
which would suggest no critical thought on our part. And they can be
subjective, dependent on the individual’s perspective, without being hard
relativist, where there is no underlying ground for making claims of truth and
fact to begin with. This is a hard position to convey with people tending to
have fairly simplistic ideas of how right and wrong or good and evil work,
thinking many times in black and white, but ironically admitting of grey areas
when it comes to their own gain or loss. That entails we acknowledge in some
way the relativity of ethics, but only when it applies to self interests. If it
involves much more people, we try to sound more consistent and morally upright,
but our hypocrisy cannot be pushed away. To accept the relativity of morality
and ethics is not to abandon them as binding on us in any sense. It’s a basic
necessity of human life to have rules that restrain us or otherwise guide our
actions. But we shouldn’t take them as unquestionable or not subject to
alteration or even abandonment if they merit it. Cultural influence on the
acceptability of something should not be the primary voice. Popularity is not
an acceptable standard, especially if it’s just based on conformity instead of
critical thinking. Our voice of reason, even a sort of innate common sense or
conscience, should guide us, especially when the practice being judged as
condonable is, in fact, damaging in one form or another. Dehumanizing people
through slavery or even trying to appear equal through such a thing as civil
unions contrasted with marriage is not ethical and should not be painted as
such for the sake of social expediency. We should work hard at always improving
our ethics and not letting them remain easy for us to follow. As the proverb
goes “Familiarity breeds contempt”. Skepticism about ethics shouldn’t go to the
level of nihilism, but it shouldn’t be abandoned because it might breed
insecurity or fear. It’s how we face the fear and insecurity that further
tempers our future principles.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Of course it will be difficult for many people, who
tend to only be philosophers when it comes to things that have already passed,
mulling over them. Or we fixate on religion and spirituality as something of
more philosophical import than the fundamentals: logic, ethics, metaphysics,
aesthetics and epistemology. Speculating on the mysterious and awe inspiring
can be done right or it can be wasted contemplation without underpinning it with
sound thinking. Understanding things and also recognizing the limits of our
knowledge of them are both essential to having a well thought out and realistic
worldview. We shouldn’t live seeking to merely go through every day in
security, especially if it ruins any possibility of change, innovation or
progress. Of course, not all progress is good, not all innovation is beneficial
and not all change will make things right. It is our response to these things
is reflective of our character. Patience is a virtue and compassion is the
ideal from which we develop that. And we don’t need any supernatural
underpinning to discover compassion’s importance. Until next time, Namaste and
aloha<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Holding Nothinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01824563181864407961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8709333750421171813.post-63012236288305280042012-09-08T17:14:00.001-05:002012-09-08T17:14:18.481-05:00Guns, Guts and God<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwwfW2SNNFtERwEUj644CTLqIuRfPodBLOtHrQNqK3jAZ3QfCn3yiyG8Swz8jEQObkVynKujHmPqkCVH8_VRU3wt-5JgyENTjtfsyykbcyxxf-0-mmmxQUbuDIl2kJWGQkeIPtaJgmHx0/s1600/Gun-Rights.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwwfW2SNNFtERwEUj644CTLqIuRfPodBLOtHrQNqK3jAZ3QfCn3yiyG8Swz8jEQObkVynKujHmPqkCVH8_VRU3wt-5JgyENTjtfsyykbcyxxf-0-mmmxQUbuDIl2kJWGQkeIPtaJgmHx0/s320/Gun-Rights.jpg" width="309" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/08/24/your-god-given-right/">http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/08/24/your-god-given-right/</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">There have been many terrible shooting incidents in
just the last few months, let alone the last few years in America. And every
time it comes up, there tend to be two polarized sides to the issue of guns and
regulation: stricter management of permits and limitations on types of guns you
can carry or own and those who advocate more leniency and openness with carry
or concealed carry permits. The ideas are both for protection, though one can
argue the former side is much more about managing gun sales than permits, since
those are difficult enough to get that most people would just try to get guns
illegally, which is still able to be done. The latter is about maintaining
protection by the citizens and for citizens. Even the mere pulling out of a gun
in a situation can diffuse the violence that might result, because we have a
very visceral reaction to guns as something dangerous, moreso than blades. The
last time I even discussed gun rights in <a href="http://toholdnothing.blogspot.com/2010/03/on-gun-rights-and-civil-war.html">“On Gun Rights and Civil War”</a> I
noted that we should be responsible in our use of weapons, which still stands
as a point I would make clear with gun enthusiasts. Of course we have a right
to protect ourselves, but self defense should not be exaggerated to the level
of vigilante justice, as much as I might admire Frank Castle, otherwise called
the Punisher in Marvel Comics, in a childish sense as an anti hero.
Fundamentally, we ought to recognize the danger of guns, but not to the extent
of letting our concern grow into fear and paranoia. A gun is a tool and by
itself, apart from modifications and advanced technology, does not fire by
itself. It takes an agent behind the tool to utilize it in any way, effective
or otherwise. So I’d say we focus not on the tools, but the users.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Gun control does not, in itself, protect people any
more than disease control absolutely protects people. The former is more
unpredictable than the latter, though, since the legality of guns does not
affect criminals, while viruses and bacteria are bound by limitations of
biology that enable us to develop immunities over time and understand how they
work. We cannot expect people to just obey laws restricting guns when there
will always be access to them outside the law. The solution would be not to
enforce stricter gun laws, as it would only disarm people that would otherwise
use guns in a responsible manner. The mere abuse of guns by criminals does not
mean law abiding citizens should be prevented from getting access to them. Gun
control should therefore be distinguished from gun regulation, which is simply
making sure people understand the dangers of guns and are educated in proper
use, as well as limiting access to people who may pose a threat to others in
possessing a gun that can be loaded. Gun control may as well be called gun
suppression in the case of trying to keep legal gun use as rare as possible for
ordinary citizens, maintaining it only with law enforcement and the military.
This excessive form is no better than a deficient policy of just letting anyone
get access to a gun without any sort of waiting period or other such protocol
involved with gun registration, permits and such. A balance, however difficult
to precisely pinpoint, is better than letting laws go too far or fall into
disuse.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Gun carries in general, do not, by necessity,
encourage more violence. If anything, it can be said to have the reverse
effect. And proper training will ensure that, not only will people be able to
defend themselves without excessive violence, but will not be victims of
attackers because they cling to a ridiculous absolute pacifism that suggests
they should not even defend themselves with any amount of force, let alone
nonlethal violence. A shot to the arm will hurt as much as a shot to the chest
and disable the attacker all the same with the incredible pain that results
from the impact. Basic training of aiming, gun maintenance and the like will
all be a precaution and one may never have to actually use that knowledge in
practice, but a preventative measure is not always something actually realized
if one is safe in where one travels and goes in groups as much as possible in
dangerous areas. Pepper spray is an alternative that can work, especially with
women who are commonly frightened of guns, it appears. But this doesn’t mean
that there aren’t guns that a woman can use without concern of risk to herself.
I’m no gun expert, but that’s the beauty of gunsmithing as an art: you can
design functional weapons for pretty much anyone with enough time. I was at a
gun store a few weeks ago and there were guns small enough to fit in an average
man’s hand and some that were practically as long as one’s forearm, and I’m
talking handgun, not something much larger in caliber and power. There is a
sense of danger that comes with owning one, much more than even an entire
collection of live steel blades. Guns kill instantly or maim horribly, swords
are archaic and antiquated in use: they only appeal in fantastical stories with
anachronistic manifestations; or lightsabers and vibroblades from Star Wars.
With that in mind, gun use should and does commonly have safety measures and
rules governing their use. 1) Treat every gun as if it were loaded, 2) Do not
aim at something unless you intend to shoot it, the list goes on. I don’t
consider myself a gun enthusiast, but as Batman demonstrates (I know, using
comic book characters as examples undercuts the seriousness of the argument,
but permit me my fandom), even if you have had traumatic experiences with guns,
you should not let that past experience make you unwilling to see the gun for
what it is, become knowledgeable about it and understand it as others use it
and why they use it. Experience with guns dictates that you take a position of
one who wants to use it, but it also necessitates a sense of self control in
taking on such a dangerous weapon.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The right to arms is not something explicitly
protected by religion in the slightest. There are arguments in the bible that
suggest pacifism, particularly in the Gospels with Jesus. The most obvious that
comes to mind is turning the other cheek. And the argument of the right to bear
arms being a God given right seems stretched, since the most basic of natural
rights given by God tend to be: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The
means by which your liberty is secured would not necessarily be arguable towards
using weapons if the creator of the universe supposedly gave you those rights. Wouldn’t
it also protect them in its own way? Of course, there is a counter claim that
this would encourage idleness, so God would grant us permission of self
defense. I’m not denying that, but it’s implicit, not explicit, in terms of an
argument from theology. Fundamentally, I won’t say that religion prohibits any
such ideas of self defense and a right to bear arms, but if you’ve read my blog
even a bit, you know I don’t think we should really use religious tradition or
faith to justify any position we hold, no matter how logical and correct it may
happen to be. Defend gun rights with philosophy and logic, not tradition and
convictions about the supernatural.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Guns are altogether a duplicitous weapon, both
aiding and harming us depending on the intent behind their use. The fact that
they are dangerous because of the unpredictability and otherwise dangerous
nature of humanity does not mean they should be destroyed. Disarmament is the
path to a utopia where we could be killed by any natural threat, such as
beasts, let alone the chance of attack from people who manage to design and
construct weapons themselves post pacifism, and extraterrestrials, should they
come to our planet and be hostile in nature. Guns should be an option in the
same vein as abortion, in the sense that we should familiarize ourselves with
them even if we ourselves do not prefer to utilize the process or tool in
question. They should be safe: properly maintained and regulated from
explicitly dangerous people as best we can, legal: not prohibited merely
because they could be dangerous or there is a moral objection to them, and
rare: we should be able to resolve problems without guns, but should be able to
use a gun if the situation demands it. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Holding Nothinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01824563181864407961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8709333750421171813.post-76027240237895475852012-08-26T15:00:00.006-05:002012-08-26T15:01:16.398-05:00Women Can Ask For Help And Still Help Themselves<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh22pkRiqfatzBGkwA_q3IOtQAZseeYccDFs2pjvIvLncpGXwRw0Zgw1hauSJaZPgHCYD6fxGs21pY_z7BEPOHbj9AUKG5OIjm2v76k7MaTgyQulMurOcOt_ZE9PArnCI2-dJJTzUnlcZQ/s1600/female-equality.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh22pkRiqfatzBGkwA_q3IOtQAZseeYccDFs2pjvIvLncpGXwRw0Zgw1hauSJaZPgHCYD6fxGs21pY_z7BEPOHbj9AUKG5OIjm2v76k7MaTgyQulMurOcOt_ZE9PArnCI2-dJJTzUnlcZQ/s320/female-equality.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/07/31/obama-campaign-ad-victimizes-women/">http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/07/31/obama-campaign-ad-victimizes-women/</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/08/20/life-as-an-anti-women-woman/">http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/08/20/life-as-an-anti-women-woman/</a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Since the elections are coming up within a few
months, Obama’s campaign ads are becoming more visible in popular media. One
concerning Mitt Romney and his stances on abortion has created predictable
controversy with the right wing alleging it “victimizes women” among other
things. A lot of the vitriol comes in the form of antiquated stances on
abortion rights and also claims that “Obamacare” is infringing on religious
liberty by making religious organizations, but not churches specifically, fund
contraception. I briefly mentioned this two months ago in <a href="http://toholdnothing.blogspot.com/2012/06/where-religion-and-politics-should-not.html">“Where Religion andPolitics Should Not Cross”</a></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> and <a href="http://toholdnothing.blogspot.com/2012/03/catholics-contraception-and-conscience.html">“Catholics, Contraception and Conscience”</a></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">,
both of which made the point that contraception is not a license to have sex
without any sense of discipline or self control and it shouldn’t be encouraged
merely for the pleasure of others. Viewed as preventative healthcare, it is
within the Affordable Health Care Act’s structure to cover it under insurance
plans. Women are still in a state in inequality, particularly with men and
women stuck in a backwards thinking paradigm where females are regarded as
subservient, and in order to advance forward, abortion rights must be enforced
more effectively. There may not be a literal war on women, but the “fairer sex”
is still treated as if they need to be coddled, instead of given the same
standing as a man in terms of reproductive health, which includes both
contraception and abortion as medical practices. And it is a scary time to be a
woman, even if the president doesn’t hold full sway over legislation. The
influence the executive branch has cannot be denied and the effect of peoples’
votes in terms of partisan politics cannot be overstated. If Mitt Romney and
Paul Ryan win the election, women are in danger of having all their
advancements be set back almost half a century if the Republicans have their
way, and they have a slight numerical advantage in Congress, not to mention the
Supreme Court. So the fight against these anti abortion agendas is that much
more difficult with the branches of government stacked against women’s rights.
Men should recognize this problem and seek to find a solution, which does not
mean treating women as delicate flowers or anything, since they go through far
more difficulty than men do psychologically and socially, let alone
biologically. They deserve a bit more recognition and fairness in politics than
they appear to get.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">First off, you aren’t victimizing women in the
literal sense when you say they are under attack in some sense by political
campaigns. If you observe that they are victims of something else, that is
different than making them your victim. There might be a claim of painting
women as victims, but this is demonstrably different than an explicit claim of
Democrats and social liberals “victimizing” women in their abortion rights
policymaking. This is not to say that women are asking for special treatment
with insurance coverage of contraception, since it could be equally justified
for insurance providers to cover male contraception, since they can be argued
to be preventative healthcare. Romney is
admittedly out of touch with women, due in part to his upbringing as a
conservative Mormon, but also because he’s a man. I’m also guilty of being out
of touch with women, not being one myself. But I can at least empathize or
sympathize in trying to aid them in gaining what I’d call reproductive equality
under the law, which was gained in part through Roe v. Wade, but not entirely.
To claim the Obama campaign is creating an artificial status of victimhood is
still flawed, since any examples of sex selective abortion procedures, women
who suffer psychological repercussions from abortions or even women who have
died from abortion procedures are far and above exceptions to the rule,
Abortions are far safer when they are regulated and can be prevented by sex
education and proper birth control application through the same entity that
does abortions which constitute only about 3% of their services.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Planned Parenthood seems to be one of the larger
targets in the proverbial “war on females” as I’d say, even though women and
females are distinguished by age. The claim from conservatives is that they are
encouraging sex, which then leads to pregnancy, which then necessitates their
abortion services and thus is creating a circle of exploitation. First off, to
reiterate, statistics suggest that a minute amount of PP’s services are
abortion related. The rest are various forms of contraception, mammograms, pap
smears and other preventative measures to guard against STDs, various female
cancers that can spread if not checked and generally maintain reproductive
health. But Planned Parenthood isn’t creating a cycle if they are encouraging
both a happy and responsible sex life, which would prevent unwanted
pregnancies, which would also lower the rate of abortions they’d have to
perform. And women are not being portrayed as sexualized objects merely because
they admit they have a sex life and want to have safety measures concerning
pregnancy, STDs, etc. Quite the contrary, women would be at least partly
desexualized when their value is severed from their reproductive functions.
Illegalizing abortion or making reproductive health and rights not a primary
aspect of policy would reduce women to breeders in that they are not expected
to be able to choose not to have children or delay childrearing until they are
more financially or emotionally prepared. Ultimately the argument that the GOP
and conservatives either don’t understand women or don’t understand the sexist
and misogynist positions of social conservatism is only bolstered by recent
revelations about their platform and the major figures of the party supporting anti
choice and anti woman legislation in practice, even if they say the principles are the opposite.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Men shouldn’t try to argue that this is special
treatment for women, since women are biologically the only members of our
species to have children, so giving them a basic legal right to abortion is not
any different than men choosing to get a vasectomy, though it is admittedly a
bit more extreme than birth control for men that does exist; it kills sperm
through a layer of material in the male genitals that allows for urination and
the like. Women are not simply their uteruses and are definitely not mere
domestics meant to serve men by any means. Women deserve equality in career
pay; supposedly they are still only paid 75 cents to the dollar compared to the
other sex. Women also deserve basic equal career opportunities: as long as they
are qualified, the fact that they have breasts and a vagina should not factor
in unless it’s particularly relevant to the job (i.e. a Chippendale’s dancer)
Men have more status in this society than they realize. The Bible favors them
in terms of marriage, since they can divorce with some grounds and women
cannot. Then there’s the obvious problem of men being able to walk alone
without much fear of being sexually assaulted, while women are still harassed
to this day and have to walk in groups so as not to be molested or, worse,
raped. Both men and women should feel remotely safe from sexual assault in this
modern age.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">It’s fair to say that perhaps government sponsorship
of contraception could create the wrong impression at first, but it’s not as if
males aren’t getting special treatment from culture, as established prior, so
women getting support from the government to advance their reproductive rights
evens out the playing field. Now women could conceivably be more self
sufficient in other areas when they can maintain a responsible and regulated
sex life, severing them from the expectation that they will just be housewives
and raise children while men continue to be breadwinners. This sexist and
outdated idea only persists because there is a mutual agreement to that setup
in a marriage and/or family. Because of this, women become repressed and
generally stifled from the potential they have. There isn’t a reason to stratify
jobs based on sex or gender unless it’s a prerequisite from the start (see my
Chippendales example or consider a Playboy Bunny as a counterexample). The
capacities men and women have for jobs are as generally equal as job skills
tend to be considered, so that shouldn’t be the issue. Women’s reproductive
rights and health have been sacrificed for too long for the convenience,
prejudice or ignorance of men. It’s time to make a change. Until next time,
Namaste and aloha.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Holding Nothinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01824563181864407961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8709333750421171813.post-38110412739387439612012-08-11T15:37:00.002-05:002012-08-11T15:37:43.782-05:00Separating Product and Politics<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj72RYrGKR_EfG3yWDadAqFGk8I2a2GFqx7ZUGEarbgns1SOaIxNSV4IVhjxhY8eBgO6NrJkt6nQu1sK7JWCGx2b9ESk8Laj5VrQ-lZPqjk-QvnjUvt95B1bWtbMzrMIP8NHecgh1f1gBE/s1600/413333_493365494024912_2077000203_o.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj72RYrGKR_EfG3yWDadAqFGk8I2a2GFqx7ZUGEarbgns1SOaIxNSV4IVhjxhY8eBgO6NrJkt6nQu1sK7JWCGx2b9ESk8Laj5VrQ-lZPqjk-QvnjUvt95B1bWtbMzrMIP8NHecgh1f1gBE/s320/413333_493365494024912_2077000203_o.jpg" width="278" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/08/01/this-chicken-fight-wont-hatch-real-change/">http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/08/01/this-chicken-fight-wont-hatch-real-change/</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/08/02/chick-fil-a-appreciation-day-reveals-liberal-intolerance/">http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/08/02/chick-fil-a-appreciation-day-reveals-liberal-intolerance/</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/noah-michelson/chick-fil-a-first-amendment_b_1733305.html?ir=Religion&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/noah-michelson/chick-fil-a-first-amendment_b_1733305.html?ir=Religion&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">GLBT rights remain prominent in both politics and
culture. A few weeks ago, I discussed the appropriateness of supporting political
positions as a company in <a href="http://toholdnothing.blogspot.com/2012/07/you-cant-boycott-gay-away.html">“You Can’t Boycott the Gay Away”</a></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> and it seems that the reverse applies as well; you can’t support a company to
make the gay go away. Chick-fil-a was already in the news a few years ago when
it was revealed they give millions of dollars to anti gay companies like the
Family Research Council. But this year, their president, Dan Cathy, brought the
company into the spotlight again when he stated that his company was founded on
“Biblical principles” and supported the “traditional family”. This brought a
great deal of hostility towards and protests across the country at Chick-fil-A,
ranging from mayors saying they won’t allow new CFA restaurants in their cities
to people planning gay kiss-ins at the establishments. But Mike Huckabee,
former presidential candidate in the 2008 race, supported a counter protest in
the form of a “buycott” where people would eat at CFA to support their
opposition to gay marriage. This doesn’t really seem to have worked, since the
company is losing popularity overall in their brand recognition in the last
month or so. And even if CFA manages to keep its profits at an even keel, I
imagine they will lose a great deal of patrons and likely close a few locations
where profits aren’t maintained, keeping their main locations in places where
it maintains popularity with a conservative demographic, such as where it
started in the Southeast. But is it really appropriate to always protest or
boycott a group merely because they don’t agree with your politics? Can you
distinguish between the policies a company supports and the product they sell
you or are they too overlapped when it comes to where the money used to pay for
it goes to? And should corporations really be involved in politics or should
they focus on making profit in their ventures?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">First off, this shouldn’t be argued to be about
first amendment rights. Like the Oreo thing, it is within a company’s rights to
say they support a certain political position. The limits of the first
amendment are primarily to hate speech, which hasn’t been uttered as far as I’m
aware by Dan Cathy. Even his ridiculous claim that we’re “inviting God’s
judgment” by trying to achieve marriage equality is not illegal, since it’s a
claim that has no real basis in fact like Westboro Baptist Church’s similar
warnings. Terrible things happen to America as much as they happen to other
nations, so God’s judgment is all over the place by that sketchy logic. CFA has
every right to take a stand on this issue, but at the same time, there is such
a thing as too much involvement. Companies can become too invested and
literally start to campaign through their funds by donating to political
organizations. This fundamentally undermines the initial purpose of a
democratic government. When companies get involved, they take away the real
value of the individual votes, because they’re campaigning with much more money
behind them and it’s voluntary for different reasons. Asking for funds is one
thing common in election season, but restaurants or the like get consistent
cash flow, which makes their situation more ideal to take advantage of the lack
of limits in other political contexts.
