In the gun control debate, opponents of gun control often justify ownership of assault weapons in the name of self preservation in the rare chance that the government becomes tyrannical and oppressive. They believe that in order to stand up in the face of tyranny, they must have firepower strong enough to fire back against the military forces that would impose tyrannical rule. However, that hypothetical scenario has some serious flaws, flaws where the reality of the military and our government are in direct conflict with the idea of liberal tyranny.
There are two key features of this scenario which simply do not add up, but seldom will you hear anyone discuss either one because the gun control debate never has a chance to evolve beyond simple sparring. The first is that I firmly believe an American conservative government is more likely to impose tyrannical rule by force than a liberal government. The second point to make is that, should the government use its arm of the military to impose its rule, one has to remember that those who belong to the US military are often conservative.
The first point is the more important one to understand. I concede that a liberal government is equally prone to tyranny by way of legislation as a conservative government might be. In that instance, I would urge you to proceed to the second point I've made. Still, in terms of what we are faced with right now, the Republican party has been hijacked by gun-toting religious fanatics. The militaristic nature of the Republican party alone validates my claim that they are more likely to impose tyrannical rule than Democratic leaders. The funding for the military is more likely to increase under a Republican administration. If anything, a liberal administration would weaken the US military force (if you listen to any conservative talk radio pundit). As a liberal, I should be more afraid of tyranny via Republican rule than Democratic rule. Religion is a powerful player in government all around the world. From Iran to Saudi Arabia, oppressive regimes rely upon religious doctrine to control the population within their boundaries. If a religious movement comes about, it will be of the conservative ilk, not liberal.
The second point, then, is to realize the members of our military are heavily invested in conservative politics. Go to any veteran or currently enlisted member of our military. Ask them if, when ordered to fire upon their fellow American citizens, would they follow those orders or resist?
Then, as a liberal, I have to ask whether I should be more worried about a conservative member of the military shooting me or if a conservative should be more worried about a conservative member of the military firing up on them. Given the rhetoric present in our current political environment, I strongly feel that the threatening language present on the Right would motivate a conservative marine to off me without a second thought, whereas a conservative marine would be sympathetic to a fellow conservative and refuse the order to shoot. Do you see now how a conservative administration is more likely to impose tyrannical physical force upon the populace?
Almost instantly, arguments related to that last question would soon devolve into tangents about how the government has used the military and the FBI to attack certain groups at home. One such example would be the Waco siege in Waco, Texas. What that argument fails to recognize is, the group in question was led by a crazy person. If you are identified as a threat to our security, yes, you very well could face a military force at your doorstep. If you think that the military is going to attack your Constitutional right to organize, then perhaps the organizing you are planning is a tad on the crazy side. You might just be a threat to our way of life at this very moment if your level of paranoia makes that much sense to you.
But if you follow the current conversation over secession, or worse yet, revolution, you will find that rednecks will put down their uniforms and loyalties to the President of the United States and cross the battle lines to fight on behalf of their brothers.
So what I'm saying is, even if tyrannical rule were to be imposed, the safeguard is built in by your own political brethren who serve in the military. You should be more worried that your own elected officials are plotting to impose rigid tyranny. If you want to continue arguing that the Obama administration is tyrannical in its proposed legislation, again, I will refer you to point #2. Your arsenal will be of little necessity since conservatives in the military aren't going to shoot fellow conservatives. You don't need an assault rifle to defend against a military force because you hold much of the military force already.
But paranoia like yours prevents us from having a serious discussion about gun control. We have to entertain arguments like what I just described just to nudge the door of conversation open. We have to entertain ludicrous hypotheticals to simply move on to propose limitations like background checks, mental health restrictions on firearms, and access to firearms that were designed for military use, not civilian protection or recreation. No serious debate can be had until you move beyond these two paranoid delusions I have just discussed above.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Monday, December 17, 2012
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Is Religion Required to Declare Something a Sin?
If you are a religious zealot, this post is not for you. However, if you are a thinker, a philosophy aficionado, or a non-religious person, dive into this thought.
Does declaring something a sin require a religious premise?
In other words, if I were non-religious, could I acknowledge something as sin?
I could most certainly acknowledge something as wrong. I could acknowledge something as immoral. Sin is not necessarily a synonym for either wrong or immoral, despite what Webster's thinks.
Morality can exist without religion or Faith.
Sin carries with it a religious connotation. Let me illustrate how easy the religious implication comes about.
If I were to ask you if homosexuality were a sin, you would be inclined to say No. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Ask a religious person the same question.
If you were to ask me if murder were a sin, what would be your response?
I'm leaving this open ended. As a non-religious man, I don't think I could accept either question as valid. If rephrased as whether homosexuality or murder were wrong, then I could answer. Are either sins? That, I cannot entertain as I am not a religious person. Sin does not exist in my world. It might as well not be a word. Do you see what I'm getting at?
Does declaring something a sin require a religious premise?
In other words, if I were non-religious, could I acknowledge something as sin?
I could most certainly acknowledge something as wrong. I could acknowledge something as immoral. Sin is not necessarily a synonym for either wrong or immoral, despite what Webster's thinks.
Morality can exist without religion or Faith.
Sin carries with it a religious connotation. Let me illustrate how easy the religious implication comes about.
If I were to ask you if homosexuality were a sin, you would be inclined to say No. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Ask a religious person the same question.
If you were to ask me if murder were a sin, what would be your response?
I'm leaving this open ended. As a non-religious man, I don't think I could accept either question as valid. If rephrased as whether homosexuality or murder were wrong, then I could answer. Are either sins? That, I cannot entertain as I am not a religious person. Sin does not exist in my world. It might as well not be a word. Do you see what I'm getting at?
