skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I fought tooth and nail to get to you tonight, dear reader. You may not realize what goes on within the domain of a single-computer, dial-up household--after all, from what I hear, each family now has 2.5 computers, broadband up the ass, and a child for every MP3 player that needs programmed. Since not all of us are so blessed, this is how it goes here:
Me: Babe, I need to blog.
Rich: Uh-huh... Five more minutes...
[Thirty minutes later...]
Me: Babe, I need--
Rich: Yeah, I heard you, I'm just in the middle of looking up something for your birthday...
Me: Didn't you do that yesterday? And the day before? Honestly, how much are you spending?
Rich: Enough, but I need... You'll have to... Five more minutes...
[Thirty minutes later...]
Me: Babe, I--
Rich: Hey, I'm sure your millions of fans aren't that worried. You can blog tomorrow. It's just that--
Me: --wanted to know if you want some ice cream... Smarty...
Rich: Oh. Um, no thanks, I... Uh... Five--
Me: --more minutes, uh-huh... I'll just blog tomorrow... Again...
Rich: At least it's for your birthday present! [Big grin...]
Me: Lemme guess. For my birthday, I'll get to use the computer again? Oh, goodie!
So, in the interests of allowing a certain someone to get back to eBay to spoil me rotten just 21 short days after the gift orgy known as Christmas, I'll keep this brief. Granted, each of the following topics were to be much grander, much longer, and much more awe-inspiring with the intent of leaving you in a state of rapturous wonder at my wordy wisdom, but I digress safe and secure in the knowledge that I'm about to get more gifts, and you will be left wondering what that gift is... :D
Brief Topic Number One: God doesn't want his followers to have Christmas trees:
Jer 10:2-4: 2. Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen [...] 3. For the customs of the people [are] vain: for [one] cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. 4. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.
Discuss.
Brief Topic Number Two: Bathrooms have many nooks and crannies--and you don't want to be in most of them...
It also amazes me how people actually get paint all the way behind the toilet for uniform color on a wall. At this point I would upload pictures of the new black floor (which, if truth be told, is the result of a quasi-lost battle on my end), my hand-made wooden blinds custom colored to match the walls, and the spectacular end result, but blogger's pic feature seems to be down at the moment of this posting, so that'll have to wait. Trust me, however--it looks fabulous! Black floor and all...
Brief Topic Number Three: You can put too many chocolate chips into a cake.
Cake then collapses into a half-baked chocolate mush pile that your dog just loves to knock over the garbage for, and you end up buying a package of Oreo's to bring to the family get-together. Much is made over the effort you must have put into said Oreo's, and you grin and bear it, as that is what family is for. :) I have to say, I have the best family in the world, even if evil grandmother lied about bringing her traditional graham cracker pies. I think this is the first holiday EVER in which they were not present (the pies, not the evil grandmother...) Personally, I think she was just trying to think of a way to piss us all off, but none of us took the bait. It's nice to know she can bring so much joy to our family just by being a typical bitch when we refuse to play by her mind-game rules. (I think I feel a Tiny Tim moment coming on...) But I digress.
That'll have to do for now--a certain someone is saying he must check on an auction for the upcoming 3rd anniversary of my thirtieth birthday, so I'll leave you all with this:
Have a happy new year, have fun, and in the words of my awesome Uncle Scott: If you can't be good, be careful.
Ta ta for now, my friends!
I know, I know, dear reader. You think me a slacker--a lazy, good-for-nothing blog-abandoning sloth. The truth is I've been so busy in the physical world my digital world has suffered, and I do apologize for that.
But as I sat down tonight--my first night of leisure in what seems an eternity--I read something so entirely disturbing I had to rip myself away from the leisurely pursuit of reading other blogs to post about it. Mind you, you may think it not a big deal and actually kind of a bore, but as it's my blog, I think my concerns take a bit more precedence than yours. ;)
I think it important to "know thine enemy," as it were, and after spending about two hours reading those blogs I generally enjoy and agree with (when it comes to blogs of opinion and not just daily life), I like to take some time to see what all the fundies are up in arms about. What's getting their goat lately, what's eating their cheese, what's taking the "fun" out of "fundamentalism," so to speak.
I stopped at one web site I hardly ever check on anymore, mostly because I find it's authors so totally warped and wrapped up in the dogma as to make the Pharisees of Jesus' time look like kittens who hugged too much.
Their latest "comment-getter" can be surmised as such: Teaching evolution causes people to kill people. Creationism and Genesis are the only things that can save us from ourselves. Which, to say the least, is about as dogmatic and simple-minded as it gets. I said as much (putting it as nicely as I could), but then I felt the need to come back here and say my own piece. I'm sure the author's will follow back here (and perhaps be a bit dismayed to find I'm a bit harder on them over here than I was over there) but such is life. After all, if I can't please everyone, I may as well blog about it, yes?
What really got my goat (if we are so inclined to beat a metaphor like the proverbial horse in need of an undertaker) was the following statement from the article to which they were "discussing":
The president of Creation Worldview Ministries says decades of teaching "evolution only" in public schools and universities is partly responsible for crimes such as the mass shooting earlier this week in Virginia.
Dr. Grady McMurtry [...] says, public schools and universities have taught the theory of evolution as fact, with no opposing viewpoints — and the result, he contends, is a lack of respect for human life.
Therefore, he asserts, people should not be surprised when mass shootings occur, such as the one on the Blacksburg university campus on Monday.
As you can tell, this article (and most likely this blog post by them) is a bit dated, but nonetheless speaks to the dangerous mindset of fundamentalism.
It's still a bunch of hogwash. Let me explain:
As I touched on in a few earlier posts (here, here, and here, just to name a few), teaching creationism as if it were a science, let alone pretending it's some semblance of a good argument, is one of the most immoral things fundamentalists have tried to do for years. Not that trying to claim humility and humbleness while claiming you are special enough to be worth the death of a god wasn't a bad enough irony-laden position, but now to actually try to spin your fairy tale as "science that will prevent murders"? It's like they are in a one-man race toward the bottom of what it means to be stupid while appearing to be smart--and failing miserably.