The Supreme court has made it law, from what I understand, that
corporations cannot donate more than a certain amount to presidential or other
such candidate based campaigns, but say nothing concerning such things as
legislation in general. The Family Research Council, one of CFA’s recipients of
funds, was against Congress condemning a bill in Uganda that would have made it
legal to kill homosexuals, though they tried to divert the blame from them
directly by saying they were trying to avoid “normalization of homosexuality
across the world”. That same organization has been deemed a hate group by the
Southern Poverty Law Center. These facts alone should be enough to make you
think about calling CFA out on that blemish of their otherwise spotless record.
What is ultimately at stake here is not whether CFA is going to go out of
business, since a free market of both business and ideas necessitates that we
have both crappy or subpar food and beliefs. If someone thinks that gays
shouldn’t get the same rights as straight people, that’s their prerogative. But
when you start trying to legislate those beliefs in reality, that’s where you
stop being free under the constitution to do so. The same applies to companies.
The goal should not be to protest, boycott or support CFA because of their
political stance on gay marriage, but petition them to stop funding hate groups
and stay out of politics as much as possible, if not entirely.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Chick-fil-A has stated that they intend to leave the
policies of same sex marriage to the government and political arena. If this is
the case, then I hope that they also cease their funding to people who are
involved in politics. The National Organization for Marriage advocated a
boycott of General Mills and Starbucks; plus I believe Million Moms suggested
the same for Oreo. The vast majority of companies either 1) aren’t involved or
2) try to do it covertly, as CFA seems to have done in the past and may
continue to in the future. Any company should maintain neutrality in this
issue, especially when it comes to funding. They can take a position in the
nominal sense, but to actively try to advance it through their profits is
potentially unconstitutional, if not just insensible. Why waste funds trying to
do what the people should be allowed to do without interference from entities
that are not individual persons? It’s one thing for explicitly political groups
to get donations from individual citizens, but private companies should
concentrate on maximizing profit and marketing the items or services in question
they provide. It’s just practical common sense.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">To separate politics and product completely in terms
of being a consumer misses the point, but as a producer, it is essential to
doing good and efficient business. Policies and legislation are unnecessary to selling
chicken sandwiches, or any other product, food related or otherwise. Just
market the items through various media and progress from there. So this is a
double edged conclusion. On the one hand, a consumer shouldn’t try to separate
product and politics, since they can be interrelated. CFA can be argued to
sponsor discrimination, so you shouldn’t go there. But you also should be able
to separate the company’s employees from the policies their higher ups, like
Dan Cathy support. They may not support that, but they still work there
regardless. And for producers, the goal of entrepreneurial enterprises and
franchises is to make money, not to use that money for purposes other than
making money. Charitable organizations may be an exception, but to advance a partisan
agenda is not what you should do with the money you get from people of all
political persuasions. Keep your money either to charity or consumer interests
and I think everything would become a little better in terms of political
campaigns and their natural flow. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.<o:p></o:p></span></div>Holding Nothinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01824563181864407961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8709333750421171813.post-82849737089509411342012-07-28T15:30:00.000-05:002012-07-28T15:30:13.289-05:00The Value of Virginity<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYvb3_lSfQqxY3VsT_prWKL6RhleAtEn6StxlLuXJ5Sa2nLbg0vFKGnZ2Dp8grGJbo79G-7fyJoa41chw1yZ5rwfu3VBCKNAA4L2VQp9FewJK6_0GKL21pnNKRW_jff_qOfMjKbHWM2E8/s1600/skippy-virgin-diaries.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="285" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYvb3_lSfQqxY3VsT_prWKL6RhleAtEn6StxlLuXJ5Sa2nLbg0vFKGnZ2Dp8grGJbo79G-7fyJoa41chw1yZ5rwfu3VBCKNAA4L2VQp9FewJK6_0GKL21pnNKRW_jff_qOfMjKbHWM2E8/s320/skippy-virgin-diaries.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/07/20/virginity-diaries-plays-tag-with-unicorns-and-distortions/">http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/07/20/virginity-diaries-plays-tag-with-unicorns-and-distortions/</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I wasn’t aware of this show, but like many reality
TV series, with “Virginity Diaries” you get the feeling even from a description
of the first episode, that the people, situations and results are all
predetermined or edited in such a way that it looks as such without actually
reflecting the full truth of it or they’re just purposely picked to polarize
the issues they’re discussing. The intent appears to be showing viewers the
lives of virgins or people who are thinking about their virginity and whether
to save it before marriage or not. This remains a fairly contentious issue in
culture, surprisingly, what with people up in arms over so many other things,
like abortion or same sex marriage. I suppose if you’re concerned about
marriage in general, then sex before marriage should fall under that umbrella.
The term “fornication” refers to illicit sex done outside the bounds of wedlock
in the Christian tradition. I’m, of course, more secular in my ethics and don’t
care so much about sexual activity as long as it’s consensual (between people
that understand the seriousness of the act and aren’t being taken advantage of)
and responsible (is done in a way that prevents STDs and unwanted pregnancies
and also clarifies if the sex is leisurely or more serious in nature before it
is engaged in). I’m not really the most socially conservative person, contrary
to what you would think from my upbringing in the South. As far as I can
remember, my family and most relatives I’ve interacted with haven’t made public
displays of affection very commonly. They almost implicitly disapprove of it,
particularly when children are around, but not even when there are other adults
around. This might not be just a thing that’s prevalent in the Southeast, but
in older generations. There’s also the argument that it’s an American issue,
since many European countries are far more emotionally open and expressive.
There’s the kiss on the cheek for greetings to start things off, but American
culture seems to regard many displays of affection, even simple ones like a
kiss on the lips between lovers, as taboo in public. Hugs are encouraged many
times, but this is also commonly done with a degree of restraint. Handshakes
are seen as a more basic way to interact and show a sense of connection and
trust without any intimate or close bodily contact. I’m going on a bit of a
tangent, but a lot of this could be pertinent to the larger implications of
what this show is doing. Even if it’s trying to be more open about the
different perspectives on virginity, more conservative virgins might react the
wrong way and think this is stereotyping both sides and saying that the more
restrained are always sexually repressed and the outgoing are more liberated
and normal by comparison. I can assure people that my virginity is by choice
and not because I was told it was morally wrong. I won’t deny that it was an
initial influence, but I choose to remain a virgin because I don’t think I
should just give it up to anyone, and I am also not so disciplined or detached
as some might be to have sex and then not go further with the person. Some may
be able to do this, but I still have a bit of old fashioned ideas on sex, I
suppose. This isn’t to say I find free love, swingers or open relationships
immoral by some secular ethics. It’s more that people shouldn’t stereotype all
virgins in the same way and recognize that virginity can be valid or invalid
depending on the primary justification for maintaining it. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The distinction between mental and physical
virginity and innocence versus temperance are both important. Physical
virginity is a mere temporal state, and even Christian theologians could argue
that the mere presence or lack of a hymen in a woman, for instance, does not
make her more sinful in terms of sexual activity, particularly if she was
raped. In that sense, her virginity is more mental in that she has only known a
very crude form of sex instead of the intimate act it should be. Her soul is
where her purity lies especially, and as Jesus noted, it isn’t what goes into
someone that corrupts them, but what comes out of them. I’m aware of the
crudeness of the analogy here, but the point remains that Christianity does at
least, at its core, focus on internal things as opposed to the external, which
is why it was probably appealing to Gnostics, who viewed the physical as
sinful, which of course, was an exaggeration of the Christian position. Of
course much of modern Christianity has become fixated on the external in the
moralizing position on premarital sex and sexual activity in general,
resembling Gnostics more than their classical counterparts. This is a form of “virginity”
I would see as invalid as opposed to a more figurative virginity maintained
even if one has already committed fornication or the like. To reference King of
the Hill, a TV series set in Texas and referencing religion from time to time,
one could become a “born again virgin” and avoid the stigma associated with a
non virgin marriage. Innocence is fairly distinct from temperance in that the
former is ignorance and the latter is discipline. Anyone can be innocent, but
to have temperance is more valuable in the long run, since it allows you to
resist temptations, whether you think they’re from the devil or just a natural
part of life as relates to human desires. Innocence can also overlap with
naivety and gullibility as well. The innocent are those that are easily taken
advantage of, which also relates back to my discussion of physical and mental
virginity. It is far better to not be a mental virgin if you want to maintain
any sense of physical virginity. Simply knowing of sexual things does not mean
you will be compelled to do them if you understand that self control is
beneficial to others as well as yourself. To be innocent is a potential hazard,
but to be disciplined is to prepare oneself for maturity, both physically and
mentally.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">A common reasoning for saving oneself before
marriage is based on a religious morality, which, as I’ve argued many times, is
fine and well to believe in, but does not demand the same respect as trying to
give a more concrete and practical explanation for why you think casual sex is
not conducive to marriage; not to mention it isn’t based in reality to begin
with or even a pertinent one if the beliefs are even metaphysically true as
relates to the existence of God or an afterlife. I’ll talk about cohabitation
in my own perspective, but for now we’ll make a presumption that this virgin
doesn’t even agree with initially celibate shared living before marriage. The
position of celibacy and abstinence hinges on the idea that your marriage will
lack intimacy if you have already bared your “soul” to people in prior conjugal
acts. The basis for this is linked to the claim of humanity’s innate, or at
least inborn. sin nature, which compels them to not follow God’s commandments
and whatnot. There could be a point made that virginity is beneficial to
society in that it keeps marriages at least more secure in not having adultery
exposed and families broken up by that terrible betrayal of trust between two
people. But the virginity advocated in this position seems fairly extreme and
suppressed in its views of sex. It
believes sex can only be done properly, and more importantly, morally, in
marriage. Not between two people who are committed to each other and haven’t
been bonded together by any Christian marriage ceremony, maybe not even any
religious or civil marriage ceremony or license, not between people who have
divorced and remarried someone else (because that’s technically adultery
according to Jesus in most cases, except infidelity or disbelief of a spouse),
and definitely not between two people of the same sex (because according to
this stance, they can’t get married to begin with). I would hope virginity is not confused with
innocence, which is far more psychological in nature than virginity, which can
be so, but can be maintained even while knowing of “carnal” pleasures and such.
Consummating one’s marriage and/or relationship is a big step, to be fair, but
to think that the consummation has to be done with no prior experience, even
just of the abstract, is ridiculous even by Christian standards, I’d imagine.
One can know about how sex is done and commonly learn about it in middle
school. But this doesn’t mean the adolescent should go out and have sex merely
because they understand the theoretical and technical aspects of it. The applied
and concrete manifestations of the conjugal act are far more wide reaching in
their influence on a person’s life and should be considered with some foresight
in mind and introspection about oneself. All in all, the idea of maintaining
physical purity for marriage is fine if we’re talking preventing STDs or such,
but it shouldn’t neglect that we are physical beings with physical senses and
desires. Understanding them is important, even if we also do not impulsively
act upon them. That much I can find
agreement with Christians and more socially conservative people in general.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">My own position isn’t exactly on the opposite end of
the spectrum, which probably stands on the line of free love, open love or
something to that effect. It can be done right, but there seem to be bad
examples, particularly with those that flaunt the practice instead of simply
behaving in a civil manner towards those who might disagree with them if they
figured it out in another way besides someone throwing it in a person’s face,
which doesn’t send the right message to begin with. I personally am a virgin
and would at least prefer to remain that way until I meet someone I feel I have
a deep connection with. Sleeping with just anyone does at least seem to me
wasteful of yourself, which is one of only a few points that I might agree with
the more reserved on sexual matters. This isn’t to say that I want to be a virgin
before marriage, at least physically so. I would probably have sex before
marriage in a cohabitating set up with my partner. But we’d have to decide this
ahead of time and also determine whether we are really ready for the
responsibility involved with it. Probably a great many people aren’t virgins
when they marry, either because it’s a shotgun wedding or people just generally
have sex to experience it and get some practice before their honeymoon as it
were. I don’t have stats on this, but I would imagine the true physical and
mental virgins getting married are fairly small compared to mere physical or
mere mental virgins getting married, either of which is preferable to complete
innocence to something that is not a bogeyman to avoid, but at least accept, if
not outright embrace tentatively. It’s one thing to become addicted to sex,
which is missing the point of sex’s uniqueness as an act of intimacy and unity.
But if I merely experience sex with someone as an experiment, it can lessen the
significance of it, so the connection should be deeper than that from the
start. That would be my principle: don’t jump headlong into sex, but don’t be
averse to it before marriage as if that is the ultimate determinant of commitment
between people, when it’s communication and trust overall that does that.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Sex is viewed by people in many ways and valued to a
greater degree or less. Some people may have no real interest in sex to begin
with and thus this article really wouldn’t apply to them. Some people might
have a problem with pornography or promiscuity and this would apply to them as
much as the person who has both never had sex and doesn’t want to until they’re
married. And then there are people who take sex too casually and need a bit of
a reality check. A middle ground, like
many other things, is ideal, though many people may be more disposed or amiable
to at least some imbalance either towards too much or too little restraint. If you
do save yourself, at least save yourself physically, if only because of the
risk of casual sex causing you to contract STDs. But you shouldn’t resist or
repress sexual thoughts and desires, since they’re part of you, even if you are
also expected to control them as well. This is, I think, a fair compromise. On the
one hand, you satisfy those who want people to be as pure as they can before
marriage and you also give recognition to people who consider sex an integral
part of the human condition. There can be some variability here, such as having
sex before marriage or in lieu of marriage for cohabitation and/or common law
marriage as well as having sex but encouraging protection, especially if the
sex is more leisurely in nature. But the understanding that sex should be
handled with care, but not kid gloves, should remain in some sense. Even open
relationships should have boundaries and free love should have restrictions as
well depending on which you choose. Sex is beautiful, but as good as it is, any
good thing should be done in moderation, however you practice it: free love
with mental discipline, polyamorous love with communication and monogamous love
with acceptance of sex as a part of it, but not the whole of it. Until next
time, Namaste and aloha.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Holding Nothinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01824563181864407961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8709333750421171813.post-56692463584175671352012-07-18T16:38:00.000-05:002012-07-18T16:38:17.056-05:00Special Treatment Or Inequal Treatment?<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3Pnrz-TJ3zdkfagxF-FieTb-CGXt3_YO3AVqasUIsgjTClvhf2Wzc_ZdX5c84n_XJbV9HgasZfhXGNb4gXg3QRqZHqHEyuy97fzpRK1TBd857Qga5AplpeOuXSIITXEE8AVCQStlNDXE/s1600/11152008_GayRights_005.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3Pnrz-TJ3zdkfagxF-FieTb-CGXt3_YO3AVqasUIsgjTClvhf2Wzc_ZdX5c84n_XJbV9HgasZfhXGNb4gXg3QRqZHqHEyuy97fzpRK1TBd857Qga5AplpeOuXSIITXEE8AVCQStlNDXE/s320/11152008_GayRights_005.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/07/13/gay-rights-above-all-else">http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/07/13/gay-rights-above-all-else</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/06/24/commonsense-questions-about-the-registry-of-homophobic-acts/">http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/06/24/commonsense-questions-about-the-registry-of-homophobic-acts/</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">With things like affirmative action still looming
over our head in some form or fashion, it’s not unusual for people to think
that minorities are getting special treatment by the government. This is
especially pertinent and topical with GLBT people. Stories seem to indicate
that there is a push in some segments of GLBT activism to force acceptance of
homosexuals in political culture. These may be isolated in nature, but that sort
of mindset is troubling to me, since I can see both sides of this argument. On
the one hand, you have people steeped in traditions that oppose it or just have
a lack of experience with GLBT people that inhibits understanding them as
people with the same wants, needs and traits that straight people have. But
then there are those that have been persecuted, isolated, ostracized and
scapegoated as GLBT people by the majority and feel like they have to fight for
their rights that much more forcefully in return. That sort of vengeful
posturing might have some justification in the sense of being aggressive, but
it can also send the wrong message about the community as a whole, both gay
activists and straight supporters. There is a middle ground that should be
publicized more. Combative language doesn’t make things seem more justified on
the side that has more supporters but no defense for why they behave in such a
headstrong manner. It’s not damaging to be enthusiastic about social justice
and other associated goods in the world, but the methods we seek to attain them
through should align with the values that are sought to be realized. Equality
and tolerance demands equal treatment and congenial behavior towards even those
we strongly disagree with.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Accusations continue to fly in this proverbial
culture war that the GLBT community is being treated unusually well in America
as of recently, “getting away” with things other people, like pedophiles,
couldn’t ever do even in today’s more liberal climate. But GLBT people are not
getting special treatment unless the government officializes a homophobic
registry or otherwise passes legislation that would give them undue favor and
protections. Simply having the option through a privately funded group is
certainly iffy, but it doesn’t make disagreeing with homosexuals illegal and
any hate crime legislation already has qualifications in place about imminent
fear being how it can be prosecuted. A qualification between the culture being
concerned about GLBT rights and the government being concerned is important,
since the former is more grassroots in nature and the government’s organization
and power being put behind something is a bit more direct, especially with the
legal ramifications.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Some employees at colleges have been fired
(technically they resigned, more likely) because of their refusal to counsel
people who were struggling with homosexuality in a way that disagreed with
their religious beliefs. The problem with this line of objection is that the
college in question where this incident occurred was public, so one could argue
this is a public accommodation issue in that you can’t claim your religious
objections are grounds to deny service to someone or refuse to do your job
consistently, such as employees of adoption agencies refusing to take requests
from gay couples. There are times when firing someone merely because they
disagree with a company about gay rights is questionable, but the company may
very well have the right to do so if they are privatized. Gay rights should be
a priority, but we should be civil to each other in advancing this cause. We
shouldn’t treat the intolerant with further intolerance, but only their
beliefs, which are not absolutely identical with them as a person, who deserves
respect regardless of what heinous beliefs they hold.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">When speaking about rights, we have to understand
first and foremost that they are protected by the government, but not forced
through legislation without justification. GLBT rights are not something we
should determine through popular opinion if it stands to reason that the traits
of GLBT are not malleable and essential to their person. Religion is protected
due to the cultural and societal significance it possesses, even though it is
quite easily adjusted with changes in convictions and new evidence and
consideration. But sexual orientation and gender identity, while somewhat
malleable, are not so changeable as to be regarded as a matter of caprice. We
don’t just choose to be attracted to a certain sex, both or none, nor do we
entirely choose our identities in terms of what society judges as masculine and
feminine. Guarding them does not have to imply special treatment by any means,
but it doesn’t mean we protect any so called right to be a bigot, especially if
it involves treating those you disagree with harshly, unfairly or even as
social outcasts when they don’t deserve it. Of course we have a right to
disagree with people, but equality under the law should also mean we are
treated equally as much as possible by the government, which means that
disagreements are acceptable within reason. There should not be such
divisiveness and negativity based on things we disagree with, since tolerance
can be exercised without people contradicting their religious beliefs that see
certain things as immoral or wrong. It’s better to treat people equally and not
give special treatment that is unwarranted than to try to justify inequality in
any sense when it can be done in an equitable manner. Protections extended to
groups that are considered special cases, such as GLBT, races, etc, have
limitations, but are not unjustified when the likelihood exists that they could
be targeted because of their being part of that group by bigotry and prejudice.