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
My Atheism validated by recent storms
In the many discussions I've taken part in with believers from various flavors of Christianity, a very sad revelation comes to light when they are confronted with the notion that there is no God. They told me that if there is no God, then we are hurtling through space without any rhyme or reason. They then told me that they cannot live a life where that is the case. For them, there has to be something beyond our comprehension. There has to be a reason for all we have endured.
The obvious gap such an absence leaves has to do with morality, but as someone who can appreciate philosophy, morality can exist without God or the influence of religion. While religious people derive moral practices by way of Faith and the individual teachings of their religion, fans of elaborate philosophical debate realize the absurdity of such an assertion.
The connection between morality and God, I feel, is what keeps people latched on to this notion that we cannot simply be hurtling through space without any hand guiding us.
To me, the recent disastrous storms which hit Missouri and Alabama represent the randomness that is hurtling through space. Many people survived. Some died. If you were left asking why it was you survived a tornado, don't turn to God. Others died around you. That's randomness. That's chance. The reason you survived was complex and should take into account the structural integrity of your house, the location of that house, your physical stature, the tornado itself, and many other things that should seem obvious. The hand that protected you did not protect others and the notion that God took lives because it was their time is ludicrous, but it will be the answer your pastor tells you if asked. The dead, while living in their final moments, were likely huddled together, praying for safety, praying to make it out of the storm alive. Their prayers were not answered.
It takes a lot of nerve to explain a random event in that way, suggesting that people were taken by a god. It takes even more gall to suggest that these tornadoes are somehow representative of God's wrath. That's comforting, isn't it? I'd say the spite is in the human tongue, not in the hand of any god. Religion makes people think very strange things and as a man of science, I simply cannot believe my ears lately.
There is no hand protecting us. We are on our own. I think we'd be a better people if we realized no higher power is out there to be our crutch. We only have each other.
The obvious gap such an absence leaves has to do with morality, but as someone who can appreciate philosophy, morality can exist without God or the influence of religion. While religious people derive moral practices by way of Faith and the individual teachings of their religion, fans of elaborate philosophical debate realize the absurdity of such an assertion.
The connection between morality and God, I feel, is what keeps people latched on to this notion that we cannot simply be hurtling through space without any hand guiding us.
To me, the recent disastrous storms which hit Missouri and Alabama represent the randomness that is hurtling through space. Many people survived. Some died. If you were left asking why it was you survived a tornado, don't turn to God. Others died around you. That's randomness. That's chance. The reason you survived was complex and should take into account the structural integrity of your house, the location of that house, your physical stature, the tornado itself, and many other things that should seem obvious. The hand that protected you did not protect others and the notion that God took lives because it was their time is ludicrous, but it will be the answer your pastor tells you if asked. The dead, while living in their final moments, were likely huddled together, praying for safety, praying to make it out of the storm alive. Their prayers were not answered.
It takes a lot of nerve to explain a random event in that way, suggesting that people were taken by a god. It takes even more gall to suggest that these tornadoes are somehow representative of God's wrath. That's comforting, isn't it? I'd say the spite is in the human tongue, not in the hand of any god. Religion makes people think very strange things and as a man of science, I simply cannot believe my ears lately.
There is no hand protecting us. We are on our own. I think we'd be a better people if we realized no higher power is out there to be our crutch. We only have each other.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Huckabee vs Obama/Muslim Myth
For most Republicans, the Colbert Report is not on their radar. They probably lump him in with Stewart and all that is the scary Liberal media. Unfortunately, Republicans do come on the show, so it would benefit them to hear what has to be said, whether through ridicule, truth, or both.
During the interview, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee was asked about the poll that showed Republicans split on whether or not they thought Barack Obama was a Muslim. The poll from last year said that 46 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim.
To this, Huckabee had several outstanding answers.
1. "I do not believe that."
2. "I just think they have come to a conclusion that is not based on fact" in reference to that 46 percent of Republican voters.
3. "He has articulated repeatedly that he is a Christian."
4. Not only does Huckabee believe that Obama is a Christian, but the said that he also thinks it is irrelevant, even if he were Muslim.
So for all you Republicans out there who are Huckabee supporters AND believe Obama is a Muslim, you have some serious soul searching to do.
During the interview, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee was asked about the poll that showed Republicans split on whether or not they thought Barack Obama was a Muslim. The poll from last year said that 46 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim.
To this, Huckabee had several outstanding answers.
1. "I do not believe that."
2. "I just think they have come to a conclusion that is not based on fact" in reference to that 46 percent of Republican voters.
3. "He has articulated repeatedly that he is a Christian."
4. Not only does Huckabee believe that Obama is a Christian, but the said that he also thinks it is irrelevant, even if he were Muslim.
So for all you Republicans out there who are Huckabee supporters AND believe Obama is a Muslim, you have some serious soul searching to do.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Maddow misses the mark
There is one thing that bothers me more than anything else about the more Liberal media outlets, namely MSNBC. While I admit the coverage and explanations are usually spot on and come from valid sources, the overall point has no relevance to the modern day Liberal. The often cynical news segment highlights the opposition and does not address our own goals or ambitions as Liberals.
In a recent episode of the RMS, Maddow correctly highlighted how Democratic officials have caught on to the hypocrisy of big government rhetoric among Conservative politicians.
I should probably explain this first.
Government involvement in our lives is something Conservative politicians use to rile up their base against their competition and although "big government" is a boogie man that only exists as a device for advancing one's own career, the socially conservative side of their base wants nothing more than government to interfere in our lives. This occurs in matters with religious undertones, namely gay marriage and abortion, but the fact remains. If the government tells us what we can and cannot do in our own homes, it certainly does not look like small government.
