Life, Liberty, Property
Not only inalienable rights; but the basis for all human action and interaction.
What people live for, die for, and kill for. This principle doesn't only apply to humans but all life.
Animals seek to defend against anything that threatens their life, liberty and property. They will even kill to protect these things.
Humans are animals. We live by the same basic principles as other animals do. We will do whatever it takes to protect our life, liberty, and property. What's different is The threats aren't as cut and dry as they are in the rest of the animal kingdom. We have to decide if the threat is great enough to warrant taking another's inalienable rights. There really is no such thing as a perceived threat to other animals. If the lion sees you, it's going to try to eat you. Lions stalk to kill, not to terrorize.
The only difference between humans and animals is method (technology) and assuming other people care what we think (higher language). The desires are the same; have and will always be the same. Eat, sleep, fuck, live.
In human society, we've created a system, justice, that allows authority figures to decide if these rights are actually being infringed upon and the proper retribution for that infringement.
We've decided that a civil society can not allow individuals to take away another's life, liberty, and property without the consent of the rest of society (due process of law). Even if one kills in defense of their own life, it is still brought before a court so others can validate the act.
31 July 2008
14 July 2008
Curing the fool
"It is better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt." Quote by IDK.
Clever quote but I find it doesn't work well for me. In my life I find that a silent fool remains a fool. A vocal fool, who is around good people, will get called out on their bullshit; thus educating the fool.
I tend to talk out of my ass a lot. There is an advantage to this. I have all these preconceived notions that go unchallenged when I keep them to myself. If I say something and get criticism, it makes me delve deeper into my beliefs. I then research and question and sometimes find that my perception needs to change or at least broaden a bit.
So, if I sound like a moron, well, that's because I am... But, I'm always improving.
Clever quote but I find it doesn't work well for me. In my life I find that a silent fool remains a fool. A vocal fool, who is around good people, will get called out on their bullshit; thus educating the fool.
I tend to talk out of my ass a lot. There is an advantage to this. I have all these preconceived notions that go unchallenged when I keep them to myself. If I say something and get criticism, it makes me delve deeper into my beliefs. I then research and question and sometimes find that my perception needs to change or at least broaden a bit.
So, if I sound like a moron, well, that's because I am... But, I'm always improving.
07 July 2008
Our Deepest Fear
Our Deepest Fear
By Marianne Williamson
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
It is our light, not our darkness
That most frightens us.
We ask ourselves
Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous?
Actually, who are you not to be?
You are a child of God.
Your playing small
Does not serve the world.
There's nothing enlightened about shrinking
So that other people won't feel insecure around you.
We are all meant to shine,
As children do.
We were born to make manifest
The glory of God that is within us.
It's not just in some of us;
It's in everyone.
And as we let our own light shine,
We unconsciously give other people permission to do the same.
As we're liberated from our own fear,
Our presence automatically liberates others.
By Marianne Williamson
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
It is our light, not our darkness
That most frightens us.
We ask ourselves
Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous?
Actually, who are you not to be?
You are a child of God.
Your playing small
Does not serve the world.
There's nothing enlightened about shrinking
So that other people won't feel insecure around you.
We are all meant to shine,
As children do.
We were born to make manifest
The glory of God that is within us.
It's not just in some of us;
It's in everyone.
And as we let our own light shine,
We unconsciously give other people permission to do the same.
As we're liberated from our own fear,
Our presence automatically liberates others.
29 June 2008
Activist Judges
Activist judge definition: a judge that makes a decision I don't agree with. But seriously folks...
As I understand it, there's a process to all of this.
A person or group of people are involved in a local trial. The judge/jury decides against them. They still think they are in the right, so they appeal. This goes to a higher court where a judge/jury will hear the case and either uphold the lower court's decision or reverse it. Their decision is based on the interpretation of the law in question and the state's constitution. The defendant/plantiff can possibly continue the process of appeals up to the Supreme Court. Each higher court can decide not to hear the case. If it gets that far, the Supreme Court will decide if the ruling is constitutional.
The executive administration does things that are unconstitutional all the time. Our legislature (local and federal) makes unconstitutional laws all the time. The people vote for things that are unconstitutional all the time. The only branch of government we can really count on to protect our rights and privileges is the judicial branch. That's the only place where you, as an individual, can secure your rights against the majority.
To me, a perfect judge ensures a decision is in line with the constitution; despite what the majority (congress and the president) thinks. The problem is figuring out if the constitution should be interpreted as the founders would have; or should the judge factor in current culture. I think the constitution is a 'timeless' document (living constitution) that can be interpreted to secure the rights of the people with the current culture in mind. Logically, there are some things that we are dealing with now that the founders couldn't have fathomed.