As tolerant and open as America is, it behooves us to protect citizens from
hate crimes in order to truly be a free and just country. Until next time,
Namaste and aloha.<o:p></o:p></span></div>Holding Nothinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01824563181864407961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8709333750421171813.post-68902841670413089742012-07-07T12:58:00.002-05:002012-07-07T12:58:32.666-05:00You Can't Boycott The Gay Away<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0MYGd3BkiwHpOlLJZxDWlFKD2O4UnW3g4yjWeJQHz0pmy8cO6rLbYQzcANscu-KMbv6Xrw2_-6sYQVQ-3uJxbI9tSALk6pJSfHEx61wXcr57PwHD7W_eyxPjo8xkdrps1SMBOwKSNqMA/s1600/3d90f_community-not-commodity-flag-half-sheet.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="220" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0MYGd3BkiwHpOlLJZxDWlFKD2O4UnW3g4yjWeJQHz0pmy8cO6rLbYQzcANscu-KMbv6Xrw2_-6sYQVQ-3uJxbI9tSALk6pJSfHEx61wXcr57PwHD7W_eyxPjo8xkdrps1SMBOwKSNqMA/s320/3d90f_community-not-commodity-flag-half-sheet.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/06/27/507005/abc-news-invents-fictional-anti-gay-oreo-boycott/?mobile=nc">http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/06/27/507005/abc-news-invents-fictional-anti-gay-oreo-boycott/?mobile=nc</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
The recent string of gay pride support from companies like Oreo, Pop Tarts,
Chevrolet and the like has inspired anti-gay individuals to suggest boycotting
the companies. And in response, supporters of gay rights have taken this
suggestion to its most absurd and amusing conclusion: those people should
boycott all companies that support gay rights in order to be consistent, which
includes Facebook where they first started these protests. The question arises,
of course, as to whether political involvement by companies is ever
appropriate. It goes without question that limitations on political support and
funding from companies are justified. But merely taking a general political
position such as supporting marriage equality or the like is distinct in the
same way that churches can hold such positions, but not directly support or
oppose political candidates, as I spoke about in <a href="http://toholdnothing.blogspot.com/2012/06/where-religion-and-politics-should-not.html">“Where Religion and PoliticsShould Not Cross” </a> This sort of qualification of the degree to which a corporation, like a church,
can be involved in politics, which should fundamentally be done by the public,
composed of individual private citizens, enables the political process to be as
fair and objective as it can with so many voices coming together about the big
problems, such as the economy and human rights. To outright prohibit that
interaction of private groups in public affairs stifles what should be a free
market of ideas. But there should be reasonable restrictions based on
considerations of the relevance of those private groups to politics. Both
church and corporation can have involvement, but economic prohibitions should
apply as consistently as those on houses of worship And the involvement doesn’t
mean that there is any attempt to force the issue on the buyers, but merely
that the company’s ideals are in line with GLBT rights. One can still shop
there without aligning politically with those beliefs. Economics and politics
can be fundamentally separate in practice even if they can be lumped together
in principle.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Any individual can personally disagree with
something, but boycotting a company because they don’t share your views,
especially on gay rights and such, is not only ridiculous in that the
corporation is not forcing gay rights on you, but it’s also not going to change
them unless you get a large enough group. Not that the group would be terribly
large or have a huge affect on sales anyway. On the contrary, the evidence is
pointing towards more and more people supporting gay rights. And if you really want to boycott all
companies that support gay rights, with a bit of research, you’d find there are
more companies that support GLBT than those who are more “traditional”, such as
Chik Fil-et. And boycotting them as a supporter of gay rights isn’t solving the
problem either, since they’re inevitably losing business anyway. A better
solution is merely to not be a customer without formally boycotting them. At
times, this sort of practice is more beneficial than making a large political statement,
though as civil rights in the past were threatened, boycotting those
establishments who were the most egregious in violating those rights sent the
right message. Simply supporting “traditional” marriage is not the same as
treating GLBT employees unfairly, which would be grounds for boycotting justly.
While corporations shouldn’t really get into politics, especially when it comes
to funding candidates and the like, stating that you stand for basic civil
rights for minorities like GLBT is not bad as long as it doesn’t become
intrusive. A policy of neutrality is prudent, but at the same time, it can be a
business venture, but also reflective that corporations are not just focused on
profits, but people as well, so it can work for both aspects.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The economic and entrepreneurial aspect focuses on
the likelihood of expanding your demographics. It isn’t just the GLBT community
that you’re appealing to, but those who support GLBT rights, which is fast
becoming more and more acceptable to one degree or another. It makes perfect
sense to state in commercials that you support gay rights. It isn’t necessarily
breaching any unspoken ideas about whether companies should speak about these
sorts of things. It’d be one thing for companies to start funneling in exorbitant
amounts of money to radical gay rights groups (if there are any) in the same
way if Chik Fil-et was funneling money to particularly mean anti-gay groups.
But merely saying they offer their name in the quest for further advancing GLBT
civil liberties isn’t excessive by any means. Just as other companies would
have a right to make an advert saying they support the traditional family, it
wouldn’t bother me. It just means they’re really hoping that the social
conservatives are going to buy their stuff in lieu of many social liberals
choosing not to. Either way, there’s a business risk, but that’s what you do in
such situations; you gamble.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">But companies are not just about advancing in the
business world, but also existing in a world of people with feelings, with
basic needs and a responsibility on the part of a corporation to not be greedy,
but merely covetous of profit and efficiency. The notion of virtuous egotism
seems contradictory with a common ethic in American culture rooted from Christianity,
which is about selflessness and essentially sacrificing your ego for the
advancement of a greater good. While this can be beneficial in a particular
setting, it is not absolutely forbidden to be interested in one’s own good
alongside being concerned for the welfare of others. One should not coddle or
provide excessively for those in need, for this makes them complacent and not
motivated to work for their own profits. With companies, this is a matter of
moderation. Individuals can become greedy within a company, but that should be
restricted as well with principles of self control and not seeking out money at
the cost of those under you. The idea that they can be replaced or outsourced
is not only callous, but can be considered fairly un-American in the sense of
not granting jobs to those who are willing to take them in the very country
your company exists. To not give those jobs to the skilled and those who even
want to creates a sense of hopelessness and even could encourage the
unmotivated to seek more government welfare to provide for them in lieu of
gainful employment. In that sense, providing jobs and even being charitable are
not signs of any sort of weakness or flawed economic logic, but simply a way
everyone can benefit in some sense, though not equally, but within the means of
each individual and group associated with them. Families, communities,
companies, the interactions are sometimes unrecognized, but are as important as
the predictions made for each quarter.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">While the controversy of gay rights may eventually
become a thing of the past and accepted by a majority of the world’s
population, or at least the U.S.’s, corporations have their own
responsibilities to consider in relation to minorities even as they progress to
greater acceptance and tolerance in society. To help those less fortunate in
charitable ways is a method that has been used for a fair amount of U.S.
history, at least since the post Depression era. Advancing the cause of social
justice by offering one’s influence and voice within the public sphere is
another way. Just saying you support gays and will not turn them away is
encouraging a tolerant and progressive America without giving special
treatment. Keeping political involvement as a corporation to a minimum; that
is, sticking to issues instead of candidates and in general instead of partisan
terms, can allow a business to be encouraging of the political process, but
also be considerate of the public citizens who are the true source of change in
the country, not those with the greatest profits. Until next time, Namaste and
aloha.<o:p></o:p></span></div>Holding Nothinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01824563181864407961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8709333750421171813.post-77449900323033504882012-06-27T14:24:00.005-05:002012-06-27T14:24:52.532-05:00Where Religion and Politics Should Not Cross<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnBjs_saNhEFhirb_IguQJQGE9I-jW4q2awaKmvoktyqGRUg3NEbmYL1_POJXL6PvtcobCjXk1tTkJ_hu3W84K4jEWzbVg3ZGIivCkW2bUq6gPqlHqvGoe8y_HM8VjC6GsnpowHICFZSs/s1600/tumblr_m4qqa5eVVI1r5gc3ao1_400.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnBjs_saNhEFhirb_IguQJQGE9I-jW4q2awaKmvoktyqGRUg3NEbmYL1_POJXL6PvtcobCjXk1tTkJ_hu3W84K4jEWzbVg3ZGIivCkW2bUq6gPqlHqvGoe8y_HM8VjC6GsnpowHICFZSs/s1600/tumblr_m4qqa5eVVI1r5gc3ao1_400.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/churches-religious-officials-political-speech_n_1616273.html?utm_hp_ref=religion&ir=Religion">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/churches-religious-officials-political-speech_n_1616273.html?utm_hp_ref=religion&ir=Religion</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">While religious organizations and associated 501(c) 3
charitable organizations are not prohibited from having political positions and
being on the side of one issue or another, the IRS has restrictions on their
supporting one candidate or opposing one actively. But some preachers are
scoffing at this and risking their churches all for the sake of a ridiculous
idea that church needs to be this involved with politics as opposed to the more
imminent issues, like saving souls or spreading the gospel. Not that I believe
in souls or the value of the so called “good news”, but I think I’ve made that
apparent enough. Bottom line, there are a number of reasons churches don’t need
to push this envelope, notwithstanding the IRS effectively ignoring them so as
not to give them any real publicity beyond what they already have. Supposedly
the standards of audits are complicated and the potential legal implications
are what may be primarily hindering any enforcement. The only other solution is
to enact sweeping changes and enforce them more stringently. If the IRS doesn’t
do something about this, it’s going to encourage this emerging movement of
borderline theocrats thinking that we need to run this country by religious
morals and standards instead of using reason and secular standards that
everyone can abide by without infringing upon individual rights to believe
nonsense. The law protects your right to practice religion even if it also says
that the right itself is not absolute. This sort of practice needs to be nipped
in the bud or it will just spiral into something worse than a remotely harmless
resurgence of religiosity, but actual political confrontations by people both
tightly and loosely affiliated with these antiquated traditions motivated by
mob rule and peer pressure to try to ask for special treatment. No one wants to
limit religion more than necessary, but you can’t ignore the law when it’s
convenient to you and this is no different than politicians trying to get lesser
sentences because of their previous contributions to society. Religion may have
benefits, but it doesn’t get tax breaks and also make political statements that
directly involve it with secular and civil election processes. Keep your
theology out of the government and we’ll make sure the government stays out of
your theology. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">This practice of taking on the IRS and its threat of
removing tax exempt status for churches has been going on for nearly 4 years
and nothing seems to have been done. If anything, it behooves them to start
focusing on this issue because the taxes that could be gained from those
churches would be a benefit to deficit issues in this country. Outright
removing the tax exempt status for all churches might be too extreme, but
enforcing the law about political involvement as regards candidate approval and
disapproval with these churches could aid in lowering the U.S.’s crippling
deficit that looms over us according to many conservatives. Freedom of religion
is not so absolute as to allow those in positions of authority as spiritual
leaders to flaunt the law in the spirit of what can be a reasonable practice of
associating political decisions with personal faith and convictions, and taking
it too far in directly campaigning from the pulpit against or for a particular
candidate. Of course, one might argue that churches which don’t get involved in
politics in any sense might be justified in at least getting some tax breaks,
even if it was made mandatory for all churches to pay some portion of taxes.
Those that are especially political might not get those cuts, but that would be
a choice they’d make from the start. It shouldn’t be such a big deal for mega-churches
to keep preaching politics or even advocating for candidates as long as they
keep getting money. And wouldn’t it be a good thing for Christians to support
the U.S. with money from their churches, especially if they’re all about the
U.S. being a “Christian nation”? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The Catholic groups railing against the
contraception mandate in the healthcare plan put forward by President Obama are
another group that is pushing their protections under the law. When they say
Obama is anti Catholic in his positions and then urge their congregations to
vote their “conscience”, it’s not as explicit, but it’s certainly able to be
interpreted as preaching party politics. I wonder what they expect Catholics to
vote for instead. If Mormonism is a cult and/or false Christianity, then can
Catholics truly vote for Romney either, unless voting one’s conscience means
ignoring dogma that explicitly states the church in question is against the
true church’s teachings? This concern with insurance plans covering birth
control and such creating a conflict of religious ethics and secular law seems
to be blown out of proportion, especially with evidence pointing towards the majority
of Catholics actually using birth control anyway. Of course they don’t get
abortions, but if you don’t want to cover abortions, one might be justified in
saying you have a right to refuse coverage for it under the plan. But birth
control has other benefits besides the prevention of a particular stage of
reproduction, namely fertilization (implantation prevention is a whole other
treatment), such as preventing STDs and in terms of hormonal birth control,
evening out one’s menstrual cycles and aiding with other issues such as painful
menstruation or inconsistent menstruation. I’ve noted this before in <a href="http://toholdnothing.blogspot.com/2012/03/catholics-contraception-and-conscience.html">“Catholics,Contraception and Conscience,”</a></span>;<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">
birth control can be justified in terms of an overall healthcare plan as it has
medical benefits aside from what the church has a person moral objection to. It
isn’t compromising their religious freedom overall and will not necessarily
escalate to anything further in simply saying you have to provide what is
considered basic medical care even if you personally object to it. And wouldn’t
it be better off to prevent unwanted pregnancies than to cause undue suffering
to children you feel morally obligated to bear and then are unable to provide
adequately for them?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Is it really clashing between freedom of religious
exercise/expression and separation of church and state when you enforce what is
a fairly simple rule of not endorsing or attacking political candidates from
the pulpit? You can speak politics in general, but not be partisan about it,
which is partly what the IRS is worried it will appear when it cracks down on
the offenders. But you’re just being fair in applying the law to those who
break it. You shouldn’t play favorites merely because the offenders in question
are in a special position by cultural perspective. Religion does not deserve
favors because it supposedly helps people be more moral or any such thing: in
fact, since it does such things, it shouldn’t ask for more in the government’s
treatment of it. Stay within your limits and no one will rock the boat of your
sensibilities about politics and faith. Until next time, Namaste and aloha<o:p></o:p></span></div>Holding Nothinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01824563181864407961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8709333750421171813.post-59010568888843313562012-06-20T13:53:00.000-05:002012-06-20T13:53:01.158-05:00Fight, Flight or Force<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifxrjhEiBJMFAvVcgeon4gotm1gxM9s3L2LAYUOGTL2BiCUarIz6hB-YKZkpFXl8HtvXpPkY4pa0csz3UHdX5SUWPLwXkpSqGPmNMTwLyANsnXLw0P3bU-r29cyEysmpXRcfdnOTzFXF8/s1600/castle-doctrine.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifxrjhEiBJMFAvVcgeon4gotm1gxM9s3L2LAYUOGTL2BiCUarIz6hB-YKZkpFXl8HtvXpPkY4pa0csz3UHdX5SUWPLwXkpSqGPmNMTwLyANsnXLw0P3bU-r29cyEysmpXRcfdnOTzFXF8/s1600/castle-doctrine.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/06/12/why-is-this-an-issue/">http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/06/12/why-is-this-an-issue/</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I’ve already described myself as a martial pacifist,
one who does not go looking for fights, but nonetheless advocates preparedness
and self defense in pressing circumstances and this topic will reflect that. I
could bring up various incidents that no doubt have actually happened, but the
general circumstances are better to explain what the overall theme here is. An
assailant is killed by someone who defends themselves with a weapon, a rapist
is killed by the victim’s father after they catch them attempting or in the
act, a burglar is shot dead by a homeowner after they break in. These are just
a few of the somewhat unique situations that complicate homicide law and
jurisprudence and I think that this sort of distinction is not splitting hairs
at all. But we shouldn’t see this as purely retribution or restitution but
strive for equity and fairness in all situations as much as possible.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">We tend to have two common options in our head when
a combat situation arises directly: fight or flight. This is based in a
biological response triggered by neurochemical reactions in the brain. In order
to preserve ourselves, humans will run in order to save themselves as opposed
to fighting what may be an opponent too great for us unless we are adequately
equipped. A fairly recent event comes to mind when talking about the fight or
flight response and it’s not pleasant. Whether Trayvon Martin provoked his
attacker or Zimmerman acted on a degree of racial bias against Martin and shot
him thinking that he was in immediate danger, the severity of the action
reflects something that has become acceptable in society: shoot first, ask
questions later. I’m not against the use of guns for self defense in a responsible
manner, but viewing them simply as tools for killing instead of waging war in
defense of justice and others reduces the gravity of their existence and
function. We use the gun for the primary purpose of defense, of course, but the
violent nature of it also necessitates that it be used with a great deal of
discipline and training. This is why gun permits are a good even if they also
limit the legality of higher grade weapons. There is a whole other issue with
the military having access to such powerful weapons and potentially abusing the
public’s trust in them by turning those things used to protect their rights
into objects that suppress those rights in the form of martial law or a
totalitarian state. Even the use of martial arts to defend oneself demand a
responsibility many people don’t think of when enjoying the brutality of MMA on
pay per view or the like. Of course there are rules involved, but a sense of
honor or discipline is not there as much when martial arts are used in a sport
context. It is very much an individual sort of sport, not something you can
share with a team to the same extent. You can have similar goals, but not the
same degree of individual will, training, and such. That aside, either way,
using weapons of any kind: guns, swords, knives, blunt objects, or fighting
with your body as a weapon, you should not take it to excess and view any
threat to you as an immediate or direct threat to your life at that moment. Of
course a mugger may just want your wallet, but they may want to take your life
to do so. But this does not mean you should kill them to stop this act.