To begin with, evolution is not about us being "glorified animals." It is a theory (much like gravity and flight, which I'm sure will be the next bone of contention among fundamentalist circles) which explains, quite succinctly, adequately, and truthfully, about the diversity of life upon this, the third rock from the sun. It does not speak to humanities supposed "greatness," it does not dwell on our "superiority," and is not a driving philosophy to fill the empty hours when people who wish for something just a bit more than life itself say such boorish things as "Why am I here?" and "What is my purpose in life?" As if we all have the time to give you meaning and purpose. Get a life.
Second, if anything serves to drive down meaning and purpose (again, as if living life itself weren't wonderful enough), creationism teaches nothing more than that god was bored one day, just he and his other two supposed personalities in their timeless existence, and he decided to create mud that he could play with and bring to life. And not content just to play with that life, he pretended to kill one of his personalities for the sake of "buying back" the "souls" of his Ken and Barbie dolls so that he wouldn't have to place them in the trash compactor. Splendid. I feel full of fuzzy warms already. "You mean he loves me sooooo muuuuuuch that he'll burn me forever if I don't grovel at his feet and stroke his ego? Sign me up!" If that doesn't teach you that god thinks life is disposable, nothing will. He killed his kid (or, if you prefer, he allowed his son to commit suicide [how do the Catholics explain THAT one!]) for crying out loud! And we're supposed to think he holds our lives as sacred? Seriously?
Third: To teach that evolution is nothing more than a "guess" does a serious disservice to the science community, which has proven the usefulness of evolutionary sciences in the fields of biology and medicine to provide life-saving medications and treatments. Not only has evolutionary theory kept us thriving for the last hundred years (the turning point being the polio vaccine, in my opinion), it has actually allowed humanity to be a much greater moral species--it has allowed us, using our brains and our senses, to find new ways to help one another, to save one another, to make one another's lives better! Not just to survive, but to thrive! Where people use to just sit and pray and light candles, they can now be proactive and get medicine and therapy built on the very evolutionary sciences that fundamentalists are scoffing at! Where people use to blame god's wrath or anger, we can now prevent certain conditions, heal wounds, and even bring back from death those very same people that, just even fifty years ago, would have been proclaimed as having been "called home to heaven." And people thank god? Thank a scientist! Thank a doctor, a pharmacologist, a university professor, an inquisitive mind! Thank Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and a host of others disregarded, ridiculed, and sometimes banned and killed by the church for "witchcraft" and "blaspheme." These are the people, the pioneers, of today's life-saving medicines. (And if you think these forefathers to modern scientists are unrelated to this discussion, you are worse off than I even considered!)
When it comes right down to it, however, this is really a moot point, as science never has, and possibly never will, speak to the existence of imaginary beings outside of our realms of inquiry. Believe it or not, the purpose of science is not to "attack" Christianity any more than it's purpose is to prove that jelly is, in fact, butter. The purpose of science is to ask questions, provide answers, and then keep hammering and hammering and hammering at those answers. This is the very truth of the scientific method. To continually seek new data, see how it fits into what is previously known, and change what was thought to be known based on what is now known. Science is not static (much to the chagrin of many a fundie), as they are constantly revising and updating and finding new information. Every year, in fact, there are huge arguments within the scientific community as notions are challenged, ideas are placed on the table, new data is verified, tested, and re-examined by anyone who is anyone. It is because of this method, this very morally justifiable method, that most people are even around to argue the silliness of creationism as there are today. If not for the scientific method, 90 percent of us wouldn't be here today, including myself, because we all would have sat around, staring at each other, thinking god was angry and not being able to do anything about it except more staring and praying.
Believe what you wish--science ultimately doesn't care, mostly because what you believe has little to do with anything outside of your own head. But don't you dare claim that what you believe is justifiable as an alternative to facts. Because it isn't.
Ultimately, creationism (most fundamentalist positions, actually) is very self-serving and ultimately self-defeating. The more they try to "prove" creationism by cutting out everything that doesn't fit, and then claiming that left over 1 percent is "evidence," will eventually lead to (hopefully) the eye-opening reality check for the fairy tale that it is. What's truly sad is so many hold dogma and doctrine in much higher regard than their own world and lives, and so many of them (fundies) will continue to scream, stomp their feet, and demand that they, and only they, can have the answer because of an old Hebrew text told by word of mouth for thousands of years before finally being put on paper, during captivity by the Babylonian Empire, to be read for thousands more.
To summarize: To deny and prevent the use of the evolutionary sciences will harm humanity as a whole, not only knowledge-wise, but in the very scary realm of disease, pestilence, and death--a very immoral position which places humanity in jeopardy from future problems and issues relating to virus's, bacterium, and genetically destructive mutations. Therefore, if we reduce the ability of sciences to cure, prevent, or treat human causes of suffering over "theologically important" views, an immoral and deadly position has been staked. Ergo, to support evolutionary facts and discoveries, and opposing false sciences based on theological criteria, is the right and moral thing to do.
To quote a pretty well-known Latin proverb, "Unless what we do is useful, glory is vain." Indeed, creationism holds nothing useful, not even to Christians. It will only continue to erode the very "rock solid" foundation they claim to stand on. And while many modern Christians have indeed realized that science is not a threat to their belief (and in fact, many have revised their interpretations of scripture so that they are in fact quite complimentary), whenever something is viewed as "unchanging," it will always get left behind.
And until fundamentalists realize that evolutionary sciences aren't a life philosophy, and are in fact actual truths and laws, the sooner they can give up wasting time fighting it and spend more time loving their neighbors and worshiping their god(s). Anything more would be glory for glories sake, and vanity of the highest order. Anything less would be immoral.
A new year. A new president. A new dog. A new InDesign program.
Change is everywhere. In fact, there’s ninety-seven cents of it in my pocket at the moment. (I just checked.) Granted, not even enough to spend at the dollar store, but it is change, nonetheless.
For me, change begins every year the night of Thanksgiving. After stuffing ourselves full of food, I tend to go home and bring down all my holiday decorations from the attic (which, if truth be told, could also use a little change, but that’s a project for my father’s finely-honed wood-working skills when he finally retires...)