That was a valid point to make. Nothing wrong with it.
But you're not talking to those hypocrites. You're talking to us. I'm glad Maddow reported on it the way she did, but as a Liberal who wants to see more ballsy attitudes from elected Democrats, such dialogue does nothing to tell me where we are headed as a party. Sure, our elected officials are catching on to the hypocrisy, but as a campaign ad against an opponent, it has very little bang for the buck. Voters on that side of the fence are still going to swing to the Right, citing the lesser of two evils defense.
In other words, this is not a credible attack plan. It only feeds the desire to run negative campaign ads. What voters *should* want are politicians who will tell us what they will do for us. They *should* want to hear a plan.
So while Maddow pegged conservatives for hypocrisy, in my eyes, it has no substantive merit.
We should focus on taking patriotism back. We should focus on our economic principles and fight the resistance set on crippling our legislation to the point where it becomes an ineffectual stack of paper. We should tout our accomplishments up to this point because our opponents continually tell their base we are doing nothing at all.
In a recent episode of the RMS, Maddow correctly highlighted how Democratic officials have caught on to the hypocrisy of big government rhetoric among Conservative politicians.
I should probably explain this first.
Government involvement in our lives is something Conservative politicians use to rile up their base against their competition and although "big government" is a boogie man that only exists as a device for advancing one's own career, the socially conservative side of their base wants nothing more than government to interfere in our lives. This occurs in matters with religious undertones, namely gay marriage and abortion, but the fact remains. If the government tells us what we can and cannot do in our own homes, it certainly does not look like small government.
That was a valid point to make. Nothing wrong with it.
But you're not talking to those hypocrites. You're talking to us. I'm glad Maddow reported on it the way she did, but as a Liberal who wants to see more ballsy attitudes from elected Democrats, such dialogue does nothing to tell me where we are headed as a party. Sure, our elected officials are catching on to the hypocrisy, but as a campaign ad against an opponent, it has very little bang for the buck. Voters on that side of the fence are still going to swing to the Right, citing the lesser of two evils defense.
In other words, this is not a credible attack plan. It only feeds the desire to run negative campaign ads. What voters *should* want are politicians who will tell us what they will do for us. They *should* want to hear a plan.
So while Maddow pegged conservatives for hypocrisy, in my eyes, it has no substantive merit.
We should focus on taking patriotism back. We should focus on our economic principles and fight the resistance set on crippling our legislation to the point where it becomes an ineffectual stack of paper. We should tout our accomplishments up to this point because our opponents continually tell their base we are doing nothing at all.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Who the hell is Robert Caspar Lintner?
Thanksgiving is upon us and while many are scrambling to make a flight, cook a turkey, and put up with family members, I'm standing here wondering who the hell Robert Caspar Lintner is.
Go ahead, do a Google search. Look on Wikipedia.
Nothing.
Well, except for the sites which provide two quotes about Thanksgiving. Why do you think I'm asking who this person is in the first place? Yeah. THAT quote is popping up everywhere. It's almost as if someone made the guy up. There are no other mentions of Robert Caspar Lintner, except in reference to either of the two quotes below.
Thanksgiving was never meant to be shut up in a single day.
and
Thanksgiving is nothing if not a glad and reverent lifting of the heart to God in honor and praise for His goodness.
Did I miss a lesson in History class? Am I not religiously well connected enough? Who is this guy? I do not pass along a quote unless I know who it is that coined the phrase.
Go ahead, do a Google search. Look on Wikipedia.
Nothing.
Well, except for the sites which provide two quotes about Thanksgiving. Why do you think I'm asking who this person is in the first place? Yeah. THAT quote is popping up everywhere. It's almost as if someone made the guy up. There are no other mentions of Robert Caspar Lintner, except in reference to either of the two quotes below.
Thanksgiving was never meant to be shut up in a single day.
and
Thanksgiving is nothing if not a glad and reverent lifting of the heart to God in honor and praise for His goodness.
Did I miss a lesson in History class? Am I not religiously well connected enough? Who is this guy? I do not pass along a quote unless I know who it is that coined the phrase.
Monday, February 8, 2010
"And the South shall rise again"
The morning George W. Bush was announced as the winner of the 2000 election, the first words out of my mouth were "We're going to have hard times ahead of us." In addition, I said we were going to have a war and that it would not be pretty. After eight years, I can honestly say we were put on the path towards hard times and we are now in wars that have not been ideal, not that any war is, but that things were done half-assed. Somewhere in between his first term and his reelection, I was someone who said a civil war was coming. Along the same lines, I was also hinting at the saying those below the Mason Dixon line know all too well.
"The South will rise again."
Only in the last few years have we seen a glimpse of this trend on the national stage with any regularity. Now we are seeing a large movement with principles coming from the old ways of the South. I'm speaking, of course, of the current Republican Party, but the Tea Party movement has benefited from these sentiments more than any other faction of the Conservative base.
A few of these signs rest in plain sight. The voting pattern in the 2008 election which put Barack Obama in office clearly had a slant towards McCain in southern states. The overwhelming caucasian demographic of the Republican party is another trend hiding in plain sight.
Let me toss out a few more.
The Tea Party movement specifically refers to their organized approach as a revolution. In recent history, there have never been more threatening words towards our own government by a group of people this large. They feel that as a party and as a people, they are at war.