Incapacitation or use of basic force can alleviate the situation just as well.
Diplomacy and negotiation can do the same for international conflicts. Of
course, these don’t always work, but the use of violence should be a last
resort, morally and ethically speaking.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">There is such a thing as justice without sinking to
levels of vengeance and the violence associated with it. Martial pacifism is a
good buffer to temper out what can be otherwise excessively emotional incidents
that could lead to manslaughter. There are nuances in talking about justifiable
homicide or imperfect self defense? Not all homicide is justifiable, unless we
talk about fear of imminent danger to oneself or others. And immediate threats
do not always imply death, though humans are not so tough that we can’t be
killed in ways we think we could survive. And there is also the distinction
between life and wellbeing. Being raped is certainly a terrible scar on one’s
psyche, but one can reasonably get through it with therapy and support. To say
a person can kill another because they are going to rape someone or even have
been caught in the act seems to take it too far. This is not to say that I
condone rape at all or see it as a lesser crime, but killing someone takes away
any possibility of redemption or real justice in mediating differences and
punishing those who have done wrong in appropriate and humane ways. Rape does
damage a person, but does not take away their future entirely as death does.
Imperfect self defense is similar to the justifiable homicide concept in that
the reasoning behind using deadly force is not always justified. Bare fists are
not as much of a threat as a knife which is not as dangerous as a gun. This
sort of relationship of risks is part of imperfect self defense’s somewhat
slippery slope. Imperfect self defense does not reduce culpability, but only
the liability of one’s crimes. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I’m not saying one can’t use force to defend others
or oneself. That’s justified in many forms of pacifism to the extent that you
don’t use violence. Non resistant pacifism is an exception to this in that it
says even use of force is unethical because we should be able to always resolve
problems with words and not our hands to hurt others. Or there is a notion that
love always prevails as a virtue even if you have to die to prove it. Both of
these are unrealistic and idealistic in their approach to the real world where
this doesn’t always work. But we also shouldn’t resort to violent force to
solve problems that could be solved in forceful ways without the potential for
death or mortal injuries. If moderation in all good things is necessary for
moral behavior, as Aristotle at least implied, then protecting others should
not be taken to excess or deficit and use appropriate force for the situation.
As vile and contemptible as people may be, killing them does not take away
their crimes, nor vindicate those who have been victimized by them. I must
emphasize the idea of appropriate force, because it varies by situation.
Experience can dictate this, but without that, a dual principle of restraint
and assertiveness is key. You shouldn’t let your emotions overtake you. If a
criminal is raping your family member, it is not a justification for you to
kill them on account of the closeness you have with the person being violated.
And even someone being killed does not mean you should exact the same thing
against the one who did it. It doesn’t solve the problem of murderers overall,
nor does it really vindicate the one who was killed. Incapacitation, knocking
the person unconscious or otherwise keeping them under control should be the
first goal in neutralizing a tense and dangerous situation such as the ones I
brought up at the beginning. You should not simply eliminate the person, since
this negates a principle in justice that each crime is different and should be
judged by the evidence and nature of the individual who committed the offense. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">As much as force can solve problems, violence should
never be our first impulse, unless the situation absolutely demands it. This
sort of discernment is difficult to gain, but can be done over time and
experience. Peace should be a goal, but we should not be opposed to fighting for
it when it is necessary. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.<o:p></o:p></span></div>Holding Nothinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01824563181864407961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8709333750421171813.post-1257529525556491182012-06-10T12:52:00.001-05:002012-06-10T12:52:20.938-05:00Free Speech Is Not Absolutely Free<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6XNsbawQq3U4oOdX43wlmoJM-lN3JPKJ-ijTNvaoLI8jUj8FrV_rVBGE3qGHq1uW0452bLoFrY9HZepx_s4OI2gx6_m_aLpwU4jK_oy5QWVR9AShvIBbyq6THd7vVXX2uX8JNm1h-lG0/s1600/no_free_speech.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="207" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6XNsbawQq3U4oOdX43wlmoJM-lN3JPKJ-ijTNvaoLI8jUj8FrV_rVBGE3qGHq1uW0452bLoFrY9HZepx_s4OI2gx6_m_aLpwU4jK_oy5QWVR9AShvIBbyq6THd7vVXX2uX8JNm1h-lG0/s320/no_free_speech.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/06/01/free-speech-includes-all-speech/">http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/06/01/free-speech-includes-all-speech/</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The right to freedom of speech is one of the most
fundamental of values in America, spreading across the world. But people
commonly misinterpret what it means, suggesting it is limitless by the ad
nauseum claim that “it’s a free country”; this is also applied to freedom of
actions, which is more easily refuted on basic ethical grounds, let alone legal
ones. Free speech has long been established to have limits based in obscenity,
fighting words, defamation of character and incitement to crimes. The most used
example of incitement is yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theatre, while libel is
misrepresenting someone’s actions in published works and claiming it is
factual. Obscenity is more difficult to discern, but the limitation could be
construed to restrict more public sale or broadcast of such things. That’s how
pornography is protected in its existence, privatized in its funding. But there
have been many instances where preachers, especially recently, that have used
their status as a religious official to speak words against homosexuality that
go beyond simply saying they’ll go to hell or even wishing they’d die of AIDS
or the like. Those are within rights, even if they are repugnant statements.
The fact that they speak about religious concepts and in generalities (not
individual gays, but the gay community) respectively makes them not fall under
defamation of character or the like. But when you say that the government
should kill homosexuals or that we should isolate gay females and males on an
island and separate them by sex with electrified fences until they die off,
you’ve gone beyond what even your state as a person associated with a house of
worship, free of taxation, permits you to. This is especially so if you start
saying what you think the government should do or even what you know it won’t
do, but ought to in your opinion. But even when you just say it as your
personal opinion without regard to the government, it borders on incitement to
illegal actions, on the level of Japanese internment camps from World War 2 in
America, not to mention the obvious Holocaust in that same era. No one’s saying
you have to hold positive opinions about homosexuals; you can hate them all you
want. But there are limits to what we can say for the same reason there are
limits on many other freedoms, which I spoke about briefly in other articles,
such as <a href="http://toholdnothing.blogspot.com/2012/04/pro-choice-or-pro-liberty.html">“Pro Choice Or Pro Liberty”</a>. One
shouldn’t try to legally protect otherwise unlawful speech under the guise of
religious freedom or unrealistic ideas of how free you think speech is or
should be. Speech can motivate actions, so we shouldn’t let it be abused
anymore than the value of religion, regardless of if one believes it to reflect
truth or not.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Preachers have every right to express distaste and
even moral condemnation against homosexuals, along with everything else, but
just because it’s fashionable within the particular sub culture to bash gays on
such a level that is explicitly genocidal, even if not so direct in the method,
doesn’t mean it’s protected free speech. At the very least, it’s in poor taste
even if it is protected by the basic limits of criminalizing hate speech by
imminent threat instead of any threat, but when you advocate such a thing, it
goes beyond speech that merely expresses hatred and goes to acting on that
hatred in some way that is illegal, like putting gays in separate electrified
fenced off areas until they die off. No one’s saying you can’t express even
strong distaste or bigotry towards people, but when you use words to give an
impression that you intend harm to someone, either in their reputation or their
person, those expressions are not legally protected automatically, especially
if you are taken seriously, or even if people laugh at it jeeringly, because
that just means that if they had the opportunity, they may very well do it, but
the present law thankfully prevents them from doing so.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Making such a controversy over what you think are
overly strict legal prohibitions on particular types of speech misses the point
of freedom in general. A simple way to explain why any freedom is not
completely at ease to be performed in any way is the idea of balance. A
taijitu, the symbol most often called a yin yang, is one way to see it. To
paraphrase, there is good in evil and there is evil in good. Some things are
not harmless in their existence, so forbidding them is actually protecting
people, not unnecessary censorship. There are dangers to the positive liberties
we enjoy in that they can be taken to excess. So benefits exist in the negation
of very specific instances of speech that are nearly universally considered
damaging to civil society in that they allow for more expansive borders to what
is permissible. When we have basic guidelines in terms of such a widespread and
diverse practice as speech in one form or another: spoken, printed, broadcast,
etc, then the extent to which one can push those limits is fairly large, to the
level where satire is protected on the grounds that it is not obscene for its
own sake, but to make a point. The Westboro Baptist Church argued its own legal
cases well in terms of their speech being protected and not strictly criminal
hate speech or defamation in the immediate sense of the terms. What they do is
motivated by religious beliefs first and foremost and protection of those,
whether you agree with them or not, is as essential as protecting our right to
expression. Since they are not doing their protests because of a primary hatred
of homosexuals irrespective of religious considerations and they are not
attacking the individual as they are still alive, there are basic loopholes
that are in place to protect them. This is not to say that the spirit behind
WBC’s slanderous remarks is a good thing, but legally they are protected on the
grounds that the individual cannot sue if they are already dead and it becomes
difficult to establish whether someone can sue on a person’s behalf. Does it
really affect another person if their friend is insulted and already dead? Does
it affect the person already dead at all? These sorts of questions muddy what
are already clouded waters to begin with. But both freedom of speech and
religion have their limits and even Westboro understands this. Not that they’d
feel the need to actually inflict property damage or assault gay people or
those that “enable” them; their God will do it for them according to their
beliefs. That’s where hate crimes start, though in this case the argument would
be that these are merely assaults and not hate crimes, just as their speech is
not specifically derived from the homosexuality itself, but religious beliefs
about homosexuality. What distinguishes hate speech from defamation of
character in general is your basic motivation for why you speak the hateful and
libelous words you do. If it is merely out of spite for the individual or group
in general, it is defamation, but if it is because the individual or group in
question possesses particular characteristics that you are biased against, then
the hate speech denotation is justified. Further qualification specifies whether
your threats or hateful words give a person a feeling of imminent danger. If
this is the case, then the hate speech can be criminally prosecuted. I admit
I’m not an expert on this sort of thing and there may be more nuances that I’m
not aware of, but fundamentally the protection of any speech, including hateful
forms, is limited by whether it infringes upon the fundamental rights we all
share, which include a basic sense of security in our persons, freedom of
speech and religion, amongst the other derivative rights thereof. As the saying
goes, “Your right to punch me stops at my nose”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">While speech is certainly a valuable part of our
society, we shouldn’t take it for granted as something that has a catch all
sentiment of being acceptable all the time in every way it can be taken. Words
are not just empty of any meaning, even if the meanings we attach to them vary
by time and place. They are the foundation of beliefs, which are the motivation
to actions. To paraphrase Confucius, if we don’t take our words seriously and reflect
that our saying something leads to how we regard ourselves and others, then we
risk social disharmony. If we speak hatred of others, it suggests a sort of
self loathing that is at the root of the problem. One hears the Christian
notion of hating the sin and loving the sinner, but with such statements made
in today’s culture regarding the supposed problem of gay people and alleged
agendas, it seems like there really isn’t a fundamental solution except to go
back to antiquated ideas. Looking towards the future does not mean we throw out
the past entirely, but we certainly don’t bring in traditions that are
repressive of those that pose no real threat to others. Gay people, among so
many other minorities still mistreated today in speech and action, should not
even be treated ill with words. There are legal protections to those
reprehensible voices, but only to a point. You cannot say you want to kill
someone without the potential threat of battery charges against you on the
simple fear that you may follow through with that thought in actual form. To
not take what you say seriously is to make your deeds worthless. Until next
time, Namaste and aloha.<o:p></o:p></span></div>Holding Nothinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01824563181864407961noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8709333750421171813.post-48606543862274458722012-06-03T12:26:00.003-05:002012-06-03T12:26:48.545-05:00Both Biology and Psychology Matter<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhR5SlxMtw6a6vZDE0v3wN8QNWn8KROLZI3uuCFoQmV233TM41fY-vWXrliIWKQ2IgGr7wzwYXCE_I_PfNjJFIRliEpeo0fvGOu3Sst6-SORcIZfLspVO3nSgMQ525S5cPy1ofNa5hzqEI/s1600/5257.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="243" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhR5SlxMtw6a6vZDE0v3wN8QNWn8KROLZI3uuCFoQmV233TM41fY-vWXrliIWKQ2IgGr7wzwYXCE_I_PfNjJFIRliEpeo0fvGOu3Sst6-SORcIZfLspVO3nSgMQ525S5cPy1ofNa5hzqEI/s320/5257.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/05/25/anatomy-matters-period/">http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/05/25/anatomy-matters-period/</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Even today, some of the biggest barriers we have to
break down are those strict dichotomies between sexes and genders. The idea of
males doing feminine things or vice versa still makes us uncomfortable, even if
we have no problem understanding varying sexual orientations, since those are
understood in our minds as inborn and immutable. But there is still a strong
tendency to believe that our genders are conditioned and even determined by our
assigned sex. If we have male or female genitals, we commonly, almost
automatically, identify with masculine or feminine gender stereotypes and
behaviors. But this isn’t so rigidly true, even if many people tend to follow
this pattern, which is referred to in gender studies as “cisgender”. Anatomy
and biology do not absolutely determine one’s gender identity or psychological
makeup in terms of gender roles or enjoyment of perceived masculine or feminine
activities that conflict with their assigned sex and associated gender. Our
perception of ourselves as male/masculine, female/feminine, transgender, etc is
a combination of many factors, which I’ll give at least a cursory investigation
into, though I’m certainly not well versed in the vast amount of studies that
exist in this likely growing discipline.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">It’s important to continue advancing the distinction
and nuance of the terms “gender” and “sex”. Gender used to be considered
identical to sex in common parlance, even on surveys, but this was before
psychologists began to distinguish between our biological sex and genitalia,
such as the penis, testes, vagina and ovaries for obvious differences between
the sexes, and our psychological state and perception, which reflects socially
constructed ideas about what constitutes masculine and feminine behavior and
tendencies. Intersexed people or those with what are called ambiguous genitalia
are potentially more prone to having confusion about their sex, not to mention
their gender. The problem people with otherwise normal genitalia have is the
conflation of our biological sex with our psychological gender and otherwise
using gender in the mistaken sense of sexual characteristics instead of what
can be shared in some sense by both males and females. Males can do feminine
things occasionally and even identify with the feminine gender from a young age
and vice versa for females in regards to masculine things. This does not mean
these people are insane or destructive, but merely that they have a disordered
relationship between what people identify them as in terms of what I would call
sexual gender, those physical traits that we distinguish as male and female;
and psychological gender, those ideas that group us into what are commonly a
binary of male/masculine and female/feminine, though there is always room for
inclusion of third gender understandings, not entirely female or male, but
almost androgynous. It doesn’t have to inspire fear or such negative emotions
in us, but merely open up our perspective to the diversity the human condition
has in terms of our ideas about what constitutes men and women, as well as what
is feminine or masculine, or even if these binaries make complete sense in
today’s changing world.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">There are a lot of terms to throw around related to
the study of gender as a whole, but for the purposes of discussion, I think
it’s best to simplify this to a few key ideas: gender identity, gender role and
transgender. Gender identity is one’s personal concept of gender, both
psychological and biological. There is a wide spectrum of genders in society,
some including not only a third gender, but genderless and androgynous ones,
among others. One’s gender identity is something that is conditioned in part by
society’s expectations of oneself, but also chemical and physiological traits
that one is born with unknowingly or without a desire to change. A man may have
a higher pitched voice than normal and vice versa for a woman’s voice. These
create a variability with how one is approached. A higher pitched voice for a
mature male is not considered masculine and a deep voice for a woman is
similarly so. With this in mind, these individuals may begin to consider
whether they are strictly male or female as a whole. This doesn’t even cover
the entire topic that could be devoted to intersex and sexually ambiguous
individuals who have gender confusion primarily because of how genetics worked
before they were born in one form or another. This topic applies to those
people who had a sex assigned to them at birth, but feel that does not
adequately describe them or fully encompass what they are as a person who is
both a body and a mind in or out of synch with each other. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Gender roles are related to gender identity in that
the former are at least partly informed and motivated by the latter. Whatever
one’s personal sense of being a man, woman or other gender is, this effects
what kind of behavior you will do, which may or may not fit with social norms
of what is considered masculine or feminine, since a common, though not
strictly so across the world, structure is a binary one where the two genders
have some overlap, but some actions and habits are not considered feminine at
all, such as having a career and choosing to not have children for a woman in
this day and age. A man or woman crossdressing is still considered something
abnormal and even aberrant, but it isn’t so cut and dry. It doesn’t even mean
the man or woman in question is homosexual, but that they understand and
express their gender in this way. They certainly don’t intend to hurt people;
this may explain why many times they hide this practice from family and
friends, for fear of conflict rejection, and ostracism. But this sort of
behavior is hardly so damaging that we should treat those who do it as lesser
people.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Being transgender is a variable identity, since it
exists on a sort of spectrum, ranging from simple dissonance of one’s assigned
sex and one’s gender ideation as a whole to even rejecting the binary entirely,
identifying with both sexes and genders. Some might call it special treatment
if you allow transgendered individuals to use the opposite sex bathrooms, since
it gives them privileges without them deserving it, or some variation of a
claim that they are abusing the system. It is not unjust or unfair to permit
someone who identifies as the opposite sex to use the opposite sex bathrooms
even if unisex ones are available. The concerns of rape are unfounded if we
interpret that the people who have severe gender identity disorder are not
taking advantage of the permission, but simply trying to integrate into society
as a person of the opposite sex, sometimes because they are required to do so
for a year in order to be approved for a sex reassignment surgery.