As I figure out what lights work (and don’t work), hang wreaths, and remind myself of all those little things that need done before the family comes over to eradicate the hours spent cleaning my home, I remember the seasons past as I unwrap my great-grandmothers’ ornaments (sans glitter); my aunt Ruth’s hand-crocheted elves (Freddy Kruger-esque); my mothers’ tea set that she purchased the year I was born, decorated with holly leaves and berries and the year "1976" in festive, red lettering (Ahh, the seventies...). My acquisition of these items required change on their part, whether simple changes in decorating taste or something more life-altering, such as a move or a death...
Any type of change creates a past. (Honestly? Puberty creates a past, but I digress...) We can only embrace change if we are willing to say good-bye to something else (and not in a Target sort of way: "Hello, Good-buy, Hello, Good-buy!"), and that isn’t always easy. Whether it be to finally retire that T-shirt from high school, or toss the gaudy wreath my mother-in-law gave me five years ago ("Rich, did you not hear me tell her 'No pink!?' "), or even something as simple as going right instead of left on your way home (I knew I should have taken that left turn in Albuquerque...), change IS good, even if we don’t think it at the time...
As I look forward to the New Year, and the many changes in store both personally and professionally ("What do you mean, we’re upgrading to Quark Five—thousand...?"), I can honestly say while I don’t expect all change to be good or easy, I do expect all change to bring with it memories, a past, and a lifetime I shall never regret living. After all, what good is living life if we never expect to learn or change anything about ourselves? Our homes? Our lives?
As we all gear up for the holidays and the New Year, I want to wish all of you a year filled with wonderful things, and a past filled with wonderful memories. I know none of us can promise that everything that happens will be good, or even best, but inevitably something, somewhere in our lives, will change. And I hope that change brings personal growth, happiness, and all the best that humanity has to give...
Happy holidays, everyone!
... when you read a blog, then follow a link... then follow another link, read something else, click here, click there...
And you end up coming across something like this:
It took me about five minutes to stop laughing!
Now think about it--given the gihoondous number of "land animals" we know of, do you honestly think that they all fit on Noah's wooden flotation device? Never minding the fact that they must have been expert Animal Containment Specialists™ (ACS's), that long-lost ancient art so revered in biblical times... I mean, Noah lived to be what--600 years old? Plenty of time to figure out the best way to stack earth worms on turkeys on hippos on T-rex's... Not to mention the magic behind keeping them from eating one another!
Or perhaps, due to national security concerns at the time, Noah was only allowed dinosaurs that could fit in a 3-ounce bottle as a carry-on? That would certainly limit the "kinds" and sizes of dinosaur Noah could rescue from extinction! Lord knows I only get my travel-size dino's at Target--usually only when on sale (economic crisis and all...). Or maybe Noah hid them in cans of shaving cream á la Jurassic Park? Perhaps Ken Ham has some of those on display at the Creation "Museum," eh? I imagine that sign would read something like:
"Even more reasonably-sized 'kinds' of dinosaur
traveled with Noah in these Babylonian aluminum
barrels labeled 'Gillette,' which Bible archaeologists
have determined is Hebrew for Stego-pony-saurus."
Did you catch that on the sign? "Reasonably small"? One pictures Noah standing there with a tape measure next to one of those "You must be THIS SHORT to ride this ride" signs, pointing at it angrily while staring up at the rather large Brachiosaurus and saying, "Aren't there any of you more reasonably sized? This isn't the QE 2, ya know!"
Ah, creationists... Well, you know how it is...
I wonder how a race of homosexuals would do in regards with natural selection and the survival of the fittest? Not too many babies will come if you don't procreate in a natural way.
It seems they would be doomed by Darwin if not by the Bible.
--Obaminable Zombie, Brookfield, CT
If you ever care to see what stupid looks like in front of a keyboard, just hang around the Topix forum for a while. It's, to say the least, unnerving.
But I hear this a lot from rabid evangelicals, things like "If evolution were true, homosexuality would have been weeded out ages ago!" and "Homosexuals are proof evolution isn't true!" Never minding that religion just proves that sometimes evolution goes in reverse (socially speaking), it seems we must delve into the world of evolution and natural selection once more in an attempt to educate the ignorant masses (assuming it is possible to educate strict adherents to doctrine as opposed to lovers of knowledge...)
I suppose we must first start out by defining the two differing types of homosexuality (and I don't mean "lesbians" and "gay men"):- the sexual activity between two individuals of the same gender, and
- the innate sexual preference for one's own gender.
In layman's terms, there's the act itself, and then there's the individual.
Back in the day (Yesteryear, Yonder, and Yore), both the scientific community and the church (at odds even then) were both of the mistaken conclusion that homosexuality was a purely human characteristic and trait--that is, the church took the stance that "No dumb animal is drawn to this evil"; Greek society and other enlightened cultures were said to have stated that "All irrational animals merely copulate, but we rational ones are superior in this regard to all other animals. We discovered homosexual intercourse. Men under the sway of women are no better than dumb animals" (Source.). Such was the ignorance of all mankind.
Of course, today we know that homosexuality (the act) is indeed abundant--nay, the norm--in most animal communities, least of all our closest living cousins the primates! Over 450 species of vertebrates have been documented and observed engaging in homosexual behavior (Source and Source); thus, we have at least established that not only is homosexuality present in a great deal of the animal kingdom from which we are a product, but indeed established as a naturally occurring act (for if it is observed in nature, how could it possibly be labeled "unnatural"? It can't!)
Of course, human homosexuality is neither new nor "unnatural" and has been documented in almost every single culture we have discovered (of course, making no statement on how homosexuality was perceived in that culture, just that it has been documented), one must ask how the seeming paradox of evolution and natural selection has kept the "dead-end reproductively" homosexual perpetually throughout most (if not all) species might seem to be easily answered on the surface: "If evolution were true, the non-reproducing homosexual traits would have been naturally selected out of the population in short order, thus eradicating it from the gene pool, thus proving it is a CHOICE, not inherent."