Along the same lines, members of this particular flavor of the Conservative base feel as though it is their duty to take "their" country back. Let's set aside the fact that the 2008 election was democratic in nature and Obama ended up in the White House as a result of this democratic system. Let's set aside the fact that Americans are Americans, whether they sit Left, Right, or Center. Let's even set aside the possibility that many want to "take their country back" from a black man (who isn't completely black, but a mixed-race individual). There exists the same sort of southern "us against them" mentality which was around at the time of the Civil War. This North vs South thing is evident in the language chosen by the Tea Party movement.
These people are clinging to old ways. Whether it's a religious thing pertaining to gay marriage or a cultural thing related to race, people in the Tea Party movement are clamoring to return to the 50's. Suggesting that the notion is ridiculous by way of a question is simply asking the wrong question. I'll give you the answer. Yes, they do want the 50's. Why? "Simpler times." To a small town local yokel, that kind of life resonates.
As discussed by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, a speaker at the Tea Party convention suggested having to pass a civil literacy test in order to be able to vote. Instead of granting the rights of all citizens in this great country to vote, a test of this nature has been used specifically to prohibit any black person from having a voice in any election. The test wasn't designed so that the uninformed were not allowed to vote, a notion admittedly present in the minds of many Liberals after W was elected when dumb shits were clearly to blame. While I understand the sentiment, that is not the nation of ideals we were founded on. The literacy test was designed as a form of selection, allowing certain people (white) to vote and others (black) denied. The suggestion to use a literacy test in any form is simply wrong.
The Secessionist movement, or perhaps simply the sentiment, is rooted in the same mentality of southern pride. Even the notion of "Big Government" is related to this idea that the South has this unspoken sovereign power to withstand the northern influence.
Even gun ownership has its own flavor of southern spice. There is a very apparent preparedness of gun toting rednecks to take up arms in some grand stand against the government. The only way you'd know about this sentiment is if you spend any time living in the South or take some time out of your day reading posts online by rednecks who own guns. They are under the impression that since Liberals are for gun control, it would be a quick battle since they, as rednecks, have all the guns. I'd hate to be the bearer of bad news, but gun owners come from many different backgrounds. I can shoot. Rachel Maddow can shoot. If you come shooting, rest assured, there will be people ready to shoot back.
Whether it's elite vs middle of the country, white vs minority (a statistic that will change soon given the growing hispanic population), redneck vs city folk, or Liberal vs Conservative, all show signs of the South rising again.
Anyone who lives outside of the South who enjoys their way of life should be afraid of this movement. Anyone supporting the Tea Party movement should make themselves aware of the language they choose to use among its followers. Such a violent sentiment will rip our nation apart and leave both our economy and infrastructure in ruins. While the Right has a very paranoid element to it, I admit that this post has a paranoid quality to it as well. I'm sad to say that the language on the Right is more pronounced than what you might think and the reality of a revolution in a violent form is a distinct possibility.
"The South will rise again."
Only in the last few years have we seen a glimpse of this trend on the national stage with any regularity. Now we are seeing a large movement with principles coming from the old ways of the South. I'm speaking, of course, of the current Republican Party, but the Tea Party movement has benefited from these sentiments more than any other faction of the Conservative base.
A few of these signs rest in plain sight. The voting pattern in the 2008 election which put Barack Obama in office clearly had a slant towards McCain in southern states. The overwhelming caucasian demographic of the Republican party is another trend hiding in plain sight.
Let me toss out a few more.
The Tea Party movement specifically refers to their organized approach as a revolution. In recent history, there have never been more threatening words towards our own government by a group of people this large. They feel that as a party and as a people, they are at war.
Along the same lines, members of this particular flavor of the Conservative base feel as though it is their duty to take "their" country back. Let's set aside the fact that the 2008 election was democratic in nature and Obama ended up in the White House as a result of this democratic system. Let's set aside the fact that Americans are Americans, whether they sit Left, Right, or Center. Let's even set aside the possibility that many want to "take their country back" from a black man (who isn't completely black, but a mixed-race individual). There exists the same sort of southern "us against them" mentality which was around at the time of the Civil War. This North vs South thing is evident in the language chosen by the Tea Party movement.
These people are clinging to old ways. Whether it's a religious thing pertaining to gay marriage or a cultural thing related to race, people in the Tea Party movement are clamoring to return to the 50's. Suggesting that the notion is ridiculous by way of a question is simply asking the wrong question. I'll give you the answer. Yes, they do want the 50's. Why? "Simpler times." To a small town local yokel, that kind of life resonates.
As discussed by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, a speaker at the Tea Party convention suggested having to pass a civil literacy test in order to be able to vote. Instead of granting the rights of all citizens in this great country to vote, a test of this nature has been used specifically to prohibit any black person from having a voice in any election. The test wasn't designed so that the uninformed were not allowed to vote, a notion admittedly present in the minds of many Liberals after W was elected when dumb shits were clearly to blame. While I understand the sentiment, that is not the nation of ideals we were founded on. The literacy test was designed as a form of selection, allowing certain people (white) to vote and others (black) denied. The suggestion to use a literacy test in any form is simply wrong.
The Secessionist movement, or perhaps simply the sentiment, is rooted in the same mentality of southern pride. Even the notion of "Big Government" is related to this idea that the South has this unspoken sovereign power to withstand the northern influence.
Even gun ownership has its own flavor of southern spice. There is a very apparent preparedness of gun toting rednecks to take up arms in some grand stand against the government. The only way you'd know about this sentiment is if you spend any time living in the South or take some time out of your day reading posts online by rednecks who own guns. They are under the impression that since Liberals are for gun control, it would be a quick battle since they, as rednecks, have all the guns. I'd hate to be the bearer of bad news, but gun owners come from many different backgrounds. I can shoot. Rachel Maddow can shoot. If you come shooting, rest assured, there will be people ready to shoot back.