Crossdressers are not afforded the same privileges, however. Being transgender
in the sense of wanting to change one’s sex to match one’s overall sense of
self as a person is not on the same level as dressing as the opposite sex for
reasons that don’t reflect the same level of need for accommodation. It’s not
even remotely unfair to say a crossdresser who is not trying to live as the
opposite sex and gender cannot go into the opposite sex bathrooms as if it is
normal. Unless you are crossdressing for that previously stated purpose of
sexual integration, then it is not the same category of consideration legally.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Of course there will be distinctions in one form or
another about what is manly or womanly and those who stand out may be ridiculed
or singled out. But we shouldn’t be ashamed of these people, but proud of their
diversity and uniqueness in a world where people are far too often uncertain or
pressured into their gender identity and roles and treat those who differ with
some measure of contempt or disinterest. We certainly shouldn’t be negative
towards a group of people who have a great deal to offer in terms of culture
and psychology, since they do not take their anatomy as the only means by which
they see themselves as a person, but they look inside. We shouldn’t condemn
those who are different, especially if they aren’t hurting anyone but those
that are insecure themselves because they aren’t willing to admit their own
uniqueness. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Holding Nothinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01824563181864407961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8709333750421171813.post-23901100980343919122012-05-27T14:22:00.001-05:002012-05-27T14:22:48.671-05:00No Fault Divorce, Marriage's True Enemy<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNV_KcwhpaSWSR8S13p7f6tuUPHMR-48vPGTUJsQuOoPnnU0qGfizOaCg3Mi28qWZUuwQJmgDy6bgt48IROtwLLZlVXrRYq_Nd-ccBRq9YIrpXFvcIUH9nVTyEdaDeb6U3G3csRI2WasA/s1600/BrokenMarriage.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="176" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNV_KcwhpaSWSR8S13p7f6tuUPHMR-48vPGTUJsQuOoPnnU0qGfizOaCg3Mi28qWZUuwQJmgDy6bgt48IROtwLLZlVXrRYq_Nd-ccBRq9YIrpXFvcIUH9nVTyEdaDeb6U3G3csRI2WasA/s320/BrokenMarriage.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/rescuing_marriage_from_no_fault_divorce">http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/rescuing_marriage_from_no_fault_divorce</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/the-logical-fallacy-gay-marriage-opponents-depend-upon/251486/">http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/the-logical-fallacy-gay-marriage-opponents-depend-upon/251486/</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/sep/10092104">http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/sep/10092104</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://blogs.fayobserver.com/myronpitts/April-2012">http://blogs.fayobserver.com/myronpitts/April-2012</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">It’s a common position of social conservatives,
especially in the media, that gay marriage is a threat to marriage and will
destroy the family and society as we know it vicariously. But no-fault divorce,
established in America as early as the 70s and finalized in all states in 1985,
has had more demonstrable and probably correlative and causative effects on
marriage and divorce rates in the last few “generations” than gay marriage has
in the last 10 years since it was first legalized in the Netherlands. The most
obvious reason why it has infested and corrupted marriage and the family is
because people don’t have the basic restrictions on divorce law that existed
prior: where you had to find some fault with the partner in order to separate.
When people don’t take marriage seriously and can legally marry someone and
then separate in less than 24 hours for a mere caprice, it’s no surprise fewer
people give the institution the respect it deserves and are basically lying
through their teeth at their vows or don’t realize that marriage is more than
just shared property and some tax breaks, it’s a commitment for a lifetime that
should not be taken lightly. There are at least two perspectives from which
divorce is criticized, though not always to the same extent. But no-fault
divorce goes too far and I think both sides that could find fault with divorce
to one extent or another would see this law as repugnant even to the mere
secular purpose of marriage: maintaining kinship and intimacy between family
and couple respectively and encouraging the values of fidelity and monogamy for
all those in and planning for marriage.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Religiously, divorce is only permitted in a few
circumstances, if we consider the Christian perspective, which is fairly common
in America. If a spouse is unfaithful and caught in the act, dies, or willingly
leaves the spouse because they do not believe in God anymore, then the divorce
is considered valid and justified, roughly speaking. And the only time someone
can remarry is if their spouse dies. There are issues in Jewish divorce law,
since it appears traditionally a woman can’t initiate a divorce and a man can
refuse to out of spite. In Islam, divorce is permitted by both men and women
with waiting periods or court proceedings respectively, though it is considered
the most hateful thing that is also lawful, for similar reasons that Jews would
try to maintain civil harmony in their marriage, even if they don’t think they
can maintain it for personal reasons of one form or another. There’s always the
admonition from Jesus in the gospels, particularly Matthew 19:6, “So they are
no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not
separate." The Catholic Church takes it so seriously than even an
annulment, which makes the man and woman not obligated to live together, does
not separate them in the eyes of God. As mentioned before, the only way
remarriage is acceptable by Catholic standards in particular is if one of the
spouses dies. Infidelity does not break the bond of marriage, though it is
grounds for separation. Many other Christian denominations will permit divorce,
though they could consider it problematic to remarry. A lot of it depends on
interpretations of both Jesus and Paul’s thoughts on marriage, since Paul is
noted to have said that it is better not to be married unless you cannot resist
temptations of the flesh and the like. Being bound to a woman is almost seen as
a distraction from worshipping God. But the positions tend to range on a
spectrum of condemnation of divorce in itself, condemnation not of divorce in
the sense of annulment, but of divorce and remarriage and then permission of
divorce and remarriage within limited constraints of infidelity or if an
unbelieving spouse calls for separation and then permission of it under more
general grounds and remarriage as well.<span style="background: #F9FDFF; color: #001320;"> <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: #F9FDFF; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The more secular perspective on
divorce is a bit limited, since the legal standards for it have changed. The
original law in the U.S. appears to have been the form that required finding
culpable fault in one of the partners, which was more than merely emotional
distance or the like. Physical abuse, adultery, abandonment or other felonies
fell under this standard. The legal opposition to this divorce law was on the
grounds that there shouldn’t have to be such obfuscating or otherwise ad hoc
justifications made to determine divorce proceedings. There is disagreement in
that this just involves the government more in determining how marriages can
end, but that’s not as pertinent to the topic at hand. There are alleged
problems with no-fault divorce that come down to property and such. One partner
can be left high and dry when the other leaves them because of prior
arrangements, though a lot of this may be preventable by making more equitable
contracts beforehand. The biggest issue that can be brought up for no-fault
divorce being counterintuitive to marriage without invoking a bond made by God
through a sacrament would be that this can create a habit of detachment that
leads to separations that do not encourage communication between spouses. If
one side decides to leave and doesn’t even have to prove fault, then the
divorce leaves bad feelings behind because the other side may have wanted to go
into marriage counseling. If you can’t resolve your feelings together, then the
notion of commitment and loyalty to one another in the marital state seems to
fall apart in society’s perspective at large. I would hope people deciding to
get married have thought long and hard about it, gotten counseling or practice
in some beforehand perhaps even cohabitated with limitations to see how they
interact together. If that’s done, no fault divorce can be avoided from the
start by encouraging good marriage habits.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: #F9FDFF; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In either case, no-fault divorce is either taking
marriage to a level where commitment to the sacred nature of it is lost or even
adhering to basic standards of marriage as something that binds people together
for a lifetime is lacking. When you don’t have to even find fault with your
spouse, but get tired of them, and the legal system supports you in that
decision, society has gotten to a point where jokes about Britney Spears or Kim
Kardashian being married for less than a week and getting divorced in at least
one case within 24 hours aren’t funny anymore. Quite the contrary: in
hindsight, they reflect badly on popular culture. Marriage isn’t even a
commitment anymore to people; it’s an excuse to have sex in the eyes of one’s
religious taboos against premarital relations. Beyond that, if you don’t want
to be married anymore, if you just don’t feel it, you don’t need to
communicate, you just have to get a divorce, no questions asked. I hate to
sound like a ranting family values sort of right wing pundit, but this sort of
thing is far more damaging in the ideas about marriage it establishes. Children
aren’t even a concern here, families aren’t relevant. No one matters but
whichever spouse decides they don’t want to be married anymore and goes through
with the process. If that’s what love is perceived as by the next generation, I
fear for society much more than if 5% of our population that happen to be
attracted to the same sex are permitted to be called married and actually encourages
monogamy or other values of marriage that can be discerned by observing couples
in varying stages of wedded “bliss”. The real destruction to marriage comes not
so much in changing the definition, but in making it obsolete. Until next time,
Namaste and aloha.<o:p></o:p></span></div>Holding Nothinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01824563181864407961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8709333750421171813.post-60039991743957755912012-05-20T15:49:00.000-05:002012-05-20T15:49:09.706-05:00Distinction Versus Discrimination<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKBxDYkxljgqoYfhYVkKUF5F7d72NuLRR_oN0A-BtCQKVYdiE5hWU8xk478pRfbW6-yxTX9GqoRoBbWg_cI3KT6o-cRuSIBF877DMhoSq1-V2grumVFA2t-RLej1DBvlOH2MDSqYYt_wQ/s1600/553520_454295434599915_205344452828349_100694411_1937503547_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKBxDYkxljgqoYfhYVkKUF5F7d72NuLRR_oN0A-BtCQKVYdiE5hWU8xk478pRfbW6-yxTX9GqoRoBbWg_cI3KT6o-cRuSIBF877DMhoSq1-V2grumVFA2t-RLej1DBvlOH2MDSqYYt_wQ/s320/553520_454295434599915_205344452828349_100694411_1937503547_n.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/05/11/the-answer-is-civil-unions-there-now-shut-up/">http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/05/11/the-answer-is-civil-unions-there-now-shut-up/</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/05/11/a-straight-answer-on-gay-marriage/">http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/05/11/a-straight-answer-on-gay-marriage/</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/05/14/exclusion-does-not-equal-discrimination/">http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/05/14/exclusion-does-not-equal-discrimination/</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/05/15/the-rainbows-almost-complete-some-closing-thoughts-on-the-gay-debate/">http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/05/15/the-rainbows-almost-complete-some-closing-thoughts-on-the-gay-debate/</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Last week I spoke on Dan Savage and his
confrontational method for engaging opponents of GLBT rights overall, but this
time the issue that’s becoming more contentious across the nation is defense of
“traditional marriage” as various states continue to challenge rulings about
gay marriage laws’ constitutionality or reinforce their own ideas of marriage
in the form of discriminatory legislation, such as in North Carolina about two
weeks ago. There are a few particulars I think are especially important to
discuss when talking about this with anyone, such as whether the government
should be involved in marriage at all, whether civil unions are the same as
marriage by any stretch of definition, and defense of “traditional marriage”
laws on the grounds that the government has leeway to discriminate even with
the 14th amendment in place to limit such things as anti-miscegenation laws
which were repealed in Loving v. Virginia in 1967. All of these can create
large conflicts between otherwise reasonable people and it’s crucial to see why
the issues aren’t so cut and dry as we make them, especially when there’s so
much history and culture connected with a thing like marriage and sexuality.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">On the more radical end of the political spectrum
are conservatives and liberals alike that say the government shouldn’t be
involved with marriage at all. The reasoning is that since marriage is a
personal matter, there shouldn’t be federal arrangements surrounding it, but
only state level at most; sometimes not even that. I wonder if the state should
even be involved if marriage is so personal. If there are limits or regulations
of the institution, then isn’t that excessive meddling by this very libertarian
sort of position? Common law marriage may be a solution that gets the
government out of more intrusive aspects of marriage law and the like and also
allow gays to be considered married the same as straight people and get
associated benefits by the same law. The problem is that this would have to be
extended to a federally mandated, country-wide law instead of state by state,
which many would oppose in saying that the government doesn’t have a compelling
interest. But the fact that we register for marriages and the like, even if the
primary source of the commitment is a religious ceremony, is a testament to how
important it is to the government, if only to manage shared property, create
structures of relation and kinship, and provide for children if the couple
should unexpectedly die. The government has a responsibility to be involved in
marriage, but there can be too much intervention, as well as giving the
impression that married people are getting privileges beyond what they may
deserve as a couple with shared property, taxes, etc. Striking a balance
between the federal government’s intervention, as was done with state laws
prohibiting interracial marriage, and states’ individual rights in terms of
managing marriages in the more technical senses, without restricting rights
based on irrelevant qualities, such as sexual orientation, will take
cooperation that many people entrenched in their political parties may not be willing
to do until marriage has become something unrecognizable even by traditional
standards of male/female couplings. Would it kill marriage to expand it ever so
slightly with the same regulations we have on straight marriage? Seems to me we
can’t go much further with divorce laws beyond just allowing couples to annul
their union without a lawyer at all, so marriage can only go up if it includes
a group of people willing to conform to the basic values of marriage, even if
they aren’t the majority.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Civil unions might have the same legal rights in
most cases compared to marriages, but this is usually only on a state level.
There is already inequality in that there are government benefits given to
straight and married couples that gay and “civil unioned” couples don’t get.
But even if this were not the case, there is still inequality in the same sense
that existed with blacks getting their own drinking fountains, but being
separate from the whites in that practice. Civil union does not give the same
sentiment or implication as marriage and therefore it serves only as legal
jargon to overcomplicate what could be a simple matter of marriage equality for
both straight and gay couples. One could distinguish in a nuanced sense between
categories of marriage, but not so simply between marriage and civil unions.
Secular/civil marriage is that officiated and legalized by the state, while
religious marriage is established and made sacred by religious doctrine and
communities, but does not automatically hold sway in secular society. Civil
unions might have a purpose for other partnerships, but not for something that
has cultural significance for reasons that go back thousands of years. Family
is one part of it, but so are fidelity, monogamy, commitment and many others.
Gay people can have families, they can be faithful to one another and they can
represent love in its many forms to a country that should not judge them
because they love differently, but only accept their sincere love as deserving
of the same title of opposite sex couples that love in the same way.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Preventing gays from getting married isn’t justified
for the reasons we prevent adults from marrying children or biological siblings
from marrying each other. The government has a vested interest in protecting
children either from being violated by sexual predators or being born with
preventable congenital birth defects, but not in denying the rights and title
of marriage to people that fit the standard of marriage as a whole: two
committed adults in a relationship willing to pledge their lives to each other
in front of a community and remain so through their lives. The equality of
marriage should exist with regard to gays and straights, because at its core,
marriage is the same for both of them. It makes little sense for states to
refuse a gay marriage performed in another state merely because they think
there is protection in the constitution for discrimination, which isn’t always
the case. You can’t just deny people equal protection for a fundamental right
like marriage without having a fair minded reason. And being in love and willing
to commit to the relationship through the bonds of marriage is enough by any
legal precedent. Gays not being able to naturally have children of their own is
not reason enough either, even if marriage is laterally connected to family as
a method to generate it. Opposite sex couples that are infertile or elderly
couples recently married for various reasons, such as one of them previously
losing their spouse, cannot naturally have children, and barring scientific
intervention or unexpected biological occurrences, cannot. They are still
considered married by any “traditional” definition, yet if we consider the
raising of children as integral to marriage, then even these male/female
couplings are insufficient and worth only as much as a male/male or female/female
coupling, since they cannot have shared biological children. While family and
childrearing are both important to marriage, they should not be considered so
essential as to disqualify or otherwise make couples feel like they are not
worthy to be called married. And strict gender roles are not absolutely
important in raising a child either. If a child understands that there is
variation within male and females in terms of behavior that is considered
masculine or feminine, then that should be enough. Children raised without
fathers or mothers respectively or without either are not more prone to
negative behavior solely or primarily because of the lack of those parents, but
likely because of other contributing factors, such as societal concern for them
to begin with. How often do people talk about single parent households or
orphaned children? Not enough to reflect a genuine concern for them alongside
children who have “normal” families. Far as I’m concerned, there is no “normal”
family. Every relationship, every group of people sharing kinship has their own
issues to work out, even if they have a mother and father. Having two mothers
or two fathers doesn’t dispose you to be less important to society, and anyone
suggesting it is missing the point of what family is at its core: love and
compassion, regardless of blood relation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">One can be straight and fully support the right of
gay people to get married, even if you’re not married yourself or don’t even
want to get married at all. Your friend and their partner don’t make you and
your significant other/wife or husband love each other less. If they do, you’re
taking marriage way too much at face value instead of the lifetime it takes to
make it work together. And arguing that the children need a mother and father
is bollocks on its face, since there’s little causative evidence to suggest
that a child without a mother or father respectively performs worse in society
at large, let alone a child who isn’t raised by any sort of normal binary
parental structure. Aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, etc: these are all
family and they can raise a child just as well if they are willing to commit to
nurturing and encouraging them in their pursuits. Gender roles aren’t
absolutely required to come from parents, though they are one of the most
common ways. One can see a grandparent, an uncle, an older brother or others as
good male role models and vice versa for female family members, etc. If it’s
proper support of a child’s growth, then you don’t need to focus on gender so
much as more instinctive factors, such as love and support from people that
care about you not because they’re obligated to, but because they regard you as
someone close to them that deserves your love because of innate compassion for
one reason or another. That’s what family is, and when you reduce that to a
pairing of two people, you get marriage at its core, history or otherwise.
Until next time, Namaste and aloha.<o:p></o:p></span></div>Holding Nothinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01824563181864407961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8709333750421171813.post-72479871014502518292012-05-12T14:10:00.000-05:002012-05-12T14:10:08.711-05:00It Gets Better With Both Time and Action<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimzAd4ZaKSYHsLEUxn6BU_SO650cPKRtpb9qo_iOIPjuda8uVoGWVCRHeEBw7LY3VL0Am2eimUlItIoh0wAY0Xokk84dnRvnZYebqy2vlLZqbjRuyA_pAlg8GgUMQbHbEuvWfny-G_QMY/s1600/medium.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimzAd4ZaKSYHsLEUxn6BU_SO650cPKRtpb9qo_iOIPjuda8uVoGWVCRHeEBw7LY3VL0Am2eimUlItIoh0wAY0Xokk84dnRvnZYebqy2vlLZqbjRuyA_pAlg8GgUMQbHbEuvWfny-G_QMY/s1600/medium.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/05/01/it-gets-better-unless-you-disagree-with-dan-savage-2/">http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/05/01/it-gets-better-unless-you-disagree-with-dan-savage-2/</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Dan Savage is fairly well known in the popular GLBT
culture and community. He’s a very controversial figure to boot, going so far
as to coin a term related to anal sex with the surname of former Senator and
Presidential candidate Rick Santorum. He’s also put together more condonable
advocacy for gay teens in the form of the “It Gets Better” project and writes a
column syndicated in many newspapers for sex advice called “Savage Love”. His
advocacy on gay rights stems in part from being raised traditional Catholic,
which has an especially strong opposition to homosexuality in practice. Allegedly,
Savage is a bit skeptical about monogamy, which has brought some issues from
other gay rights activists, likely because it reinforces the stereotype of gay
people being promiscuous. He’s also been noted for supporting the use of
offensive words in a positive light through his column, such as faggot, in a
similar way that queer and gay have been in the last 50 years or so.