As I research, apparently that makes me an opponent of judicial restraint; which is defined as upholding the law even if it does violate the rights of the plantiff/defendant. Apparently, if a law isn't glaringly unconstitutional, then the court is supposed to uphold the law.
I am a proponent of judicial activism. Since culture has changed a lot since the constitution was written, some cases don't allow for a strict interpretation of the constitution. It's still apparent that a right has been violated in some way.
Some define an activist judge as someone who legislates from the bench.
Or someone who makes decisions based on their personal ideology; disregarding the constitution, precedence, or law.
I think Habeas Corpus and the 2nd amendment are pretty clear cut. I agree with the court's decision in both cases.
If the people don't like it then they need to change the constitution; making sure it's in line with the rest of the constitution or else it's just going to be repealed later.
As I understand it, there's a process to all of this.
A person or group of people are involved in a local trial. The judge/jury decides against them. They still think they are in the right, so they appeal. This goes to a higher court where a judge/jury will hear the case and either uphold the lower court's decision or reverse it. Their decision is based on the interpretation of the law in question and the state's constitution. The defendant/plantiff can possibly continue the process of appeals up to the Supreme Court. Each higher court can decide not to hear the case. If it gets that far, the Supreme Court will decide if the ruling is constitutional.
The executive administration does things that are unconstitutional all the time. Our legislature (local and federal) makes unconstitutional laws all the time. The people vote for things that are unconstitutional all the time. The only branch of government we can really count on to protect our rights and privileges is the judicial branch. That's the only place where you, as an individual, can secure your rights against the majority.
To me, a perfect judge ensures a decision is in line with the constitution; despite what the majority (congress and the president) thinks. The problem is figuring out if the constitution should be interpreted as the founders would have; or should the judge factor in current culture. I think the constitution is a 'timeless' document (living constitution) that can be interpreted to secure the rights of the people with the current culture in mind. Logically, there are some things that we are dealing with now that the founders couldn't have fathomed.
As I research, apparently that makes me an opponent of judicial restraint; which is defined as upholding the law even if it does violate the rights of the plantiff/defendant. Apparently, if a law isn't glaringly unconstitutional, then the court is supposed to uphold the law.
I am a proponent of judicial activism. Since culture has changed a lot since the constitution was written, some cases don't allow for a strict interpretation of the constitution. It's still apparent that a right has been violated in some way.
Some define an activist judge as someone who legislates from the bench.
Or someone who makes decisions based on their personal ideology; disregarding the constitution, precedence, or law.
I think Habeas Corpus and the 2nd amendment are pretty clear cut. I agree with the court's decision in both cases.
If the people don't like it then they need to change the constitution; making sure it's in line with the rest of the constitution or else it's just going to be repealed later.
01 June 2008
New American Imperialism
Looks a little something like this...
There's a country that has a resource you want. You talk to the leader and see if you can negotiate some sort of covert control over that resource.
That leader (or their successor) decides they don't want to negotiate anymore.
You become friendly with the rebels or other countries that are enemies to this leader.
You give them money, weapons, training. They overthrow the uncooperative leader.
You insert a leader that is in line with your wishes. Or you tolerate the rebel leader as long as they don't interfere with your control.
Or some country decides to invade another or a leader becomes too tyrannical
We offer to help the people resist. We build training camps, bases, whatever we need.
Then we win, then we stay. Then they get pissed at us and we have to get rid of them
There's a country that has a resource you want. You talk to the leader and see if you can negotiate some sort of covert control over that resource.
That leader (or their successor) decides they don't want to negotiate anymore.
You become friendly with the rebels or other countries that are enemies to this leader.
You give them money, weapons, training. They overthrow the uncooperative leader.
You insert a leader that is in line with your wishes. Or you tolerate the rebel leader as long as they don't interfere with your control.
Or some country decides to invade another or a leader becomes too tyrannical
We offer to help the people resist. We build training camps, bases, whatever we need.
Then we win, then we stay. Then they get pissed at us and we have to get rid of them
24 May 2008
Cultivate Love
So I'm looking to cultivate love and compassion in my life. I figure there is a simple process to attain that goal.
1. Stop being an asshole.
In other words, don't hurt people on purpose. Gossiping, fighting, judging, criticizing, being an all around jerk. Manipulating, cheating, lying, using others. Just stop it.
2. Be considerate of others
Think before you act. Determine if your words or actions will cause harm to another person. This is to combat actions that unintentionally hurt others.