Whether it's elite vs middle of the country, white vs minority (a statistic that will change soon given the growing hispanic population), redneck vs city folk, or Liberal vs Conservative, all show signs of the South rising again.
Anyone who lives outside of the South who enjoys their way of life should be afraid of this movement. Anyone supporting the Tea Party movement should make themselves aware of the language they choose to use among its followers. Such a violent sentiment will rip our nation apart and leave both our economy and infrastructure in ruins. While the Right has a very paranoid element to it, I admit that this post has a paranoid quality to it as well. I'm sad to say that the language on the Right is more pronounced than what you might think and the reality of a revolution in a violent form is a distinct possibility.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Bible Babble In Schools? A Literary Take
Headline News reported on a story pertaining to teaching the Bible in Tennessee schools. Organizations like the ACLU have a concern that this is an attempt to inject religion into our public schools. As illustrated by a commenter on Facebook, this assertion is not far from the truth as the comment clearly leaned toward the desire to inject God into every day life. While the course is an elective, you just never know how it will be implemented. Even as an elective, funding for such a course still comes from taxpayer dollars. Any way you slice it, there appears to be an immersion between church and state, two things that should remain separate in our education system.
This issue is a complex one and when discussed, typically becomes an argument between believers and non-believers. That is a lesson in futility I choose not to entertain in this post. I won't waste my time highlighting who is the more rational member in this discussion. I already know which one is. I'll approach this debate from another direction.
High school courses are meant to lay the foundation for what you become in life. Whether you decide to dive head first into the job market or continue on to higher education, that foundation should provide you with the necessary skills to continue on either path. High school courses should be geared towards college and the work force. Courses like math, english, literature, and science should be at the forefront of our children's minds in high school. They are our future and unless they get a solid footing in these subjects, they will find it incredibly difficult to compete in todays job market. A class examining the Bible regardless of the intent will offer no added benefit in this regard.
If a course on the Bible should be taught, there is only one way it should be approached. A teacher well versed in literature should offer a curriculum which revolves around the literary analysis of the writing in the Bible, not a Faith based course praising the existence of a higher power. All the symbolism and literary style that went into writing the Bible is well known to theologians. If anything, a literary approach to the Bible would erode away at the evangelical movement, not accentuate it. In my own experience, very few who take the Bible literally have the patience to listen to me ramble on about writing styles present in religious texts such as the Bible. From a literature perspective, the Bible is nothing more than a collection of short stories. From just such a standpoint, familiarizing yourself with these stories is no different than acquainting yourself with the works of Henry David Thoreau or Robert Frost. Granted, Thoreau and Frost blow the Bible out of the water in terms of literary depth, but it's still literature. Those of us who do not take literature literally to the same extent evangelicals do the Bible take no issue with writings of many different backgrounds. Ah, but that's assuming people behind the movement pushing the Bible into our education system want a literature course, not a Bible study class, something that should be left in church.
So where does that leave me on this subject?
Save the Bible analysis until college. I took a course covering the Old Testament in college because in addition to a six credit philosophy requirement, I also had to knock out six credits of theology. It was a Catholic university, after all. That knowledge has fallen on deaf ears when discussed among religious zealots like evangelical Christians. That knowledge means absolutely nothing to them, yet as someone who is fond of literature, the twists and turns of how the Bible was written remains interesting from both historical and cultural perspectives. From a scholarly standpoint, even the most shrewd Atheist should respect the text even as a non-believer.
Whether you're someone who wants more Jesus in your life or a literary aficionado raring to acquire knowledge that allows you to criticize religion, a course like this will be of some benefit, but only if taught as a literature course, not something Faith-based designed to spread the "Good Word." Still, this is not something that should be taught to young minds preparing for college and the real world. Religious studies really require a certain level of critical thinking, something our young minds in high school should acquire first and use at the college level to expand those horizons.
My final say: Keep it in church, in private schools with religious affiliations, and at the college level. Want to take a useful elective in high school? How about a foreign language? Music? Theatre? Even a computer class would serve you better than an entire course about the Bible.
This issue is a complex one and when discussed, typically becomes an argument between believers and non-believers. That is a lesson in futility I choose not to entertain in this post. I won't waste my time highlighting who is the more rational member in this discussion. I already know which one is. I'll approach this debate from another direction.
High school courses are meant to lay the foundation for what you become in life. Whether you decide to dive head first into the job market or continue on to higher education, that foundation should provide you with the necessary skills to continue on either path. High school courses should be geared towards college and the work force. Courses like math, english, literature, and science should be at the forefront of our children's minds in high school. They are our future and unless they get a solid footing in these subjects, they will find it incredibly difficult to compete in todays job market. A class examining the Bible regardless of the intent will offer no added benefit in this regard.
If a course on the Bible should be taught, there is only one way it should be approached. A teacher well versed in literature should offer a curriculum which revolves around the literary analysis of the writing in the Bible, not a Faith based course praising the existence of a higher power. All the symbolism and literary style that went into writing the Bible is well known to theologians. If anything, a literary approach to the Bible would erode away at the evangelical movement, not accentuate it. In my own experience, very few who take the Bible literally have the patience to listen to me ramble on about writing styles present in religious texts such as the Bible. From a literature perspective, the Bible is nothing more than a collection of short stories. From just such a standpoint, familiarizing yourself with these stories is no different than acquainting yourself with the works of Henry David Thoreau or Robert Frost. Granted, Thoreau and Frost blow the Bible out of the water in terms of literary depth, but it's still literature. Those of us who do not take literature literally to the same extent evangelicals do the Bible take no issue with writings of many different backgrounds. Ah, but that's assuming people behind the movement pushing the Bible into our education system want a literature course, not a Bible study class, something that should be left in church.