Nonetheless some activists find this objectionable, which seems a bit backwards
to me in that he’s not taking it offensively if it’s already recognized that
he’s gay and it’s used as an identifier.
Recently at a high school speech he made, many Christian students walked
out as he called for people to ignore the “bullsh*t” in the bible regarding gay
people. He also made a statement about those that left, calling them “pansy-assed”
for not being able to take criticism when they could easily be called bullies
themselves for calling homosexuality a sin and being insulting to their fellow
classmates that might be gay. This isn’t the first time Savage has made verbal attacks
at people, but this one cuts closer to home in that he’s directly involving
himself with anti-gay proponents and engaging them on a level that many, myself
included, might consider a bit immature. Fundamentally, the man seems fairly
civil, but he does have a temper that flares up from time to time, which he has
a problem with controlling. But his general intent is still reasonable in that
it directly brings Christians, one of the main advocates of anti gay bigotry
and discrimination, to the forefront, and makes them recognize that they are
being hypocrites if they can’t take even a bit of abuse and direct criticism
from the minority they persecute in one form or another. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Not all Christians bully GLBT people, but when they
stand by and do nothing about it, they are making themselves partly as guilty
and responsible for not trying to change how GLBT individuals and groups are
treated by believers in Jesus. Gay Straight Alliances in high schools are
discriminated against and gay students are verbally and physically bullied and
little seems to be done about it, to the point some of them commit suicide,
which is what Dan Savage is trying to avoid with his project. Christians aren’t
expected to necessarily agree with homosexual marriage or homosexual acts, but
treating even homosexual attraction as a disease or dysfunction is not helping
gay teens and young adults understand what love is. If you have a child or a
family member who thinks they might be gay, listen to them. Don’t dismiss their
confusion as a phase or rebellion, but take it seriously and try to figure out
why they feel this way. Is it recent or has it been a pattern for a while?
Perhaps the child isn’t gay, but bisexual, but perhaps they are gay. If this is
the case, you have to be prepared to accept it in one way or another. But don’t
ever push them away to try to save yourself the insecurity of coming to terms
with someone you love happening to be attracted to people of the same sex.
Raising a child is never easy and coping with your own problems is a good step
to do before you start considering children. Otherwise, you risk putting more
stress and problems upon your offspring as you raise them with your own warped
sense of right and wrong. It’s far better to accept your child for what they
are if there is no evidence they can change that quality. Behavior that can be
molded and shaped in some form or fashion is different. Being male/female,
gay/straight/bisexual, transgender, etc are not things you should fault your
child for or make them feel distressed about. If it’s a problem to you, then it
is not something to take out on your child, but work it out yourself.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">While supporters of GLBT rights and equality
shouldn’t insult people, beliefs and traditions are not subject to the same
limitations. If people cannot take criticism of their belief systems for the
heinous things they bring forth or try to do something about it, then they
shouldn’t engage in debates with people about something that is still fairly
polarizing politically and religiously. There is a fine line to walk between
insulting individuals or groups in terms of their personal identity that are
immutable qualities and insulting things that are quite mutable, such as
political or religious beliefs, especially if those convictions defame a person
based on immutable characteristics, such as sexual orientation, skin color,
sex, etc. It’s one thing to insult beliefs and bigotry as horrible and
reprehensible things, but to call those who hold them such a thing goes too far
in not treating those whom you want to be equitable and compassionate to others
with that same equity and compassion. If you’re insulted by such people that
oppose gay marriage, kill them with kindness, I say. Even a bit of humor can
make things less tense than they’d be if you try to talk reasonably with people
that don’t think reasonably in a situation where their social norms are being
threatened by an imagined enemy of progress. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Dan Savage’s methods aren’t
perfect, but they aren’t absolutely useless in being confrontational to people
that think every supporter of gay rights is going to roll over and take abuse
like a saint. Some people will get angry, some people will be emotional, but
those feelings should be tempered with peace and self control. I can be
incensed at the hatred and ignorance people spew towards those they either
claim to love or don’t know from the person sitting next to them on the train,
but I shouldn’t stoop to the level of those I oppose unless I can back it up
with a sincere intent to help people. Sometimes people should be left to their
own devices, but direct action can make change if the situation is ripe for it,
if someone is willing to consider that they might be wrong or that their
position can be softened a bit. Treat people with a mixture of yin and yang,
mind and heart, deliberation and intuition. Gay people do not deserve to be
treated like sub humans, but they don’t need attention brought to their
differences all the time either. If they are regarded as equals, then people’s
positions on them may change from what they perceive as those who feel
entitled. It’s a give and take method, but you can’t keep taking without giving
something back. Hatred should be returned with not only passive love, but
active love, tough love. And that’s what Dan Savage does. Until next time,
Namaste and aloha. <o:p></o:p></span></div>Holding Nothinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01824563181864407961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8709333750421171813.post-60078547669295789252012-05-06T15:49:00.001-05:002012-05-06T15:49:39.994-05:00Ingenuity and Iniquity<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghrIGnxUlbVtlAr6Xij8voB5nbICXhAul-nCQYwJTbxfgw8mbtjDNGsSmb3aUqEPl7wJXm4k3NMA6tUIUNTAlm0JWumZLQMpkmetOkBsNWC1AFRl_Aalnv2Hj6rIVA1G5IKX7ZODb3sKo/s1600/ethics.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghrIGnxUlbVtlAr6Xij8voB5nbICXhAul-nCQYwJTbxfgw8mbtjDNGsSmb3aUqEPl7wJXm4k3NMA6tUIUNTAlm0JWumZLQMpkmetOkBsNWC1AFRl_Aalnv2Hj6rIVA1G5IKX7ZODb3sKo/s1600/ethics.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/how-creativity-connects_n_1450099.html?ref=religion&ir=Religion">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/how-creativity-connects_n_1450099.html?ref=religion&ir=Religion</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Of the things one could connect to dishonesty, the
characteristic of being creative is probably the last we’d even consider. A study published in the Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology suggests that people who require more creativity in their
jobs are more likely to engage in underhanded behavior at work. It’s commonly
harmless or at least mitigated compared to tax fraud or such things, but the idea
is that those with a tendency to be inventive also can find ways to justify
their behavior. This is, however, highly correlation based. There are plenty of
creative people who most likely don’t behave like this and many who aren’t creative
that do. The inverse may be the case: doing immoral things may lead to more
creative thinking in the future by virtue of going outside expected norms and
laws. This could be a good thing, but the potential abuse still remains. If
being creative is a quality of any person, the more they have, there is a
higher chance they may have a habit of being unethical, even if it’s simple
things like skimping on a tip. These two
relations pose a question of how our ethical behavior is related to creativity
and vice versa. Are we ethical because we lack creativity or do we become more
creative by breaking ethical norms?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Ethics could conceivably emerge from our ignoring
creativity and seeing what is predictable and what is practical, benefitting
the whole instead of the parts. This is not to say we can’t appreciate
innovation, but it still has to be within boundaries of some sorts. Art schools
won’t let a student just go anywhere with their ventures, especially when
religion or politics are concerned. If you go too far with them, you’re
threatening stability and offending people. While the former might be grounds
for genuine ethical concerns, the latter is guaranteed with any endeavor in the
arts or just in conversations. Someone will find your opinions unbelievable and
strive to change your ways. So ethics, in this theory, serve as a safeguard
against people breaking out of the limitations society implicitly places upon
the arts, so as not to disrupt order. Of course there is the possibility that
this isn’t ethics so much as tradition, norms and mores, all of which are prone
to be shattered in one way or another and a common perspective is that these
don’t really hurt the common good, since they aren’t automatically galvanizing
people to action, but bringing things to the surface that were once hidden. In
that sense, creativity and ethics can coexist in this model, which is hopefully
what can be accomplished with the other.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Creativity may emerge from ignoring the mundane and
seeing things in a new light, breaking down boundaries and limits we put on
ourselves. In this context, creativity is more beneficial than ethics, at least
in the sense that new things can aid us with time and experimentation. Of
course with any such novelty, especially scientific discoveries, one should be
careful, which is applying a sort of ethics to the process. But to prohibit new
ideas because they threaten a status quo or the like under the guise of ethics
or morals is where such things as censorship arise from. This is where
creativity is good, but like ethics before, there is the potential for abuse in
creativity for its own sake instead of benefitting society with discoveries in
medicine, or even mere aesthetic appreciation in the arts. But to have some
kind of message behind our creations is important as well even if it is simply
observing something already presented by others. To put a new spin on it is
where imagination can bring new vigor and awe to life that we became accustomed
to. Those that are abnormal can many times have a view on things that is not
damaging, but actually edifying and building us up more by bringing together so
many myriad vantages and resulting impressions. This is not to say there isn’t
a point where we cut off the genius from the insane, of course. But the
potential for creativity’s abuse should not make us stifle it entirely for the
sake of security either.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Creativity and ethics can coexist, but it remains
difficult to focus entirely on one or the other without recognizing a need for
both depending on context and circumstance. Being creative might be a way
people justify their otherwise unethical actions or it might simply be a
consequence of the imagination going wild and people motivated by their
ingenuity to go outside the norm, which doesn’t always equal being immoral, but
heterodox at best. Creativity has potential for corruption, but is not evil in
itself. Ethics benefit us, as well as possessing potential for excess or
deficit as with any good thing. And immorality is sometimes only judged as
such, but is not necessarily evil at all, but merely pushing boundaries beyond
stiff and resistant traditions and normalcy. Fundamentally, equity and
moderation are necessary to maintaining a cohesive and dynamic whole person,
which includes both being civil to other human beings, but also realizing that
you can’t please everyone and someone at sometime is going to be offended by
you and there’s nothing that can be done except move forward. Until next time,
Namaste and aloha.<o:p></o:p></span></div>Holding Nothinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01824563181864407961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8709333750421171813.post-47225597694040486322012-04-28T16:42:00.000-05:002012-04-28T16:42:34.976-05:00Buddhism: What Do We Know?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWKyDNj7tz3FrIC8_s7r14nhw8mg2GA8oFxQ-HLul0k94PPDa3v6ziFxGS8YMN1daw1S2asrtY8cnJRPtTBlQC8IYzqruOoQ8dC-NtwPupo2OglsEz3ouiZts298pCjIS2EAVpYM-5Oc0/s1600/o-BUDDHA-570.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="239" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWKyDNj7tz3FrIC8_s7r14nhw8mg2GA8oFxQ-HLul0k94PPDa3v6ziFxGS8YMN1daw1S2asrtY8cnJRPtTBlQC8IYzqruOoQ8dC-NtwPupo2OglsEz3ouiZts298pCjIS2EAVpYM-5Oc0/s320/o-BUDDHA-570.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-david-dubois/is-buddhism-agnostic-_b_1425026.html?ref=religion">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-david-dubois/is-buddhism-agnostic-_b_1425026.html?ref=religion</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Our certainty about the things we know varies on a
fairly wide spectrum when one thinks about it. We take for granted the reality
of things like a desk chair, our food, other people we interact with. But there
are things that are believed in that aren’t necessarily fully thought out, such
as our ethics, or even contemplated on as to whether they’re necessary, such as
supernatural thinking of one form or another. To focus too much on whether
something is absolutely or conventionally true misses the point of what I spoke
about in <a href="http://toholdnothing.blogspot.com/2011/11/two-truths-one-path.html">“Two Truths, One Path,”</a></span> .<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">
The fluctuating nature of existence necessitates that we take different
perspectives on things, but nonetheless maintain a degree of consistency even
in the vacillation. Knowledge is more difficult to remain constant on, since it
supports every other action we do. We behave ethically due to beliefs about
what is good and bad respectively, things are considered mistaken or accurate
because of prior experience and evidence considered together logically, and
even logic has a basis in what we consider valid and sound. Buddhism in
particular is something that many find to be highly lacking as concerns formal
knowledge. Everything seems more based in practice, which varies by the
individual, be they monastic or layperson or something in between. With this in
mind, it comes to the question: does Buddhism make any real knowledge claims,
philosophically speaking?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">No formal structure exists across all of Buddhism
for karma or rebirth, two of the biggest issues in studies of the philosophy,
let alone whether Buddha was simply a wise man or a figure that possessed semi
divine powers of near omniscience even before he actually shuffled off his
proverbial earthly coil. This creates a lot of ambivalence that I noticed early
on when first studying Buddhism in a college environment five years ago. Our
introduction to Asian religions course focused on Hinduism, Buddhism and
Chinese folk religion for the most part, so there was more detail put into each
of them. A question I recall coming up for Buddhism that reflected issues I
spoke about in part with both <a href="http://toholdnothing.blogspot.com/2011/11/seeds-and-fruits-actions-and-results.html">“Seeds and Fruits, Actions and Results,</a>”</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> and <a href="http://toholdnothing.blogspot.com/2011/11/rebirth-not-reincarnation.html">“Rebirth, Not Reincarnation”</a></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> was how a person’s karma can continue on if the person reborn is not the same
as they were before? There are a few answers to this, the one I prefer being
that karma is more a state of things instead of an individual person. There is
such a thing as individual karma in the sense of one’s own actions and results
affecting oneself primarily, but actions and results usually affect more people
than we realize in one way or another. And this also solves that issue of
rebirth in that karma isn’t co-opted by rebirth’s affecting any individual’s
identity, subject to impermanence as they all are, particularly at death.