3. Live a life of love
Everything you do should be for the benefit of others. To alleviate their suffering and help them reach their potential.
1. Stop being an asshole.
In other words, don't hurt people on purpose. Gossiping, fighting, judging, criticizing, being an all around jerk. Manipulating, cheating, lying, using others. Just stop it.
2. Be considerate of others
Think before you act. Determine if your words or actions will cause harm to another person. This is to combat actions that unintentionally hurt others.
3. Live a life of love
Everything you do should be for the benefit of others. To alleviate their suffering and help them reach their potential.
22 May 2008
Playing straight
So a show that doesn't deserve to be named on my blog (one that I watch as if I were a meth-head) got me thinking about female sexuality.
The main character of the show is supposedly bisexual. People often question her bisexuality because she could be acting this way to gain attention.
Most of us have had the pleasure/displeasure of seeing the girls dancing on the bar and giving each other an exaggerated snog. Usually this is just a wanna-be pornstar mating call. "hello guys, look at us, we're sexy, we'll fulfill your fantasies."
Then there are the women who will have threesomes in hopes of keeping their man interested.
Point being, there are many reasons a woman will engage in sexual behavior with another woman; some of them have nothing to do with genuine sexual attraction.
That got me wondering about the many reasons women are sexual with men but may not really be into it.
There's this mythical phenomenon called Lesbian Bed Death. It's when two women get into a relationship and after a while they stop having sex.
I found this funny because it sounds the same as what happens in many heterosexual marriages.
When there are problems in the bedroom, many people like to point to low sex drive in the women.
I wonder if she was ever sexually attracted to him in the first place.
Women get married for a lot of reasons; maybe I haven't been paying attention, but, sexual attraction doesn't seem to be high on that list of reasons.
I know this sounds like the whole "all women are bisexual" cliche; but it's not.
I wonder if women aren't looking for mr. right but mr. good enough, in terms of sexual attraction.
It's more about women who use sex as a tool to get other things they want. This behavior clouds ideas about women's sexuality. That many women's sexual activity have little to do with their sexual attraction.
To balance it out, Men seem to be able to have sex with anything with legs and an accessible hole, if the need is strong enough. It's well within the nature, of some men, to have sex with a woman that he has no interest in (some women can do this too).
I'm not judging, I'm just making an observation.
And yes, I know that plenty of women who get moist just looking at their man. Great.
Update: Get a load of this: Medical News: Many Women with Sexual Dysfunction Simply Don't Care ...
The main character of the show is supposedly bisexual. People often question her bisexuality because she could be acting this way to gain attention.
Most of us have had the pleasure/displeasure of seeing the girls dancing on the bar and giving each other an exaggerated snog. Usually this is just a wanna-be pornstar mating call. "hello guys, look at us, we're sexy, we'll fulfill your fantasies."
Then there are the women who will have threesomes in hopes of keeping their man interested.
Point being, there are many reasons a woman will engage in sexual behavior with another woman; some of them have nothing to do with genuine sexual attraction.
That got me wondering about the many reasons women are sexual with men but may not really be into it.
There's this mythical phenomenon called Lesbian Bed Death. It's when two women get into a relationship and after a while they stop having sex.
I found this funny because it sounds the same as what happens in many heterosexual marriages.
When there are problems in the bedroom, many people like to point to low sex drive in the women.
I wonder if she was ever sexually attracted to him in the first place.
Women get married for a lot of reasons; maybe I haven't been paying attention, but, sexual attraction doesn't seem to be high on that list of reasons.
I know this sounds like the whole "all women are bisexual" cliche; but it's not.
I wonder if women aren't looking for mr. right but mr. good enough, in terms of sexual attraction.
It's more about women who use sex as a tool to get other things they want. This behavior clouds ideas about women's sexuality. That many women's sexual activity have little to do with their sexual attraction.
To balance it out, Men seem to be able to have sex with anything with legs and an accessible hole, if the need is strong enough. It's well within the nature, of some men, to have sex with a woman that he has no interest in (some women can do this too).
I'm not judging, I'm just making an observation.
And yes, I know that plenty of women who get moist just looking at their man. Great.
Update: Get a load of this: Medical News: Many Women with Sexual Dysfunction Simply Don't Care ...
03 May 2008
13 April 2008
Hormones and Gender/Sexuality
I'd like for someone to confirm or correct my theory.
The way I see it. An embryo is initially genderless. In about 6 weeks, the body has produced germ cells that can turn into sperm or eggs. The body has everything it needs to be either male or female; even both male and female hormones. This is why men have nipples and women have a clitoris.