So where does that leave me on this subject?
Save the Bible analysis until college. I took a course covering the Old Testament in college because in addition to a six credit philosophy requirement, I also had to knock out six credits of theology. It was a Catholic university, after all. That knowledge has fallen on deaf ears when discussed among religious zealots like evangelical Christians. That knowledge means absolutely nothing to them, yet as someone who is fond of literature, the twists and turns of how the Bible was written remains interesting from both historical and cultural perspectives. From a scholarly standpoint, even the most shrewd Atheist should respect the text even as a non-believer.
Whether you're someone who wants more Jesus in your life or a literary aficionado raring to acquire knowledge that allows you to criticize religion, a course like this will be of some benefit, but only if taught as a literature course, not something Faith-based designed to spread the "Good Word." Still, this is not something that should be taught to young minds preparing for college and the real world. Religious studies really require a certain level of critical thinking, something our young minds in high school should acquire first and use at the college level to expand those horizons.
My final say: Keep it in church, in private schools with religious affiliations, and at the college level. Want to take a useful elective in high school? How about a foreign language? Music? Theatre? Even a computer class would serve you better than an entire course about the Bible.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Louisiana Family Forum Sends Out Propaganda & Lies
I received a piece of Louisiana Family Forum propaganda today in the mail. They tried to legitimize it by printing it in newspaper format. Even the type of paper it was printed on appeared similar. The unsuspecting reader may interpret this piece of propaganda as legitimate news.
The front page compares Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin on mostly social issues. The entire column next to Obama/Biden was filled with the word "No" and of course, the McCain/Palin side was flooded with the word "Yes." So much for educated critical thinking. Oh wait, these idiots rely on "faith" and an imaginary friend.
Upon turning the page, I found similar comparisons between other candidates running for Louisiana Office. What stood out was that on more than one occasion, many Democratic candidates had "unknown" positions. For instance, they seem to think that Mary Landrieu's stance on prostitution is "unknown." Give me a break.
For a group pushing good family values, they sure do like to deceive. I burned the damn thing. I hope they taste the same flame when they all burn in Hell for these sins. Dirty Christian Conservatives really take the cake. This is just one more example of how low so called "Christians" will go to push an agenda. If you align yourself with an organization as devious as the Louisiana Family Forum, you should rethink your religious commitments. These people are in no way, shape, or form, good people and you should reconcile to cut all ties with them.
What do you expect? It's Louisiana after all. These backwoods evangelicals wouldn't know right from wrong if Jesus himself came down and ripped them a new one for lying in his name.
Lie away you filthy bastards. I'm onto your BS and I'm going to knock you around every time you send me this crap in the mail.
Let me suggest one more thing. If you want to turn your backs on science, then I highly recommend you stop going to the doctor to fix your ailments. Stick to prayer and see how far that gets you. The more you try to chip away at what science stands for, the more likely it is that the quality of health care and technology in this country will crumble like dirt in your hand. You are in essence, paving the way towards the United States of Dumb.
(http://lafamilyforum.org/)
Send all complaints to
Louisiana Family Forum
655 Saint Ferdinand St
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
or call them up
(225)344-8533
Read more about these nutjobs at Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Family_Forum
The LFF is also a huge Bobby Jindal supporter. I have encountered a phone survey from the LFF with questions geared towards socially conservative issues and whether or not I held a favorable opinion of Bobby Jindal.
The front page compares Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin on mostly social issues. The entire column next to Obama/Biden was filled with the word "No" and of course, the McCain/Palin side was flooded with the word "Yes." So much for educated critical thinking. Oh wait, these idiots rely on "faith" and an imaginary friend.
Upon turning the page, I found similar comparisons between other candidates running for Louisiana Office. What stood out was that on more than one occasion, many Democratic candidates had "unknown" positions. For instance, they seem to think that Mary Landrieu's stance on prostitution is "unknown." Give me a break.
For a group pushing good family values, they sure do like to deceive. I burned the damn thing. I hope they taste the same flame when they all burn in Hell for these sins. Dirty Christian Conservatives really take the cake. This is just one more example of how low so called "Christians" will go to push an agenda. If you align yourself with an organization as devious as the Louisiana Family Forum, you should rethink your religious commitments. These people are in no way, shape, or form, good people and you should reconcile to cut all ties with them.
What do you expect? It's Louisiana after all. These backwoods evangelicals wouldn't know right from wrong if Jesus himself came down and ripped them a new one for lying in his name.
Lie away you filthy bastards. I'm onto your BS and I'm going to knock you around every time you send me this crap in the mail.
Let me suggest one more thing. If you want to turn your backs on science, then I highly recommend you stop going to the doctor to fix your ailments. Stick to prayer and see how far that gets you. The more you try to chip away at what science stands for, the more likely it is that the quality of health care and technology in this country will crumble like dirt in your hand. You are in essence, paving the way towards the United States of Dumb.
(http://lafamilyforum.org/)
Send all complaints to
Louisiana Family Forum
655 Saint Ferdinand St
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
or call them up
(225)344-8533
Read more about these nutjobs at Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Family_Forum
The LFF is also a huge Bobby Jindal supporter. I have encountered a phone survey from the LFF with questions geared towards socially conservative issues and whether or not I held a favorable opinion of Bobby Jindal.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Knoxville Church Shooting: A Wake Up Call
Knoxville Shooting
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/28/church.shooting/index.html
I'm a little late to the party on this one, but it strikes a very personal nerve with me. Just punch in "Knoxville Church Shooting" into Google and you can read all about it including several heated discussions on the subject. Many are condemnations of such behavior, but a few are examples of mindsets which lead people down the same disturbed path. This should serve as a wake up call to conservatives in this country planting the seeds of hate.