Another answer to how a person’s karma might continue on even if the person
themselves is subject to dissipation at death in some sense is that there is a
stream of consciousness that is very subtly intertwined with the next rebirth,
which retains the person’s memories, thoughts, etc. This, of course, brings up
the more supernatural and even superstitious aspects of Buddhism as it spread
out from India, though there were those that believed these things even within
the founding country of Gautama’s teachings. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">There is a tendency within lay Buddhism and even
ordained Buddhism to follow the school that affirms Buddha was supernatural in
some sense and that many aspects of Buddhism that are confusing should be answered
with some form of mysterious and transcendent reality, such as Gautama Buddha
being able to read people’s thoughts even in past lives, recall his past lives
in vivid detail, not to mention the stream of consciousness spoken of before
and the actual reality of the other six realms, particularly the lower and
upper 2 where entities of a very unfalsifiable nature, however limited in their
overall power, exist (hell beings, preta, asura and deva) I’m not saying this
isn’t genuine Buddhism in the sense of it developing within cultures that don’t
have opposition to a system as long as it can be incorporated into pre-existing
beliefs. This is how Buddhism coexists so well with the animistic and
polytheistic cultures that it holds high influence in today. The Buddha was
notoriously silent on many of these matters, and unfortunately people take his
silence as an ambivalent acceptance of the reality of things that he was
emphatically against believing in just because of traditions or the like. This
vague sense of “divine wisdom” we get from Gautama as depicted in many accounts
of his life is what creates much of the mixed ideas that exist in Buddhism as
it modernized and was incorporated into such cultures as Japan’s, where
everything was believed to have a spirit in it, including mountains and rivers,
let alone people and animals. Resolving the conflicts between them through
syncretism is a solution, though it only muddies the waters as to what might be
considered even remotely original Buddhism.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The Buddhist perspective on knowledge is not
absolute in the grandest scheme, but only in those things that are beneficial
to us. To know suffering is as valuable as knowing happiness, and knowing they
are both fleeting is even more important. What is worth knowing and being
confident, not arrogant, about are ideas that have practical applications in
everyday life. Not just in isolated academic discussions, but something anyone
can talk about in common language. Even if there isn’t always a structured
dogma or official teaching in any sense of the word about such things as the
principle of karma, derived in part from Hindu teachings that existed in the
same culture with similar ambivalence, it doesn’t mean Buddhism doesn’t have
certainty on other things. Life is most definitely dukkha, unsatisfactory in
our initial approach to it, the cause of it is a combination of craving and
ignorance, one can get over this dukkha approach to life and that is through
living the eightfold path. There are also the 5 precepts and other traditions
that are commonly held to have value across Buddhism, such as meditation and
the virtues of metta and prajna. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">To say Buddhism is cryptic and mysterious is not
inaccurate, but rejecting it based on a standard of credulity requiring strict
Western logic can miss the point of the nondualistic perspective that much of
Eastern thought, Buddhism and Daoism especially, presents. Simply viewing
things through a lens of “either/or” neglects the “both/and” answers we can see
if we consider things differently, though not to the extent of throwing reason
out the window. But as there are many sides to a diamond, life has many
perspectives we can view it through and find different insights that we might
not have discovered otherwise. That’s where Buddhism benefits: it seeks out
answers wherever they may come and brings things together without reducing it
in scale. The holistic nature of it doesn’t mean we neglect reducing things as
is appropriate. It’s always a balance with Buddhist philosophy and practice and
to come even close to perfect takes a lifetime, if not more in a sense. Until
next time, Namaste and aloha.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>Holding Nothinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01824563181864407961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8709333750421171813.post-71727989177742470302012-04-21T13:24:00.000-05:002012-04-21T13:24:00.901-05:00Religion Gets A Revamp<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjLuZ2NewBxqouacSFvhyphenhyphenltUBUrageL-1fFWcFHaPmcByS8O38WQkS2ZkVdjGSVgC3KF54i_izyb1QF2owrUIOig8Z1naqrHD6F1oCWdTBWOekh6GF3nMbFHzRAnbmVSEA9ug_s_3j_bU/s1600/51yjHn35ZiL.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjLuZ2NewBxqouacSFvhyphenhyphenltUBUrageL-1fFWcFHaPmcByS8O38WQkS2ZkVdjGSVgC3KF54i_izyb1QF2owrUIOig8Z1naqrHD6F1oCWdTBWOekh6GF3nMbFHzRAnbmVSEA9ug_s_3j_bU/s320/51yjHn35ZiL.jpg" width="213" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/18/ross-douthat-bad-religion_n_1433108.html?ref=religion">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/18/ross-douthat-bad-religion_n_1433108.html?ref=religion</a><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Religion in America is a topic that’s been done to death in books like “American Grace” by Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell, but a new work has been put out by a Roman Catholic, Ross Douthat, a New York Times columnist. He criticizes various forms of Christianity as it has modernized, such as prosperity gospel as well as the God within philosophy popularized by people such as Oprah Winfrey. I find it ironic that a Catholic is criticizing people for distancing themselves from institutionalized religion and taking on more of a “spiritual” angle in their beliefs and philosophy when the Catholic Church is probably responsible in great part for people not having any real love for organized religion, especially as of recently with the child abuse cover up scandals. Protestant churches can be bad too, in their own ways, but the appeal of the more piety based Christian sect is that it’s not about what you do so much as what you believe, which can create a sense of unjustified entitlement in the wake of having a “born again” experience, which is where people start becoming non denominational, because even the evangelical title is too embarrassing. There are a number of reasons that could be speculated on, but I think it’s relevant to find agreement with the author first before continuing on my tirade as to how he’s actually making the problem worse in a sense and not really solving it by some call to traditional religion.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I agree that there are big problems with the types of “heretical” religion he rails against, though calling them heretical is a bit esoteric. I suppose they would be heretical in the sense of breaking off from orthodox teachings, assuming the Catholic Church is orthodox. But the reasons these are damaging to society is more explicit than, say, traditional Catholicism, which I would argue has its own issues to confront. Prosperity gospel, at its core, believes that Jesus will bless you with financial gain, because it is his will. Of course, it isn’t just given to you without some responsibility on your part. You need a combination of faith and donations to encourage this windfall upon you. The reason it poses such an explicit danger is that is appeals to one of the lowest common denominators amongst humanity, our desire for material wealth and gain. If you tell people that God wants to make you rich, then people can get on board with it much easier than if you just tell them that you’ll be rich if you get involved with a pyramid scheme or the like. God is supernatural, so people can make more “sense” out of the creator of the universe wanting people to be prosperous than being taken in by common snake oil salesmen. But if you are motivated to be religious simply because you think your piety will give you money from heaven, then it’s definitely less sincere than if you want to actually help people out of the goodness of your heart and conscience. Not to mention that this ridiculous theology suckers money out of otherwise reasonable people, who are drawn in by desperation and feelings of devotion to some God they felt estranged from. This sort of abuse of power is a problem that exists in any religion, but especially so with such an explicitly profit centered message.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The “God within” theology, popularized by many New Age sorts of thinkers, has its own issues, notwithstanding the conflicts with general classical Christianity and monotheism. When you give a person the idea that they are God in a nominal sense or can find God within themselves, it makes them feel a bit more entitled than they need to. It’s one thing to improve self esteem by saying you’re created by God, but to go so far as saying you have God within you in a more grandiose sense borders on a megalomania and egotism usually only possessed by dictators of the ilk of Hitler and Stalin. I’m not saying believers in this are going to commit mass genocide or the like, but it creates the dilemma of where you stop in terms of trying to improve people’s perception of themselves and encourage self confidence. I’m all for this sort of thing, but all good things require restraint and self control along with pride and ambition. It’s one thing to believe you are special in that God has a plan for you, such as with prosperity gospel or even just a notion that “things happen for a reason”, but it takes religious belief a bit too far in the notion that you are God incarnate, albeit not perfectly. The idea seems to be that you must find God by some sort of purification or meditation. A lot of this seems to resemble Hindu ideas, albeit the notion of people having God within for Hindus is more akin to reconnecting to ultimate reality, though there are likely multiple schools of this theology propagated by celebrities and theologians alike. Any sort of Western interpretation of Eastern ideas, such as the Hindu belief of a connection between one’s atman, your soul in a sense, and the Brahman, the world soul, has potential to miss the point entirely or at least place the theistic and transcendent tendencies of the Abrahamic religions onto what are nontheist and immanent traits of Hinduism and the like, though not always. Hinduism is notorious for being one of the most, if not the most, diverse religious systems in the world. You can be Hindu and be atheist, polytheist, monotheist or henotheist, amongst other possibilities. That reflects on how diverse the religious sensibilities of believers in these ideas can be. Not so much with prosperity gospel, but God within can be vaguer in how you interpret it.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">This doesn’t mean that I’m supporting Douthat’s claim that we should return to traditional religion, though. It’s just as damaging, though in a much more subtle sense. The damage organized religion in particular does, along with religious thought, permeates culture more deeply than the recent and modern developments that try to draw people in with more palpable and desirable traits, like wealth and self esteem. The authority of a faith tradition that stands through time for one reason or another is stronger and thus more difficult to pull away from. You feel the pull of a community that gives you a sense of purpose even if that purpose is from outside yourself instead of within. There is a need for answers to your questions of where you come from, why you’re here and where you’re going and the church supposedly gives you some sense of satisfaction. It’s not even the hypocrisy of believers that is the largest issue, as that occurs with any set of beliefs one might have, naturalist or supernaturalist. Traditional religion uses rhetoric instead of logic first and foremost. They speak to a commonsensical, yet often misguided, set of ideas we take to be true because they’ve been held as true for a long time and have benefitted people in many ways. This sort of charisma and gravitas pulls people in and even draws them back in after they leave for the simple fact that they give some form of a structured answer to our deepest philosophical questions and psychological needs. But in doing so, there is cognitive dissonance, psychological turmoil and general inconsistency that could be prevented if we didn’t take dogma and faith as our prime authority in life. I’m not saying you can’t be religious or spiritual in some sense and also be rational, but many times we favor the former over the latter in our daily lives, acting on impulse and intuition rather than any sort of deliberation or debate.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">There are other issues I could bring up, such as the over saturation of political topics with religious undertones, but it suffices to focus on what traditional and modern religion share in common in order to discredit them both. I don’t have a problem with you holding these beliefs, but if you try to argue that they have a rational basis at their foundation instead of faith and obedience to transcendent authorities you believe in only based on that belief, then I can’t take you seriously. There aren’t philosophical arguments to show the validity of a system that at its core does not use arguments to turn people, but conjecture and fallacies that we are commonly unaware of because of how easily misunderstood philosophy and logic are in the context of theology. If you’re going to make polemics against New Age religion as it has become interwoven with Christian theology in one sense or another, it behooves you to make sufficient arguments as to why classical Christianity based in tradition and teachings that hold up within the sacred texts is better than what is obvious to a fair segment of the population as fabrications and misdirection. Outsiders can’t take the religion seriously if there is nothing competitive about it in relation to their own, or for those who were raised in secular philosophies, the religion isn’t compelling by habits that made them skeptical to religion early on. Bottom line, religion doesn’t get more credibility or authority by how long it has survived, since any good idea is subject to alterations to appease people who aren’t satisfied, or vague retorts that keep the masses quiet and questioning without breaking away from the flock. Even the allegedly 2000+ year old faith of Christianity doesn’t get a stamp of approval because of the influence it has undoubtedly had on philosophy, history and various other disciplines. It has to stand on merits apart from its faith claims, which means it stands on vague Deism that the founding fathers of America respected as natural theology. But as far as classical Christianity goes, it has beliefs that are becoming more and more outdated and struggling to adjust, which explains why we get money grubbing televangelists and inspiring gurus that tell you to look inside for God. Religion poisons everything, but to quote Paracelsus, the poison is in the dose. Even something normally good can become damaging in excess and even things not immediately toxic can wreak damage over long exposure in small doses. Until next time, Namaste and aloha<o:p></o:p></span></div>Holding Nothinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01824563181864407961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8709333750421171813.post-45909741623359122662012-04-14T17:23:00.000-05:002012-04-14T17:23:15.529-05:00Pro Choice or Pro Liberty<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiFMmnTjojmqI6zgKkvc0yN__fso4k5s2bEbqlEE4GyUoT4dS9gMGx-W6N1xl9lBxiZtuJk3uz1eN9EGmZizVqFvxSdOUIVusMv5zNdPGhM-dpjeP1ht1D1qB40YXeap2FmAbcLSeA7Cw/s1600/pro-choice.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiFMmnTjojmqI6zgKkvc0yN__fso4k5s2bEbqlEE4GyUoT4dS9gMGx-W6N1xl9lBxiZtuJk3uz1eN9EGmZizVqFvxSdOUIVusMv5zNdPGhM-dpjeP1ht1D1qB40YXeap2FmAbcLSeA7Cw/s320/pro-choice.gif" width="320" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/03/30/liberals-arent-really-pro-choice-political-rhetoric-vs-actual-meaning/">http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/03/30/liberals-arent-really-pro-choice-political-rhetoric-vs-actual-meaning/</a><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I’ve been especially critical in multiple articles about whether pro life is a label anyone should use so casually or even at all unless they’re willing to take a position that covers the whole of what is loosely considered life, from pre birth to death. But pro choice is something just as polarizing and I haven’t gotten into any detail about why it’s just as problematic an idea, or at least very simplistic. With pro life, it is implied opponents are pro death, which doesn’t follow at all. It’s even ironic if the opponents are anti war, a leading cause of death in the basic sense. Even if abortion is a form of death, it is far more regulated and safe when done correctly than war could ever be, explicitly involving a direct risk to one’s life and safety. Pro choice creates a perception that opponents are anti choice. This isn’t the case in most examples of people who are pro life. They’re the type who would personally not get an abortion, but would not try to eliminate the option of abortion outright, but merely advise against it. Those that bomb abortion clinics or kill abortion doctors are the exception to anti abortion rights pundits. Though it might not be fair to say that those that are personally against abortion are against it being legal, but want stricter regulations on it, which is fair in the same way that we require proper labeling for alcohol and cigarettes, which many have personal objections to but are nonetheless perfectly legal to purchase when of proper age. The notions of choice and liberty are important to a nuanced distinction between being pro choice and pro liberty. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">If you are pro choice in either sense, either personally choosing or not choosing abortion, you value the ability of any other person to make a choice. If you think women should be forced to carry a baby, even if to give it up for adoption, this is on what pro choice creates as the opposition, one who actually does not want a person to even have the ability to choose to have an abortion, by illegalizing or stigmatizing the process of abortion itself. To be pro choice is not necessarily to be pro abortion, but pro choice in the general sense, which conservatives and liberals can support in the commonly held ideal of personal liberty without the government’s intervention. Privacy is inevitably connected with liberty and choices we make, since many choices we make are fundamentally, though not absolutely, private. When those choices are protected by people’s liberty from government intervention, we have more freedom in general without it becoming excessive.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The difficulty people would bring up in terms of the accuracy of the pro choice label is that it seems to only apply to a select few areas, namely: abortion, birth control, marijuana, and a few other areas. In terms of other things, conservatives may bring up government mandates through “liberal” courts, such as energy taxes and the healthcare system enacted by President Obama two years ago. I won’t go into whether they are or are not excessive government intervention, but I agree that consistency is something that should go both ways in political parties. One cannot criticize a pro lifer for also advocating the death penalty and not reflect on whether you are really pro choice in all areas or only when it may benefit you directly. I don’t want to sound like a strong right wing conservative, since those just create more problems than they solve in a similar way that more statist left wing liberals do. Extremes of either side are equally problematic. If you try to suppress things, they only become more desirable to people in their illegality. But letting everything go with vague ideas of what boundaries should exist is equally problematic in that it creates a sort of slippery slope that might actually be taken seriously. If you don’t establish remote absolutes in terms of what is considered damaging to marriage, for instance, the claims that you’d just as soon marry anything to anything else is not completely unlikely, though still a logical fallacy. Maintaining a balance between over inclusivity and over exclusivity is difficult when we have a variety of issues that assault us, abortion being one of those that is very contextual as to when using it constitutes leisure or necessity.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">To be pro choice might be a bit too permissive in saying that you value all choices. It’s one thing to value people’s liberty, which works both in restraint and freedom of actions, but it’s another to endorse any choice by a more general idea of what the label implies. You’re free to drive drunk? You’re free to take illegal drugs? You’re free to do any number of irresponsible things? Not at all. Libertinism is not and should not be what people think of in terms of liberalism and liberty. Any good thing is done in moderation, to quote Aristotle, a philosopher who existed in a very different time from ours. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Another inquiry comes to mind from critics of the pro choice position: if you are pro choice, why would you advocate government intervention in many other areas of life, not to mention birth control? With the recent mandate concerning contraception as relates to religious institutions being adjusted to apply to the insurance providers instead of the religious institution itself, it seems potentially counter intuitive to claim you are pro choice, but also want the government to pay for your birth control and thus subsidize your choices. It’s one thing to be used for preventative purposes, but some may very well abuse it for simple promiscuity. I’m not saying this is the necessary progression, but the mindset behind some activism may be in direct conflict with what pro choice, and pro liberty advocates by association, support, which are informed decisions based on the facts and not through societal pressures. Pro choice should not try to enable choices through the government’s aid, but facilitate an environment where people are allowed to make choices, rewarded for good ones, punished for bad ones, and each response appropriate to the decisions made. There shouldn’t be any sort of implication that there aren’t consequences for actions, for better or worse. To make choice something more than a method to facilitate one’s advancement, but also edify one’s character, there must be limits on how far political actions should step into managing choices. Sometimes, choices should be permitted, with reasonable regulations, even if there are those that are morally opposed to it. We’ve done it with tobacco and alcohol, why a sudden opposition to marijuana, for example? And abortion is a procedure that is necessary until obstetrics are developed into science fiction levels of technology to preserve fertilized eggs and the like in artificial wombs. If it is done responsibly and prevented with adequate use of birth control, then there is no reason to fear it as a choice that is abused for malicious purposes or focus on profits instead of people.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">If we value such things as our right to control our bodies, our sexual health, what we put into our bodies, etc, then it behooves us to neither be overly strict on regulating the various aspects of life that present both benefits and risks, nor too loose and breezy with letting things just progress as they will and solving the problem as it comes. Being able to prevent eventual problems instead of acting within immediate threats is the mark of a mind that is both able to think on its proverbial feet and also think of the potential issues without clouding present judgment. Such a thing as abortion is reasonably able to be reduced if birth control is taught in schools within reason. No one should interpret this as forcing sexuality in an unhealthy and perverse manner upon schoolchildren. Teaching youth about such things is natural and should be handled with care, I agree. But it should not be left entirely to parents, many of which are very busy and seem unable to manage time with their children beyond leisure and basic manners. Sexuality and the like are pushed back on the system they initially only depended on for education in the academic subjects. If that be the case, educate children about real life as well, in a balanced portion to mathematics, language and sciences. Responsibility is not something only parents can teach. Schools can educate students on this and not be overstepping any implied boundaries. We should never value merely the choices we can make, but those we choose not to make. That is the fullness of choice as it is subsumed within liberty. Until next time, Namaste and aloha<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div>Holding Nothinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01824563181864407961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8709333750421171813.post-13813354533813220032012-03-31T16:03:00.000-05:002012-03-31T16:03:38.864-05:00Evangelical Eludes Explanation<div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0f-b4t00lhfok9JXtLjfuiLxyjNmxLKiO2j58vBDk-ohY5N7JdkuE6Tq6UZCarhIxuiyWdeoAE6637yrc_6w42ut7FjPRMEw-di2B-wfJPEYe_XYKA8yCi8Xm6Df26eT3hJeE990JBfE/s1600/evangelical-church.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="316" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0f-b4t00lhfok9JXtLjfuiLxyjNmxLKiO2j58vBDk-ohY5N7JdkuE6Tq6UZCarhIxuiyWdeoAE6637yrc_6w42ut7FjPRMEw-di2B-wfJPEYe_XYKA8yCi8Xm6Df26eT3hJeE990JBfE/s320/evangelical-church.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/03/12/define-evangelical/">http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/03/12/define-evangelical/</a><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">When you hear the term “evangelical”, you probably get a meaning based on stereotypes associated with the term as it’s invoked in political discourse. The problem that arises from our conceptions of evangelical being derived from politics is that they don’t speak as genuinely as from a religious perspective. I don’t hold this position, and wouldn’t probably even if I was a Christian of any flavor. The Barna Group, which I’ve referenced a few times, is a Christian group that has their own very specific definition that relates to Gallup poll definitions. Gallup’s has three qualifications: 1) Are you “born-again” 2) Do you encourage others to believe in Jesus and 3) Do you believe the Bible is the “Word of God”? Barna, on the other hand, has 9 points that they have derived based on statements from evangelical organizations, including: having made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today, believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, saying their religious faith is very important in their life today; believing they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians; believing that Satan exists; believing that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; asserting that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches; and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today. Gallup’s alternative method of discerning evangelical demographics was to ask based on whether one considers oneself an evangelical, regardless of agreed upon definitions within Christianity. To be fair, there is no explicit definition of an evangelical in Christianity to begin with. There is a fivefold ministry in some Christian circles, that lists apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers and evangelists, but these are more roles that a person can take on in the church, though most of the time, if not entirely, this is by God’s decree and plan for one’s life. You can’t just choose to be a prophet or apostle, you have to be called to it. The vague nature of what an evangelical is and the fact that it has only been used to refer to a specific type of Protestant Christianity for about 200 years means that it has had time to develop in many ways, the most obvious of which is the political angle used to characterize certain Christian voters in their positions on social issues and methods of motivating people to vote. As little as I believe in the truth or validity of Christian beliefs or using them to make political decisions, it still intrigues me as a student of religion and compels me to understand and speculate about what might be a third way to understand evangelicals alongside the political and theological ideas already historically developed.