If only life were so simple. Take, for example, sickle-cell anemia. It is a disease passed on through the genes of humans to this day, and continues to be fatal if undiagnosed and treated. Sickle cell anemia is only inherited when BOTH parents pass on the gene to the child. Both parents could have no trace of the disease (being as they each only have ONE copy of the gene), but if their child gets one recessive copy from each, that person has the disease. However, if the child only gets ONE of the sickle cell genes from one parent, and the normal gene from the other parent, that child will exhibit no signs, and thus, the disease will continue to be carried throughout the genome unnoticed and undiagnosed. Even people with sickle-cell anemia have children, after all, another way this seemingly useless and anti-naturally selective trait is passed on to future generations. Thus, something seemingly undesirable can continue with a species forever, as long as the species can continue to procreate.
Add to the fact that societal stigmas (human society and culture, if you will) have long (in European circles, at least) stigmatized the homosexual, many a homosexual has indeed gotten married and sired children (both men and women) against their natural inclinations--indeed, this is still all-too-frequent in today's world, in which a homosexual person is made to hide their natural inclinations for one more socially acceptable to the mob, thus ensuring that, even if homosexuality could only be passed on by a "full blown" homosexual, societal norms of the reining culture are thus ensuring that the inclination of same-sex attraction continues in the human population--in fact, such a cultural stance ensures that homosexual tendencies will be expanded, not neutralized or eradicated.
However, these examples and scenarios, in regards to both the "sickle cell anemia" passing of gay traits and the "hide it from society" passing of gay traits, assumes that homosexuality is an undesirable trait that continues to thrive in the population.
More recent studies have shown that perhaps homosexuality is a necessary, even beneficial, trait of animal and human populations. From societal and social gains (Source) to the naturally selective plus that a woman who gives birth to homosexual children generally HAS more children (greater species propagation; Source) to more adults being on hand to raise children (Source), homosexuality in a species could be either a side affect of other choices in natural selection and evolution (the number of children a woman can bear greatly enhances the chances of homosexual children) or it could be a direct result of the mating habits of our ancestors (a male reducing the copulations and gene dispersal of other males as in polygamy or "herding" of females for one sole male), or it may even be something entirely different that we haven't explored yet. The fact is, science is learning new and fascinating things about what it means to be human every day. From our eating habits, our sleeping patterns, to our choices in sexual partners, all of these are the result of years of evolution both at the fundamental genetic level and the greater perpetuation of the species level.
To make off-the-cuff, ill-educated remarks like "Homosexuality would have been gotten rid of if evolution were true" does nothing to further understanding of either the human condition or the individual, and does both a great disservice, not to mention the disservice to science in general.
So all of this to say what? That we are still learning how we, as a species, fit into the growing body of knowledge we call reality. While it might be easy to vilify the things we don't understand and regulate it to the "undesirable" column, that could be the very thing that could undo us as a species. After all, who is to say that "straight sex" is the only type of copulation that will keep us from going off the deep end? It could very well be that homosexuality is the saving grace of our species.
Or, it could just very well mean that there's nothing like a nice piece of ass, no matter who's ass it happens to be. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and that, my friends, is the driving force behind natural selection.
Nothing could be more natural, after all.
Not content to simply make gay marriage illegal, now right-wing extremist "Christians" would like to retroactively nullify those marriages that were performed before the church used lies and fear-mongering to pass an "amendment" to make it illegal for gays to marry!
From the article:
“The biggest question mark right now is the question of what happens to the marriages that were valid when they were performed, but now the constitution says they are not recognized,” said Yes on 8 attorney Andrew Pugno.
Apparently, not being familiar with the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, why should I expect they would be familiar with Article I, Section 9, which states: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
For the record, that means you can't make a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed, or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed, prior to the enactment of that law.
But then again, fundamentalist "Christians" haven't been wanting to listen to the Constitution for quite some time--why should they start now?
Elder Farron Davis: As president of the Pocatello stake it is my unhappy duty and obligation to convene this church court on behalf of the Elder Aaron Davis for the grave and grievous sin, of homosexuality. In the light of your abnormal and abominable state and your refusal to see you have been duped into a hogwash alternative lifestyle...I wish my shame was enough for both of us. Not to mention the shame you brought to this church...our family...our ancestors...
Aaron: Wait a minute, our ancestors? Dad, your grandfather had half a dozen wives, and the same goes for every single person in this room. I'd say we were the original definition of 'alternative lifestyle.'
Elder Farron Davis: Are you calling us hypocrites?
Aaron: No, we've gone way beyond hypocrisy, Dad, now we're just being mean.
Not to mention King David, Solomon, Jacob, and many, many other bible figures...
But now I'm telling them their business...
And they're just being plain mean...
I do believe this needs to be revisited, in light of all the fundies trying to impose the bible on the rest of the American citizens--hence, here it is again. Read, enjoy, and share a thought or two!
So I've been writing this post for quite some time... Months, actually... Constantly writing and rewriting trying to get my point across just right, and I think I've pretty much refined it as much as I can... It meanders a bit, but I think the overall cohesiveness is about as good as I'm going to get it in this lifetime, and we all know we'll end up revisiting this topic at some point in the future, so without further ado... here it goes...
Tolerance is over-rated. I've been mulling this for quite some time, ever since Ergo, a truly wise man, once told me that I should forget about the concept entirely. And even though I have great respect for Ergo, I never take anything anyone tells me and run with it--you'd be liable to poke an eye out! I mull, I consider, I ruminate and decide how it would, could, or should fit into my world view if at all...
I've decided tolerance is ultimately self-defeating. It's primary purpose is a weapon by which someone says that they can't be criticized for their position, and ultimately it squashes any dissent at all...
We've seen this type of behavior even here. I'll be criticizing the beliefs of practices of a certain religious group which holds great sway over the daily life of many Americans. And inevitably, somewhere in the comments of any given post I'll be accused of anger, and ultimately, intolerance, and then they will go on to state just as strong a position in stark contrast from my own, and told in no uncertain terms that that is "the way it is," or "the truth," (as if somehow this is a "tolerant" position to take), and sky god forbid if I try to refute it, as I'll once again be labeled "intolerant."
And, despite the fact that 90% of the people in this country (scary, scary) hold the same beliefs the commenter holds, somehow my voice, comments, and opinions are the ones that cause an issue of intolerance...