The genes start giving instructions to the gonads. If you have a Y chromosome, the SRY gene will turn on and tell your body to produce a lot of androgens. These androgens act on your gonads, degenerating the ducts that would create the uterus and growing the ducts that will create the testes.
If you have two x chromosomes, your body will create female genitalia because there are not enough androgens to promote male genitalia.
More importantly, androgens also affect brain development.
So in actuality, the only function of genetics is to tell your body what hormones to promote and when.
If you have a y chromosome and something blocks the process (not enough androgens are produced or they are not produced at the right time), you may develop female genitalia.
If you have a x chromosome and somehow androgens are introduced into your body (maybe from your mother), you may develop male genitalia. Both of these situations are more likely to cause intersex conditions.
I'll also fit sexual orientation in the equation. That a slight or gross variation in the what, when, where, and how much can affect our sexual orientation.
So taking hormones actually does a lot to reverse the process from MTF or FTM. I've heard that the traditional male and female thought patterns (motor skills and emotional response) change when people are on hormones.
The reason we don't completely turn into the opposite sex is because of timing. Sexual development in utero is timed pretty precisely. I also think hormone balance before and during puberty is key to sexual development.
This leads me to believe that male and female are two extremes at the ends of a broad spectrum or continuum. It's why no two vaginas are alike and not all penises are the same size. Everyone doesn't identify with the genitalia they were born with and Everyone isn't exclusively attracted to the opposite sex.
Hormones are the primary controller of biological sex. I think it's a lot more than we realize. I think they determine anything that has to do with gender and sexuality.
I think gene expression is very complex. It is amazing that a gene would turn on, turning on other genes and give instructions that tell your body how much hormones to produce and when.
My idea is that genetic control could be overridden by artificial introduction of hormones.
Chemistry is not an exact science. There is great variation in chemical reactions. I believe if you mix two substances, the product is never exactly the same mixture. This may be true of hormones. Timing and "dosage" are crucial. Any variation of either would explain spectrum between two extremes.
The way I see it. An embryo is initially genderless. In about 6 weeks, the body has produced germ cells that can turn into sperm or eggs. The body has everything it needs to be either male or female; even both male and female hormones. This is why men have nipples and women have a clitoris.
The genes start giving instructions to the gonads. If you have a Y chromosome, the SRY gene will turn on and tell your body to produce a lot of androgens. These androgens act on your gonads, degenerating the ducts that would create the uterus and growing the ducts that will create the testes.
If you have two x chromosomes, your body will create female genitalia because there are not enough androgens to promote male genitalia.
More importantly, androgens also affect brain development.
So in actuality, the only function of genetics is to tell your body what hormones to promote and when.
If you have a y chromosome and something blocks the process (not enough androgens are produced or they are not produced at the right time), you may develop female genitalia.
If you have a x chromosome and somehow androgens are introduced into your body (maybe from your mother), you may develop male genitalia. Both of these situations are more likely to cause intersex conditions.
I'll also fit sexual orientation in the equation. That a slight or gross variation in the what, when, where, and how much can affect our sexual orientation.
So taking hormones actually does a lot to reverse the process from MTF or FTM. I've heard that the traditional male and female thought patterns (motor skills and emotional response) change when people are on hormones.
The reason we don't completely turn into the opposite sex is because of timing. Sexual development in utero is timed pretty precisely. I also think hormone balance before and during puberty is key to sexual development.
This leads me to believe that male and female are two extremes at the ends of a broad spectrum or continuum. It's why no two vaginas are alike and not all penises are the same size. Everyone doesn't identify with the genitalia they were born with and Everyone isn't exclusively attracted to the opposite sex.
Hormones are the primary controller of biological sex. I think it's a lot more than we realize. I think they determine anything that has to do with gender and sexuality.
I think gene expression is very complex. It is amazing that a gene would turn on, turning on other genes and give instructions that tell your body how much hormones to produce and when.
My idea is that genetic control could be overridden by artificial introduction of hormones.
Chemistry is not an exact science. There is great variation in chemical reactions. I believe if you mix two substances, the product is never exactly the same mixture. This may be true of hormones. Timing and "dosage" are crucial. Any variation of either would explain spectrum between two extremes.
06 April 2008
creationism vs. Evolution
I don't get the big fuss.
I think creationism should be taught along with Evolution.
It's the perfect example of hypothesis versus theory.