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">With political evangelicalism, one seems to get an idea of campaigns utilizing evangelical’s social connections through church networks in order to galvanize the voters into action. To say evangelical voters are influenced by their faith is probably not inaccurate, but not to the extent a fundamentalist voter might be. There is a sort of spectrum of Christians, fundamentalism being on the far extreme of one end, liberalism on the other extreme and evangelicalism in the center. Fundamentalism differs from evangelicalism in being more polemic, attacking their opponents, while liberalism differs in that it welcomes its opponents into a dialogue, ecumenical in nature almost. Evangelicalism does not try to demonize its opponents, but it does not fundamentally find anything more than incidental agreement with them, still attempting to convert them. With politics, it seems that evangelicals and fundamentalists overlap uncomfortably in their activism against such things like gay marriage and abortion as the worst social ills in the world and also against their religious convictions and consciences. This is why the older notion of evangelicalism is less familiar to people in general, since politics is more immediate and appealing to us, as it affects the entire country, not merely the area of concern to believers that theological squabbles tend to be. People care more about those things rooted in money and social progress than when they speak of piety and devotion. Perhaps it’s an association with monastics and such, people who take religion more seriously in affirming sacred vows, but if you believe something is relevant to eternity, I would think you should be a bit more concerned about whether you’re right about it or not. I think Pascal put it best in saying we are prone to distract ourselves with various temporary things in order to avoid the responsibility that is pertinent to the eternal. I’m trying to look at this from a more general Christian perspective and <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/21/more-americans-say-too-much-religion-in-politics/">according to a survey by the <span id="goog_2042043911"></span>Pew Forum</a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/"><span id="goog_2042043912"></span></a>, people want less religious discourse in politics and for good reason. With all this association of religious politicians, religion can get a bad reputation for being too forceful. Evangelicals in particular probably don’t want the label they hold dear used for people that more often than not, reflect fundamentalist ideals in mudslinging opponents and otherwise denigrating detractors on the basis of not being “Christian” enough. People might be justified to try to return to evangelicalism’s roots.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">There are four major aspects of religious evangelicalism 1)The need for personal conversion (or being "<span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">born again</span>"); 2) A high regard for <span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">biblical authority</span>; 3) An emphasis on teachings that proclaim the saving <span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">death</span> and <span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">resurrection</span> of the Son of God, <span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Jesus Christ</span>; and 4) Actively expressing and sharing the <span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">gospel</span>. The fourth is what aligns well with political activism and spreading a message through a form of proselytism. The other three are much more religious and based in the traditional movement. Of course, they’re still a bit vague. Being born-again seems to imply some sort of conversion experience, not unlike what one hears about and sees in Pentecostal churches, for example. Biblical authority tends to be divided into two camps: infallibility and inerrancy. The former are more reasonable than the latter, saying the bible is infallible; that is, it will not fail in spiritual matters. This is not to say it might not be wrong as human knowledge increases elsewhere, which is said to be fundamentally irrelevant to matters of salvation. Inerrantists, on the other hand, have a much steeper curve and say the bible is correct in all things, probably taking a cue from 2 Timothy 3:16-17 in part, which says scripture is good in all things, though it specifies that it’s good for righteousness, which is pertinent to salvation, not to education about science or the like. Some claim infallibility is actually the more extreme claim, saying the bible cannot err as opposed to claiming it simply has no errors. The major understanding of infallibility appears to be the former idea, that the Bible will not be false on manners of faith and practice. Regardless, the authority of the bible is of such priority that people regard it as something for moral guidance, which is where much of the opposition to various perceived social ills arises from. If it conflicts with the Bible, then it should be opposed. The relation of Jesus Christ and salvation is also a very contentious issue within Christianity, divided into several camps, the most prominent of which are four variations on substitutionary atonement. The general idea is that Jesus was a sacrifice, a substitute for human sin. The reasons behind the need for this vary in two major areas. The first is Jesus serving as a release of humanity from either Satan’s alleged grasp on humanity because of the Fall being caused by it in snake form or just humanity having original sin for other reasons. The second is Jesus as a sacrifice for one of two reasons, either specifically being punished for humanity’s sins or Jesus’ death serving as restitution to humanity through a sacrifice of a fusion of God and human. If nothing else, Jesus’ death, according to evangelicals, is not to be regarded as anything less than the only mode for salvation, taking the cue from John 14:6, where Jesus says “I am the Way, the Truth and the Light and no one comes to the Father but through me,” That claim of uniqueness is definitely reflective with missionary work and speaking to people who have never heard the good news, which is where the term evangelical and evangelism originate from. Eu, meaning good in Greek and angelos, meaning messenger, combine together and Anglicize to replace the u with a v. As academic and boring as this seems, the importance cannot be overstated. These two vastly different, yet somewhat related, ideas of what an evangelical is still have a strong effect on both political and religious discourse. Once we start to make these distinctions, we can be clearer about what we mean and even find better ways to express those concepts without creating extra qualifications for each.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I was going to suggest a third way to look at it, but it’s more an analysis of the etymology, which I admittedly already did at least partly. There might be a better distinction between evangelical as a quality and evangelist as a title one takes on. The former is simply evangelical in anything, religious or otherwise, so we can apply it to politics as much as missionary work. Evangelists are those spreading a specifically religious message of Jesus Christ and all that. Suffice to say, a simpler idea of what constitutes an evangelical Christian would be actively trying to convert people through proselytizing. But this might not be the best overall method, even if there are moments in the Gospels where Jesus tells his disciples to go from town to town. It is also said in Matthew 7 that you will know true Christians by their fruits, how they behave and what they teach. Perhaps it’s too simplistic to judge a Christian by behavior, but if you are basing your behavior on what is generally and correctly understood to be Jesus’ teachings, you could conceivably influence people to see it as better. I can see good ideas in Jesus’ words as communicated by his disciples, but not so much that I see a need to emulate him for the purposes of saving my soul, which I’ve really never thought we had, even when exposed to imagery in cartoons from a young age in one form or another that suggests such a thing. If evangelicals want people to take them seriously as a religious group and not a political demographic, it would require either a change of their name or an emphasis on what separates them from the political pundits that make such a big storm about politics on a religious basis instead of also considering political philosophy as a basis for their policies and platforms. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div>Holding Nothinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01824563181864407961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8709333750421171813.post-86565357711130050612012-03-21T15:22:00.000-05:002012-03-21T15:22:45.038-05:00Equitable Environmentalism<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKocALqRD8gVVbYBWIBopCrzIwJVG1ZZcity2QqhmfnfvxD-ZG6gXDoX8TkX2j-W5Hg5cWFe8stDO7E6twU1qgakcSPfe81mlqRvzTcvAeJfzNJKRg9bRxiLNi8nJxW7Hw5neWwTGXSp0/s1600/8566551_600x338.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKocALqRD8gVVbYBWIBopCrzIwJVG1ZZcity2QqhmfnfvxD-ZG6gXDoX8TkX2j-W5Hg5cWFe8stDO7E6twU1qgakcSPfe81mlqRvzTcvAeJfzNJKRg9bRxiLNi8nJxW7Hw5neWwTGXSp0/s320/8566551_600x338.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/03/12/confessions-of-a-former-tree-hugger/">http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/03/12/confessions-of-a-former-tree-hugger/</a><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="https://ecworlddynamics.wikispaces.com/Lorax+Text">https://ecworlddynamics.wikispaces.com/Lorax+Text</a><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">“The Lorax,” by Doctor Seuss, is a less appreciated work by the author more known for “Cat in the Hat” and the like. But the message in this book about protecting the environment is not so preachy that it doesn’t acknowledge the value of commerce and capitalism in the form of the “antagonist” character, the Once-ler. Even the energy crises we experienced as early as the 70s were foreseen in a sense by the children’s book that speaks about over harvesting fictional trees for a fictional product. Unlike the recent film adaptation, which was preceded by commercials advertising products like cars and waffles associated with the short furry orange main character, the book is simple in its message and doesn’t complicate things with a stock corporate shark antagonist to put the Once-ler in a median position, which isn’t necessary when you consider the whole of the book has the Once-ler speaking in hindsight about his mistake. The message of the book remains important even today with potential new issues, like the limited stock of oil we have, including those veins we haven’t found or harvested yet. In the context of the book, it spoke about our need to be considerate about the environment and taking care not to abuse our relationship with it. If we are expected in any perspective, religious or otherwise, to be stewards of the earth, then it behooves us to not take it for granted and be conscious of our effects upon it. This is not limited to corporate investments that involve nature directly with deforestation or potential pollution through new methods of obtaining coal or oil. The influence of introducing new species into ecosystems unfamiliar with them is also a problem we’ve experienced with kudzu, for just one example. But no one should try to present “The Lorax” as a gloom and doom sort of environmentalism where we are condemned for even trying to utilize nature in new and novel ways that can benefit the human race, as well as all living things in one way or another. There’s research into plants from the Amazon rainforest that could potentially aid in discovering cures for diseases. Environmental consciousness and consideration are not incompatible with industry and development in a free market capitalist system such as ours.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">First off, we should talk about the Lorax himself. In the book, he speaks to the Once-ler about how his progressive industrialization and over harvesting of the Truffula trees, from which he makes a Thneed, an all purpose item developed from the tufts of the tree, is a potential problem. At first, it’s harmless enough, but as his family comes in to help him make bigger factories to mass produce the Thneeds, smog makes it difficult for birds in the area to fly and sludge in the water makes it hard on the fish. And cutting down so many trees creates a food shortage of sorts for the local wildlife. Each of these members of the ecosystem is progressively guided out of the area to a new place somewhere else by the Lorax. Eventually, every Truffula tree has been cut down and the Lorax leaves, despondent and disappointed at the rampant greed that came about from the Once-ler’s desire to increase profits. He literally pulls himself by the proverbial seat of his pants and floating into the sky, never to be seen again. There is a stone left behind with a single word carved into it, “unless”, which I’ll talk about soon. At first glance, this does strike people as a bit too preachy in trying to save the trees and the environment. But the Lorax is merely doing what comes naturally to him, being a sort of manifestation of nature given a voice. Nature admittedly doesn’t always consider human ambitions and even those that are moderated by a conscientious effort to preserve and sustain the greatness of the trees, the sky and the water. There is a strong retort by the Once-ler that I’ll speak about post haste, but I don’t want to seem as if I’m picking sides here. Both perspectives are valid here, but both perspectives can only be so in moderation of each other. The Lorax as depicted in the movie, from what I understand, is a bit more forceful and even tries to put the Once-ler in the middle of a lake to sabotage any further attempts to cut down the Truffula. In this sense, the Lorax is out of character from what he was in the book. He didn’t directly intervene, he merely advises the Once-ler to think about what he’s doing. To become a vigilante environmentalist is to play into the stereotype and send the wrong message to people who might otherwise understand. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The Once-ler represents capitalism and industry in one form or another and thus is portrayed in an initially negative light. He wants to help people at first and, in spite of the Lorax’s skepticism that his product will be popular, it is. This drives him to expand his horizons and make more of them than before. Of course, this sort of practice starts to affect the ecosystem and the animals in it, but the Once-ler doesn’t care, or at the very least, is focusing on profits over process. He does argue in the book that he has a right to start a business and advance his capital as well, but this is not so simple when the business involves the use of resources that are renewable in a limited capacity. Trees don’t renew themselves so quickly, especially with human technology that can cut them down much faster than they can recover. If he exercised some restraint and harvested the trees in a sustainable manner, which he tries to do in the recent film, it might not have been difficult to maintain coexistence with the Lorax. But either through pressure from his family, as in the film, or general desire for more gains in relation to his entrepreneurial goals, the Once-ler ignores the call for self control and continues to expand the business. Eventually, every tree has been cut down and the business collapses, the factory left empty and the Once-ler without any resources. The Lorax leaves and the Once-ler secludes himself at the top of a tower where he contemplates the error of his ways. And he tells the child that asked him about the Lorax and the Truffula trees that the significance of the word carved into the stone left by the Lorax, “unless” relates to the child and their responsibility to take the last Truffula seed, plant it, and keep it safe. As said in the book, “UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not,” <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The book’s call for responsibility and vigilance for any potential risk we might pose in our almost natural tendency towards excess that could threaten nature’s balance is something still very important today, especially as our capacity for destruction has grown. In just over 50 years since “The Lorax” was published, we’ve seen and investigated what we observed and have found that there is some blame we should take in our craving for more than we need and how that affects the only planet we have any chance of surviving on with things as they are in space travel. I don’t want to sound like that stereotypical environmentalist who wants us to sacrifice all the progress we’ve made to save the planet. Earth Day affected me in my desire to be good to the planet, as did Arbor Day, which I’m guilty of not seriously practicing in planting a tree, but the sentiments behind these special days and those that are taught in school even today, I imagine, still remain with me and my desire to both advance humanity and not sacrifice our bond to nature that we still share, separated as we tend to be from it especially these days. We can still develop technology, stimulate our global economy and also preserve the beauty of nature at the same time. The only explicit conflict that would exist is a belief that this world is going to be remade after some sort of end times. If you believe that, why even bother saving the world, since God will just fix everything after the fact? There’s no evidence and no reason to think that our planet and this world is anything more than finite, and that should be motivation enough to keep it from plummeting into disaster any further. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.<o:p></o:p></span></div>Holding Nothinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01824563181864407961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8709333750421171813.post-55618477987444918812012-03-14T09:23:00.000-05:002012-03-14T09:23:15.862-05:00Billboards Brusquely Bashed Or Blocked<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgI9e5NzMgHSHIk9jTyUmafK6w8SGfAbSYXJCrb2DV0cbMerKoNWqPG_YlmXRgSRGeFxcLegR-EUY8jeeK7H-GNdd7aB6NdgtgjdBAvWrsVmR68yap6McVE_S3PDcQC_iyqWE7ioryyMOA/s1600/atheist-billboard-slaver.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="146" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgI9e5NzMgHSHIk9jTyUmafK6w8SGfAbSYXJCrb2DV0cbMerKoNWqPG_YlmXRgSRGeFxcLegR-EUY8jeeK7H-GNdd7aB6NdgtgjdBAvWrsVmR68yap6McVE_S3PDcQC_iyqWE7ioryyMOA/s320/atheist-billboard-slaver.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://atheists.org/blog/2012/03/01/billboard_to_challenge_year_of_the_bible">http://atheists.org/blog/2012/03/01/billboard_to_challenge_year_of_the_bible</a><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/07/atheist-billboard-gets-bumped/">http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/07/atheist-billboard-gets-bumped/</a><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheist-billboard-to-protest-pennsylvanias-year-of-the-bible-70724/">http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheist-billboard-to-protest-pennsylvanias-year-of-the-bible-70724/</a><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://www.wgal.com/news/30624435/detail.html">http://www.wgal.com/news/30624435/detail.html</a><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In the past two weeks, two atheist groups, American Atheists and the Pennsylvania Nonbelievers, have put up three billboards, one of which seems to be fine, another which has been moved to a nearby area because of a refusal to allow it to be put up by a local Jew, and the last which was vandalized not 24 hours after it had been displayed. Already my mind returns to the American Atheists’ patriotic signs which were <a href="http://toholdnothing.blogspot.com/2011/07/atheists-patriot-ad-campaign.html">run in a small segment of thestates they had planned to spread their message last July</a> . While that went somewhat better than this recent series of outreaches to Jews and Muslims along with protests against legislation of 2012 as the “Year of the Bible” in Pennsylvania, the opposition to it is not so different, though the defaced billboard was a bit more charged with emotion than the one reaching out to many Jews who hold the culture as important, but internally reject the spiritual side of it. Each one of these billboards should be talked about in some detail to explain the circumstances and why atheists should continue to fight back against prejudice that still remains acceptable in this day and age.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The message and image that held the most controversy was in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with the first in a prepared series of signs that protested the House of Representatives in the state signing a bill that would declare 2012 the “Year of the Bible”. The sign has a picture of a black person in what I can only assume is some ancient device to keep them in bondage. At the top of the billboard is a quote from the bible, specifically Colossians 3:22 “Slaves obey your masters,” Technically this isn’t what the entire verse says. A quick check of a few online bibles yields this as the full text, “<span style="background: #F9FDFF; color: #001320;">Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord,” The point seems the same; obey your masters all the time and do it because you love God. Apologists for the verse say that Paul, the author of the particular book of the Bible, was talking to a particular group and was not referring to slavery as we understand it today, but something more involved with military conquest. And of course, there is the argument that true Christianity wouldn’t advocate slavery, even though we have historical evidence that devout Christian slave-owners used this verse, among others, to justify their practice for centuries in America. But this is irrelevant and fallacious to the point the verse is establishing: if you are a slave, don’t seek liberation in the physical world, but wait to be liberated by God as you are obedient to it. This is a message of passivity, in contrast to what developed later on in America with black slaves in relation to the Bible. They saw it as a message of liberation and this even inspired people like Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth to work towards freeing slaves and advocacy of abolishing slavery in this country. But the billboard also had this included to make the point clear about what the message was: “This lesson in Bronze age ethics brought to you by the Year of the Bible and the House of Representatives” Part of what probably inspired people’s indignation at the sign was that it had three parts to it, two of which were easily recognizable and legible even when driving. The third part, the last I mentioned, might have been neglected by many passerby in favor of the image or the quotation of the Bible they most likely hold in high regard. Some people even went so far as to call the billboard a hate crime, which is so painfully ignorant it almost induces a headache. Most of what made this billboard such a controversy is because it was set up in a black neighborhood and, predictably, most of the populace in the area reacted negatively and made this about racial persecution instead of what the billboard was supposed to be about: racism in a supposed holy text. Even if the image was toned down in some way, people might object that the verse wasn’t complete or that the message was still racist, not even realizing that the creators of the sign opposed racism as much as those who reacted with immediate anger at something that admittedly struck them at their core in a sense. But this should not motivate people to commit property damage to make their point. As a local constitutional scholar observed, they could’ve funded a billboard of their own for a month, which is how long the Pennsylvania billboard was supposed to last. This act is just another example of how hypersensitive an issue race still is in our culture, even nearly 50 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. People will immediately leap to irrational conclusions after incomplete observations of a situation like this and perpetrate the stereotype that black people are always looking for insults to their character, which is partly a stereotype of Jewish people as well, ironically.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The second billboard to have an issue involving it, though not nearly as serious as the first, was in a Jewish neighborhood in Brooklyn. American Atheist president David Silverman was there to see it erected, but it didn’t. The cause? The Orthodox Jewish landlord refused, which was admittedly his right. But was it justified? I don’t think so. But coincidentally, the billboard was moved to an area with even more visibility and still relatively near the Jewish demographic the sign is directed towards. The sign in question has the word “God” in Hebrew as well as the phrase “You know it’s a myth…and you have a choice” in both English and Hebrew. At the very least, the Muslim community, including an imam in the area, had no problem with the sign in their area, with the same words and message in Arabic. This would no doubt surprise many alarmists about Muslims trying to infiltrate America in some insidious way. Overall, the development is a sign that atheists are making some headway in being respected by parts of the religious community.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">But there is something to be said about one billboard being vandalized and another one subtly protested and then ironically making itself more well known. If people would just ignore atheists, then they wouldn’t get such good publicity, so in a sense, even negative attention is welcome if only to get the activism noticed and recognized by the public at large. So in the grand scheme of things, American Atheists and Pennsylvania Nonbelievers got the message across, even if many found it offensive, which is inevitable no matter how simple the message is. Even if you simply try to communicate that atheists believe murder is bad, someone will spin it in a way that makes them seem better or makes atheists seem bad by comparison, such as associating us with Joseph Stalin, as if we’re the same as a power mad dictator. The plan is still to do at least 8 to 24 more billboards, likely in other areas in the coming months, protesting the Year of the Bible. If people realized that the Bible is not such a perfect text at all then maybe they’d realize how wasteful it is to declare this year special and give it the ignominious mark of being associated with such a book of twisted morality as the Bible. Not to mention, shouldn’t you want to keep your holy text sacred and not denigrate it by using it as a political tool? Two strikes against this on both sides, methinks it should be supported by both sides too. Until next time, Namaste and aloha<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div>Holding Nothinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01824563181864407961noreply@blogger.com0