But what is the sum of my "intolerance"? The meaning, the whole, the reason why I try to be "tolerant"? I do believe that a plethora of ideas, thoughts, and statements of belief to society as a whole are wonderful, ultimately productive, and beneficial. Though this should in no way construe to be meant that every idea, belief, or statement is valid, but every idea must be at least put on the table, so to speak, for society to continue to move in a productive direction, for the group, as well as for the individual...
"Tolerance" is now a weapon, of sorts. It takes a pretty benign idea, that of having patience to hear someone out, or "put up" with something. But it no longer is used within this context, is it? When most people cry "intolerance" (especially when in relation to some supposed attack on Christianity), it has come to mean "They won't agree with us and let us say whatever the hell we want."
But tolerance is only ever meant to be the smallest part of patience. And when the patience has been tried, tolerance goes out the window. Tolerate is what you do when your two-year-old tried again to drink from a cup instead of his sippy-cup, or you tolerate the sales person who called during dinner only as long as it takes to get them off the phone. You tolerate a visit from some member of the family you dislike for the sake of a holiday, or some-such other type scenario.
But dogma isn't something to be tolerated...
Christianity enjoys great privilege in our country. They have the freedom to spout whatever nonsense comes to mind, to do all sorts of ceremonies, worship practices, pass judgment on huge swaths of humanity all under the guise of "religious freedom." Whether it be blessing a bottle of water to call it "holy," or eating crackers and saying it's the body of their dead god, to declare such-and-such "good" or such-and-such "bad" based on a book that should have been retired to the moths ages ago is pretty much standard. One can't be too shocked when they think this is their country when they are so populous as to bring to mind the cockroach and the ant.
And one would be remiss if one didn't acknowledge the impact Christianity has had on this country!
Back in colonial times, Puritan preachers referred to Native Americans as "Amelkites and Canaanites"--and in case you are unaware who they are, in the old testament, they are "bad people" who are living in the so-called "promised land" who must be smote (smited?)--and as such, Christians in the early days of our country decided that, if they wouldn't convert to Christianity, they had to be killed...
Then there was the state of Maryland's famous 1649 law called "Act Concerning Religion," which supposedly instituted "freedom of religion" for the first time in an American colony. What was your freedom of religion? Christianity, basically. You were free to be a Christian, otherwise you'd be put to death, as stated in the law:
That whatsoever pson or psons within this Province and the Islands thereunto belonging shall from henceforth blaspheme God, that is Curse him, or deny our Saviour Jesus Christ to bee the sonne of God, or shall deny the holy Trinity the ffather sonne and holy Ghost, or the Godhead of any of the said Three psons of the Trinity or the Vnity of the Godhead, or shall use or utter any reproachfull Speeches, words or language concerning the said Holy Trinity, or any of the said three psons thereof, shalbe punished with death and confiscaton or forfeiture of all his or her lands and goods to the Lord Proprietary and his heires,
The same went for the Virgin Mary, of course...
Citizenship rights were denied to American colonists who were not Christian church members. Dancing was rated by several Protestant denominations as an unforgivable sin (despite the fact that King David in the bible danced naked around a fire before his god...). Any one who spoke ill of sky god, Jesus, the holy spirit, or of the Bible could be jailed for blasphemy. Baptist evangelists were persecuted by order of civil laws in the colony of Virginia, a state that only recognized the Anglican church as the one true church (irony, irony). In Salem, Massachusetts they hung people who were accused of being "witches." And four Quakers were hung in Massachusetts merely for being Quakers!
Truly a religion pock-marked by tolerance...
"But!" today's followers of sky god will say, "they weren't really Christians!" Or, "But you cannot judge us by their actions!"
Fair enough--I'll judge you by today's actions, words, and deeds. This may seem intolerant of me, though, I warn you...
Today's Christians in America enjoy a grand sense of ... well, entitlement is the only word that comes to mind. They have strong feelings about how their particular brand of religion should be expressed in this country, whether at the expense of other religions or the non-religious is of no consideration.
Take, for example, prayer in schools. Many Christians feel that non-teacher-led prayer in schools is a strike, an attack, on Christianity in America today. As if having a teacher lead a Christian prayer in school would have prevented Columbine or some other type of disaster! They assume it is an unconstitutional hostility against their religion. This assumes a justification of privileges for Christianity, despite the fact that there are no other religious prayers led by teachers in learning institutions, such as a Jewish prayer, or a Buddhist prayer, and we certainly don't hear Jews and Buddhists claiming that teachers should be leading their prayers before every class in a public school, and they certainly aren't claiming a hostility toward their brand of religion.
This sense of entitlement also comes up when Christians insist that their religious holidays deserve some type of special recognition, deference, or respect. At times, some Christians act as though other belief systems are inferior, unequal to their own, and don’t merit equal consideration in any form. A perfect example of this would be the holiday known as Christmas. The fact that they consider "Happy Holidays" a slap in the face of their particular brand of religion, and that being considerate of other celebrations of other groups, whether religious or non, shouldn't even be recognized by retailers, let alone a school or government body of any type, is a common "call to arms" in many fundamentalist Christian circles. Yet Muslims, Jews, Hindus don't take it as an affront when someone doesn't say "Happy Hanukkah" or "Merry Eid al-Fitr" around their time of celebration. But an American Christians' sense of entitlement, of privilege, doesn't even recognize their claim of religious belief as valid. Indeed, many Christians will openly admit that differing beliefs aren't valid, even bad for American culture.
In fact, in what I assume to be the type of thinking engaged by these "entitled" Christians, is the sense of the idea that Christians are a majority, and in a democracy, the majority rules. That if they want to shape, mold, and influence the political and cultural landscape of the country, it is not only their right as citizens, but their right as the majority! They not only get this from the Constitution, but I suppose they also feel it (indeed, I guarantee it) to be their religious duty, as if legislating morality is the moral thing to do! It's what being a Christian Nation is all about. What fails to be noted, though, is that in a democracy, while there is a majority rule, there is still the protection of minority rights, something of little, if any value, in what is perceived to a Christian nation. Christians should note that they can no more vote to privilege Christianity in America than a white male like myself could vote to privilege my race. It goes against the very principles at the core of the Constitution itself.