Mr. Jim Adkisson holds the belief (by his own personal statements to authorities) that all liberals should be killed. He left a four page manifesto if you will in his vehicle and from most online articles, I discovered the letter was a full fledged written expression of hatred for the liberal movement as well as homosexuals. Somehow his disgust with the liberal movement was also linked to his inability to acquire a job.
Why some in Knoxville and around this country are surprised this happend baffles me. I am all too familiar with the gun toting redneck movement in this country. They hide behind the right to bear arms and say horrible things behind closed doors about liberals, gays, and African Americans. Get these people in good company and they'll spill their evil guts. Put them in the public eye and they suddenly become good Christians. For the record, I have spent some time among the more rural community just outside of Knoxville and I must tell you this region and its residents have a very backwards theme.
In his home, several right-wing forms of literature were found including works (unconfirmed) by Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, and Sean Hannity among others. While I'm sure these guys will come out and say they don't condone such violence, behind closed doors, I'm sure something completely different is said.
Every liberal in this country should be very concerned about something like this happening to them. Mr. Adkisson is not an isolated incident. There is a growing very violent anti-liberal sentiment among the backwoods boys of this nation. Thing is, they aren't as backwoods as you'd want. They are your neighbors, barbers, and even soldiers sworn to defend this country. Take note that according to Knoxnews.com, Adkisson had served in the Army's 101st Airborne. I live in a part of the US where I am really scared for my life on a regular enough basis that tells me this country is in real trouble. I shouldn't live with this kind of fear because of my political beliefs.
For the conservatives who are so opposed to welfare, humor me on this one. This guy was unemployed and on food stamps according to a CNN article. Not exactly the kind of moocher you like to portray is he? For someone so strongly conservative, I find it conflicting that he would use food stamps. It only reminds me to point out that people on welfare and food stamps are not lazy bums on the couch watching cable television wasting taxpayer dollars. This guy had an associates degree in mechanical engineering and had also worked as a truck driver.
Some are trying to argue that had everyone in church been packing heat, this wouldn't have happened. Three things to point out in response. Church is the last place any of us would want or need a gun. Second, this guy was able to enter the church and begin firing before anyone even noticed he had a gun. Third, he was subdued without the use of a firearm. We shouldn't be using this example as a reason for right-to-carry. We shouldn't have to live in a society where we even think we need a gun at any given moment to defend ourselves. That's not to say I'm completely against guns. I have to have a 22 rifle handy with some bird shot to kill unsavory poisonous snakes out here in the country. I understand the need for a firearm in that context. There is however, a healthy balance between a nut like Ted Nugent and taking away guns completely. Common ground anyone? Unlikely. The ones with the guns would rather shoot the opposition first it seems.
I would pray for those involved, but I am not an advocate of prayer.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/28/church.shooting/index.html
I'm a little late to the party on this one, but it strikes a very personal nerve with me. Just punch in "Knoxville Church Shooting" into Google and you can read all about it including several heated discussions on the subject. Many are condemnations of such behavior, but a few are examples of mindsets which lead people down the same disturbed path. This should serve as a wake up call to conservatives in this country planting the seeds of hate.
Mr. Jim Adkisson holds the belief (by his own personal statements to authorities) that all liberals should be killed. He left a four page manifesto if you will in his vehicle and from most online articles, I discovered the letter was a full fledged written expression of hatred for the liberal movement as well as homosexuals. Somehow his disgust with the liberal movement was also linked to his inability to acquire a job.
Why some in Knoxville and around this country are surprised this happend baffles me. I am all too familiar with the gun toting redneck movement in this country. They hide behind the right to bear arms and say horrible things behind closed doors about liberals, gays, and African Americans. Get these people in good company and they'll spill their evil guts. Put them in the public eye and they suddenly become good Christians. For the record, I have spent some time among the more rural community just outside of Knoxville and I must tell you this region and its residents have a very backwards theme.
In his home, several right-wing forms of literature were found including works (unconfirmed) by Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, and Sean Hannity among others. While I'm sure these guys will come out and say they don't condone such violence, behind closed doors, I'm sure something completely different is said.
Every liberal in this country should be very concerned about something like this happening to them. Mr. Adkisson is not an isolated incident. There is a growing very violent anti-liberal sentiment among the backwoods boys of this nation. Thing is, they aren't as backwoods as you'd want. They are your neighbors, barbers, and even soldiers sworn to defend this country. Take note that according to Knoxnews.com, Adkisson had served in the Army's 101st Airborne. I live in a part of the US where I am really scared for my life on a regular enough basis that tells me this country is in real trouble. I shouldn't live with this kind of fear because of my political beliefs.
For the conservatives who are so opposed to welfare, humor me on this one. This guy was unemployed and on food stamps according to a CNN article. Not exactly the kind of moocher you like to portray is he? For someone so strongly conservative, I find it conflicting that he would use food stamps. It only reminds me to point out that people on welfare and food stamps are not lazy bums on the couch watching cable television wasting taxpayer dollars. This guy had an associates degree in mechanical engineering and had also worked as a truck driver.
Some are trying to argue that had everyone in church been packing heat, this wouldn't have happened. Three things to point out in response. Church is the last place any of us would want or need a gun. Second, this guy was able to enter the church and begin firing before anyone even noticed he had a gun. Third, he was subdued without the use of a firearm. We shouldn't be using this example as a reason for right-to-carry. We shouldn't have to live in a society where we even think we need a gun at any given moment to defend ourselves. That's not to say I'm completely against guns. I have to have a 22 rifle handy with some bird shot to kill unsavory poisonous snakes out here in the country. I understand the need for a firearm in that context. There is however, a healthy balance between a nut like Ted Nugent and taking away guns completely. Common ground anyone? Unlikely. The ones with the guns would rather shoot the opposition first it seems.