But what does this have to do with "tolerance" and "violence" you ask? Indeed, there does seem to be a separation, a disconnect, of thought when it comes to Christian values and violence as opposed to Muslim values and violence. Why was not Clayton Waagner, or Eric Robert Rudolph, and others like them called Christian terrorists when its quite obvious their acts of violence are directly related to their Christian beliefs, much like when suicide bombers are called "Muslim terrorists" as their acts of destruction and devastation are directly related to their beliefs? Why is there this disconnect between American Christians, who feel they have nothing to do with the acts of those who believe as they do when they do something this destructive, yet they feel they can blame Imams and other Muslim teachers for not speaking out enough against Muslim terrorists?
It is the current sense of entitlement and privilege that many American Christians feel--their own innate individualism guaranteed by the Constitution--that I feel they think allows them to separate themselves from the group-think they engage in. They are an individual. They claim their common beliefs, their group of thinking, their way of thinking as the majority has the right to rule, yet they wipe their hands clean when individuals in their group do something so horrific, they are not to blame. American Christians--even when they hold the very beliefs and thoughts that created the situation they are hypocritically condemning--never have to worry about being called one of the group. Instead, they get to call their violent coreligionists "crazy," "insane," "deluded," or even "deranged," and it is assumed that the beliefs that lie at the heart of the violence are not connected to the religion that teaches them.
Take for example abortion. Many many sites that claim to be loyal to the Christian god have stories, essays, and grand sermons on what their holy book says about abortion, why it is wrong, why it is "murder." Here is one site that pulls verses from Luke, Jeremiah, and Psalm that the Bible teaches abortion is wrong--nay, even murder--as if stringing together a bunch of random verses from things written two thousand years ago is an argument in any way--but if one were to use this very book as a basis for moral law, guess what the punishment for murder is in the Bible? You guessed it--murder. Kill them. Stones were the preferred method of the day, of course, but one certainly can't blame them for not having discovered gun powder yet, right? All part of God's plan, or somesuch other reasoning...
But this person--and many others throughout the country--are thoroughly convinced there is no connection between anti-abortion violence and Christianity. Why is this?
It boils down to privilege and entitlement--something American Christians are quite used to here in the United States. And as previously stated, individual rights are one of those privileges. I'll say it again, American Christians--even when they hold the very beliefs and thoughts that created the situation they are hypocritically condemning--never have to worry about being called one of the group. Instead, they get to call their violent coreligionists "crazy," "insane," "deluded," or even "deranged," and it is assumed that the beliefs that lie at the heart of the violence are not connected to the religion that teaches them.
American Christians of course have the inalienable right of "individual," but only seem to claim it when a "group" or "individual" commits a violence in the name of the same god they subscribe to. These individuals are claimed to be missing the "point," perhaps, or certainly "not one of them." In fact, the only time our American Christians seem to think as a group, or claim group status as a majority, is when they sense some type of empirical threat against their supremacy, their privileges, their entitlement, such as school prayer, "Merry Christmas," or ten commandments displays on a government wall.
But they refuse to see themselves as a group when it comes to those who are persecuting others, much preferring to be the "victims" in a country where their status of entitlement and privilege marks them as no more a victim than a billiard table holding all the balls. Even when those same Christians-in-denial hold the same beliefs that lead to the situation of violence and destruction...
But this self-assigned "privilege" (denying group-membership when it comes to violent members) is something we hear Christians denying every other group in the country, whether again of religious or nonreligious persuasion. For example, all Muslims must account for Islam/Quran-supported (direct or indirect) violence of any Muslim. Yet to call on Christian leaders the next time an abortion clinic is attacked, or a gay bar is blown up, or a prostitute is murdered isn't seen as something the Christians need to speak out about--it is secular society that has caused the ills, secular society that has the issues--even though most of the reasoning behind these types of crimes comes from a Judeo/Christian thought process!
They claim "we bring it on ourselves," or that "This is what happens when a country turns on God," or somesuch other nonsense, which, in effect, claims to rid them of any responsibility for their group members despite the fact that the act was committed holding thoughts very much in agreement with the conservative Christian mindset!
Back to abortion: Most Christians would claim that abortion is wrong. Murder is a word most of them would use to describe what happens in an abortion procedure. They claim it from pulpits, plaster it on billboards, run around wearing T-shirts that claim abortion is murder and it must be stopped! So then someone in their group tries to stop it. And then suddenly, when that person is charged with a crime, they are now "nuts" or "dangerous" and "missing the point...," and even though they claim God hates abortion, and God set forth rules to take care of murderers, when one of them does murder the murderer, they "have it wrong" and "aren't one of us (i.e., Christian)."
Because they as a group only think and act as a group when their empire can be expanded, or is under some perceived attack. But if one member goes rogue, or acts in such a way to cast a bad light on the Christian sects, they are not part of the group any longer... Close ranks, ship 'em out, spin the PR, and hope for the best. Oh, and throw in there that he obviously wasn't a Christian, or they wouldn't have committed such an act...
Is this a grand generalization? Yes, in many ways, it is. It speaks to the "Christian nation" as a whole, which, even though they have the United States, they aren't only content not to share, they aren't willing to take responsibility either. Muslims and Christians continue to war in Africa today over land, "souls," and lives. Where are the voices calling for an end to this type of violence? Why are today's American Christians so concerned with who's having/not having a baby, who wants to get married to whom, can my kid's teacher say "Bless this food, amen," but there seems to be no concerted...
Effort to take responsibility. That pretty much sums up most of the premises held in religious circles. I've read where some Christians decided that global warming is either a tool of the devil or some type of lie made up by man (and I'm thinking, shouldn't we just pollute less anyway? Doesn't that make sense?).
Much like the nature of their worship--their so-called "sin nature" isn't their fault. It's God's plan, Eve's or the devil's fault, and Jesus took care of the fine print--they're responsibility free! All they have to do is believe! (How much easier could it be? No responsibility and eternal life in heaven...) Other people's issues? Their fault, or the devils, or their sin nature, or "turning away from god..." The whole ideology behind Christianity is a lack of taking responsibility! So therefore, why should they feel a responsibility to treat others equally? Or to treat the Earth with respect? Salvation was handed to them (so they think) with no strings attached... (This paragraph needs fleshed out a bit more, but I think you guys get the drift...)
Claims about discrimination and persecution would be justified by the Christian right if we were dealing strictly with Constitutional rights (such as the right to free speech, or the right to bear arms), but we're not talking about these things are we? As much as the Christian right would like to make this about a "violation of rights," it's really just a leveling of the playing field, and a loss of their "specialness." The truth is that Christians are losing privileges, actions and entitlements they feel strongly about--not rights. They are losing the power to get treated better than everyone else. They are not actually being discriminated against--its just that they can no longer discriminate in their traditional ways and means, and are starting to be treated the same as everyone else. It’s certainly not unlike how the end of “white privilege” was perceived by whites during the Civil Rights era of the fifties and sixties (you know, the good old days when all these right-wingers claimed that "life" was somehow better?)
Christian privilege is one of the few traditional privileges that continues to be openly defended in today's United States. Other forms of privilege (like "white male privilege") may continue to exist, but it’s wrong actually argue in defense of them anymore (to many a discriminatory person's chagrin). Perhaps one day religious privilege will go the way that white male privilege are going, but conservative Christians are already bemoaning their loss and fighting tooth and nail (in the humility and love of Christ, of course).
One wonders what they'll resort to when all privilege is gone?
As I sat underneath the electric blanket this morning, Rich snoring softly by my side, I stared as a single snowflake drifted down from the sky past the window and disappeared into the grass...
Soon my yard will be covered in the beautiful grave blanket of winter. A beautiful shade of temporary death, but death nonetheless...
I turned the blanket up one more notch and pulled it tighter around my shoulders. I try to imagine what the butterfly bush looked like in the height of summer, with its conflicting purple and white flowers. The climbing, rambling, blood-red rose sneaking its way through its neighboring ferns.
The grave blanket of snow will be beautiful. Much like most of us imagine it will be at the end when we go to our own grave. Surrounded by friends and loved ones. Perhaps going in our sleep, painlessly, next to our spouse's gentle breathing as it soothes us from this earthly life. Maybe it will happen on that one adventure, the adventure we had waited our whole lives to undertake, and we will go doing something we love, high on life while death embraces us from the reality of earth...
As the first rays of light peak through the bare branches of the apple tree, I see a few chickadees flitting about, nipping at the last vestiges of rotted apples. Hawthorne leaps onto the bed and buries himself underneath the blanket with me while Mary contents herself with using her tail as a drumstick on the foot board. Rich rolls over, hair mussed, eyes sleepy and tired but happy, and smiles up at me.
"Good morning, baby."
"It is, isn't it?"
I kick Hawthorne back to the floor and lay back down for a few more minutes, arms around the one I love, and we stare together between the curtains as the frost begins to reflect back the suns beams.
"I have to get up to check the coal stove," Rich says, beginning to pull away.
"Wait," I said, pulling him tighter. "Just... wait. A few more minutes. Life can wait a few more minutes."
He lays back down and we just lie there, content with the sounds of our breathing, and the view of the morning sun through the branches gradually brightening the room...
Waiting for the snow. And loving every minute of it.
Hawthorne is a pretty athletic dog. When it comes to that old adage, "Owners look like their masters," this one definitely doesn't fit the mold--in fact, he's the exception that proves the rule.
Flying balls caught on a whim, leaping tall fences, running for hours on end--this is Hawthorne. One great big white-hot ball of canine energy--that sheds. Regularly.
But yesterday was--well, it was almost as if he was having an "off" day. As if his "Jock Gene" got lost.
It started when we got home from work. Rich went straight to the coal stove while I took the two pups outside to drain the metaphorical lizard. When we came back in, Rich was shaking down the stove, door wide open, so he could load in some fresh coal and thus keep our house from becoming a freezer.
Now, we've yelled at Hawthorne for this many, many times, all to no avail. Whenever he sees the coal stove door open, he feels the need to run and leap over the door, as if he were Dawn Harper in a past life. (In case you were wondering, she won the gold medal for the 100-meter hurdle event this past summer...)
So I yell the customary "Hawthorne, no!", and as usual, he ignores me, reaches down deep into that inner-Dawn Harper and takes a flying leap over the coal stove door just as Rich is reaching back for a shovel full of coal. He lands safely in the kitchen, except--
BANG!! Shatter!
- Replacing the high-heat resistant glass on the front of the coal stove: $200
His back legs didn't quite make it over the door. After much duct tape, aluminum foil, a few metal hangers, and a call in to Stoves 'N Stuff, we will have a new piece of glass next week. For now, our Red Green-inspired cover on the door functions...
So we get all of that cleaned up, prepare dinner, and are dishing ourselves up a nice steak meal. I pop in The Nightmare Before Christmas while Rich heads back out into the kitchen for drinks. He sets my ice tea and his can of cola on the coffee table and we plop down on the couch.
Hawthorne, trying to make nice, brings his big blue ball over, lays it on Rich's lap, then spins around to wait in the hall for us to throw it and...
SMACK! Dribble, dribble dribble...
- One glass of ice tea and one can of soda: $1.75
I get a rag to clean up the mess while Rich tries to rescue the pile of bills and magazines from the ever-growing flood of liquid. Hawthorne stares from the hallway, ears down, tail tucked between his legs. More like The Nightmare Before Dinner, I think, grabbing towels and soap.
After we get all that cleaned up, we eat a luke-warm steak dinner and discuss how we can't really punish him for being klutzy, no matter how out of character it seems. I gather the dirty dishes up and begin to walk them out to the kitchen and...
SLAM! Clatter!
- Two dishes, one glass, and a twisted ankle: $15
This time Hawthorne and Mary both look as if Satan himself had risen up from the floor. I look up from my half-kneeled position, shattered bits of glass and dish shimmering around me, to see them cowering under the kitchen table--their chosen hiding spot after trying to race me out to the kitchen.
"What in the hell has gotten into you guys!!" I scream. I'm at my wits end! This is the THIRD dog-created mess in less than four hours! I know people with toddlers who don't clean this much!