I would pray for those involved, but I am not an advocate of prayer.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
The "One Of Us" Military
I'm writing this in light of the recent story about the atheist coming under fire in the Army for being an atheist.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/26/atheist.soldier.ap/index.html
I'm going to piss off a few service members on this one, but I don't care. The idea that we should respect you just because of your service is really getting out of hand in our country. Yes it is a volunteer military, but if you're going to behave without discipline and respect for your fellow comrades in arms, you've got no place being there and you'll get no respect from me. I've got absolutely no patience or respect for that kind of military man. Marines seem to be the worst. I don't think they really understand semper fidelis. They really don't like it when you rock their boat, so they piss and moan at the slightest tremor. They might even threaten to beat your ass. Yes, I've had that happen to me online many times. Oh that's a reassuring quality for our soldiers to have. You take pride in fighting for the rights that we have, yet when it comes to the laws in this country, you don't even hesitate to go outside the law and beat somebody up. Grow up kids. I always have to remind myself that these guys aren't paid to think.
In the US military, unless you are okay with the "you're one of us" frame of mind, the others who signed up are going to give you grief. You've got to be a yes man. I can't even imagine what it's like to be different than the standard issue army brat. Well, actually I can in a small way as I am a liberally minded individual living in the South among religious bigots in a city where there's an airforce base. If you're different than their norm, they don't particularly like you, nor do they care what you think. They've also taught their kids to keep their beliefs confined to those same stipulations.
Unfortunately, that's what I see now when I read your "Support the Troops" magnet. I don't see a respectful soldier fighting for our freedom. I see an arrogant and angry dick who although might be fighting for the guy next to him, still chooses to treat anyone lacking the if you will, "traditional" rank and file disposition, with outright malice. That is not worthy of any respect and gives our military a bad name. Shameful.
You may be too chicken shit to speak ill of our troops, but I won't hesitate when I see this kind of crap going on.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/26/atheist.soldier.ap/index.html
I'm going to piss off a few service members on this one, but I don't care. The idea that we should respect you just because of your service is really getting out of hand in our country. Yes it is a volunteer military, but if you're going to behave without discipline and respect for your fellow comrades in arms, you've got no place being there and you'll get no respect from me. I've got absolutely no patience or respect for that kind of military man. Marines seem to be the worst. I don't think they really understand semper fidelis. They really don't like it when you rock their boat, so they piss and moan at the slightest tremor. They might even threaten to beat your ass. Yes, I've had that happen to me online many times. Oh that's a reassuring quality for our soldiers to have. You take pride in fighting for the rights that we have, yet when it comes to the laws in this country, you don't even hesitate to go outside the law and beat somebody up. Grow up kids. I always have to remind myself that these guys aren't paid to think.
In the US military, unless you are okay with the "you're one of us" frame of mind, the others who signed up are going to give you grief. You've got to be a yes man. I can't even imagine what it's like to be different than the standard issue army brat. Well, actually I can in a small way as I am a liberally minded individual living in the South among religious bigots in a city where there's an airforce base. If you're different than their norm, they don't particularly like you, nor do they care what you think. They've also taught their kids to keep their beliefs confined to those same stipulations.
Unfortunately, that's what I see now when I read your "Support the Troops" magnet. I don't see a respectful soldier fighting for our freedom. I see an arrogant and angry dick who although might be fighting for the guy next to him, still chooses to treat anyone lacking the if you will, "traditional" rank and file disposition, with outright malice. That is not worthy of any respect and gives our military a bad name. Shameful.
You may be too chicken shit to speak ill of our troops, but I won't hesitate when I see this kind of crap going on.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Screaming for the Pope???
I'm just watching the coverage of the walking talking freak show they call the Pope. At one point I heard people screaming for him in the background almost like I was watching American Idol. You've got to be joking. He's there to talk about priest sex abuse and people are acting like the Beatles are in town instead of maintaining some kind of serious demeanor. Contain yourselves people.
The dude's name is Joseph Alois Ratzinger. Ratzinger? That's not sexy. Neither is Benedict. Don't scream at him like he's a pop star or a sex symbol. He's not.
I bet there are women in the background holding up signs that read "I want to have your love child." Can you imagine?
Silly Catholics.
I would have considered meeting John Paul both an honorable and memorable experience.
This guy is just too much of an ass in comparison and he just plain looks creepy. Halloween creepy.
(time passes)
Ha!
CNN is discussing how the Pope is connecting with young people at a time when he's talking about sexual abuse of young people. I can't stop laughing. This is a comedian's dream come true. Are you kidding? Too easy to pick these gems up.
By the way, Bushie boy is a Methodist.
As for the priest shortage, it's all about market share. Simple as that.
The dude's name is Joseph Alois Ratzinger. Ratzinger? That's not sexy. Neither is Benedict. Don't scream at him like he's a pop star or a sex symbol. He's not.
I bet there are women in the background holding up signs that read "I want to have your love child." Can you imagine?
Silly Catholics.
I would have considered meeting John Paul both an honorable and memorable experience.
This guy is just too much of an ass in comparison and he just plain looks creepy. Halloween creepy.
(time passes)
Ha!
CNN is discussing how the Pope is connecting with young people at a time when he's talking about sexual abuse of young people. I can't stop laughing. This is a comedian's dream come true. Are you kidding? Too easy to pick these gems up.
By the way, Bushie boy is a Methodist.
As for the priest shortage, it's all about market share. Simple as that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)