"Calm down, it was only an accident. There's no need to yell," Rich says, reaching for the broom--again.
I couldn't help myself--a line from one of my most favorite television shows drifted into my head and out of my mouth before I could stop it: "I wouldn't have to yell if they were such stupid, klutzoid, DUMB-HEADED NONG-NONGS!!!!
"What?" Rich was truly puzzled.
I busted up laughing, the anger leaving my body as quickly as it entered. It's a good thing, too. Otherwise I may have pulled a slightly different quote form the same source:
"You know, I'm beginning to think we don't need a dog. Or maybe, we need a new dog. Or maybe, we need a CAT!"
With a cat, at least, I probably wouldn't have to yell...
As much...
Who am I kidding?
For everything else, there's Mater Card...
Pardon me for belaboring the point. After all, all I'm doing is bitch-bitch-bitch, while you all are trying to get on with your Voter Tested, Christian Approved™ lives...
But I'm wondering--now that religious right-wing radicals have decided to prevent "fake" weddings and "fraudulent" marriages between the gays, I'm wondering when they'll come for the atheists--after all, they get married all the time without god being involved. Buddhists, Hindus, Jews--all heathens and pagans according to fundamental Christianity, and thus, since their marriages are not "of god," they must all be fake marriages, yeah? Will they next try to get that on the ballot: "Should any person who wishes to enter into a contract of marriage be required to prove their membership into a Church approved by a Council created by the Transatlantic Baptists-Protestant Alliance? Yes or No?"
Prisoners have the right to get married, whether incarcerated or not. Murderers, child rapists, money launderers, petty thieves...
You do know that there are also interfaith marriages? Jews marrying Catholics. Hindus marrying Lutherans. Jehovah's Witnesses getting hitched to Mormons. Apparently all shams! Do they not know the Bible says "Thou shall not be unevenly yoked"?
I suppose the key difference being they usually each bring one penis and one vagina during the "genital role-call" requirements (the little known verse following "unevenly yoked" says "especially with two penises or vaginas..."). All marriages must now start with this, you know: "Will the alleged bride and alleged groom please lift skirts and drop trousers? After all, we wouldn't want the Church invading our Hunka-Hunka Burning Love Wedding Chapel and Tackle Shop for performing sham marriages. Elvis, please check the junk, if you would be so kind..."
I mean, if my life and my choice of spouse must be put up for a vote, I demand the right to vote for or against everyone else's marriages--I mean, doesn't this mean that no one should get to choose their spouse? I move for a Constitutional Amendment to have only arranged marriages. And a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw divorce. I move for a Constitutional Amendment for all persons unapproved for marriage be posted on a public web page so that all true, pre-approved for marriage persons can know which neighborhoods to avoid. A Constitutional Amendment to prevent atheists, gays, Hindus, Jehovah's Witnesses, and all other "questionable" or out-right wrong persons from living within four miles of a church that is stamped "Straight Tested and God Approved™."
Sound silly? So does declaring individual rights are up for a "democratic" vote.
Remember that the next time you wish to make a personal decision: "What would 52% of the population do? Would they approve?"
Get enough signatures, and we can put it to a vote. Fuck individual freedom--let mob rule reign forever... Under the guise of democracy, of course.
The above bumper sticker, and many other great T-shirts, hats, and other nifty items can be found at Cafe Press. Shop now before their inventory is put up for a vote...
UPDATE:
The Mormon Church is now calling for "civility" as protesters called them out for their bigotry:
"The church calls on those involved in the debate over same sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other," the church said in a statement. "No one on either side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information."
Yes, we weren't vilified, were we? In the weeks leading up to the vote, when the Mormon Church raised $20 million of the overall $75 million in an effort to prevent marriages which have no impact on them, I'm sure they were completely civil, right? They didn't say things like - "Children in public schools will have to be taught that same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage." (a lie...)
- "Churches may be sued over their tax exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public." (a lie...)
- "Religions that sponsor private schools with married student housing may be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if counter to church doctrine, or risk lawsuits over tax exemptions and related benefits." (a lie...)
- "Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages may be sued for hate speech and risk government fines." (a lie...)
- "It will cost you money. This change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits, including some already lost." (Biggest lie yet...) (Source.)
The Mormon Church was the biggest supporter of Prop 8, and the largest infraction of church into politics in United States history. And now that they are done lying and won their Prop 8 passage, now they want to be "civil"? Now they want "respect"? They don't want "erroneous information" spread about them? About THEM?!
So much for "Thou shalt not bear false witness." Anything goes when "traditional marriage" is on the line, but as soon as the battle is over?
[...] Frank Schubert, the campaign manager for Protect Marriage, the leading group being Proposition 8 called the commercial a "blatant show of religious bigotry" because the protesters feel comfortable attacking a group that makes up a small percentage of the population.
"They think they can get away with it," he said, adding that other religious denominations are condemning the commercial. The Mormon church denounced the ad.
To paraphrase, "Hey, we're allowed to beat up on small percentages of the population, but YOU GAYS are NOT!"
Perhaps they'll put that up for a vote in four more years...
The so-called "Family Research Council" (which does neither research nor is for real families) issued the following in a mass email:
At LDS headquarters in Utah, leaders called for a ceasefire with gay activists and "goodwill" on both sides. Unfortunately, that message has yet to stick with the "No on 8" crowd, which has lashed out with unprecedented aggression against the faith community.
Gee, I wonder why that could be? What would lil ol homosexuals like me have against "the faith community"? Let's give that one some thought... And for the record, it isn't against "the faith community," it's against the religious bigots community--get a clue, Tony Perkins. But Tony continues:
FRC is proud of the example that the interfaith community has set on marriage. If the Prop 8 outcome is any indication, homosexuals could stand to learn a thing or two from the church on civility.
If lying about how you are the victims in this fight, selling out your beliefs for "the greater good," and spending millions of dollars against gay marriage that could have fed thousands of hungry families and housed hundreds of homeless persons, than yes, I suppose we could all learn a thing from you--
Pay attention everyone--you have just learned how to be an asshole for god, courtesy of the Family Research Council and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All in the name of civility, of course. No really--they voted on it.