Creationism is the null hypothesis. "The null hypothesis, H0, represents a theory that has been put forward, either because it is believed to be true or because it is to be used as a basis for argument, but has not been proved." (from the statistics glossary)
Evolution is the theory. "A theory is a generalization based on many observations and experiments; a well-tested, verified hypothesis that fits existing data and explains how processes or events are thought to occur. It is a basis for predicting future events or discoveries. Theories may be modified as new information is gained. "(from )
I think creationism should be taught along with Evolution.
It's the perfect example of hypothesis versus theory.
Creationism is the null hypothesis. "The null hypothesis, H0, represents a theory that has been put forward, either because it is believed to be true or because it is to be used as a basis for argument, but has not been proved." (from the statistics glossary)
Evolution is the theory. "A theory is a generalization based on many observations and experiments; a well-tested, verified hypothesis that fits existing data and explains how processes or events are thought to occur. It is a basis for predicting future events or discoveries. Theories may be modified as new information is gained. "(from )
05 April 2008
Proselytizing
That word gives me so much trouble. Can't spell it, can't pronounce it without looking at it.
And I sure as hell can't stand it... From anyone.
Everyone knows it's annoying when Christians do it. What I've discovered is, it's just as annoying when atheist do it too.
Yes, science is great, now shut the fuck up.
Maybe because I'm a pluralist; but I don't see why people can't just live their lives and enjoy their faiths (or lack thereof) and just shut up about it. If I want to find Jesus, I'll have my people call your people.
My reasoning skills are perfectly intact; thank you very much. Believing in spirituality does not make me stupid.
Must you put down another person's beliefs in order to be secure in your own?
Apparently there's some big fight because Christians are treating atheist like a disenfranchised minority group; and atheist are trying to take over the country and not allow Christians to practice their religion; a.k.a stealing Christmas.
Honestly, they both sound like a bunch of whiny bitches.
Maybe it's because I can't stand people telling me (or others) who I am, who I should be, or what I should believe. Really chaps my hide.
And I sure as hell can't stand it... From anyone.
Everyone knows it's annoying when Christians do it. What I've discovered is, it's just as annoying when atheist do it too.
Yes, science is great, now shut the fuck up.
Maybe because I'm a pluralist; but I don't see why people can't just live their lives and enjoy their faiths (or lack thereof) and just shut up about it. If I want to find Jesus, I'll have my people call your people.
My reasoning skills are perfectly intact; thank you very much. Believing in spirituality does not make me stupid.
Must you put down another person's beliefs in order to be secure in your own?
Apparently there's some big fight because Christians are treating atheist like a disenfranchised minority group; and atheist are trying to take over the country and not allow Christians to practice their religion; a.k.a stealing Christmas.
Honestly, they both sound like a bunch of whiny bitches.
Maybe it's because I can't stand people telling me (or others) who I am, who I should be, or what I should believe. Really chaps my hide.
04 April 2008
Keep your outrage. We need solutions
I'm so tired of people complaining and being offended and outraged. But that's all they have.
They have no answers, no solutions.
If you're gonna bitch about something, help solve it. Or shut up.
They have no answers, no solutions.
If you're gonna bitch about something, help solve it. Or shut up.
Representative Government
Bush wants to turn our government assistance over to the churches. Bush who's familiar with the mega churches but not the local church that can barely keep it's doors open.
What we have is a government ruled by the wealthy. Ruled by corporations rather than people. Where an individual has little say; one must form a money making lobby in order to get anything done.
A representative should listen to their constituency and do what they can to meet their needs. This involves understanding their obstacle, needs, resources, goals.
All this while keeping in line with the Constitution. Making sure the masses don't infringe on the rights of the minority. Every representative should be available for summons to a public hearing. Representatives should be made to answer to their voters.
What we have is a government ruled by the wealthy. Ruled by corporations rather than people. Where an individual has little say; one must form a money making lobby in order to get anything done.
A representative should listen to their constituency and do what they can to meet their needs. This involves understanding their obstacle, needs, resources, goals.
All this while keeping in line with the Constitution. Making sure the masses don't infringe on the rights of the minority. Every representative should be available for summons to a public hearing. Representatives should be made to answer to their voters.
25 March 2008
Waste of space
Why are we wasting our money putting people in jail who don't need to be there. Drug users, prostitutes, perjurers,
So what costs less... educating a kid or incarcerating them? Why is it that most people in jail don't have a high school education?
The only people who need to be in jail are people who are threat to others.
This country needs more community service.
Drug users need medical attention not incarceration.
So what costs less... educating a kid or incarcerating them? Why is it that most people in jail don't have a high school education?
The only people who need to be in jail are people who are threat to others.
This country needs more community service.
Drug users need medical attention not incarceration.
The Rapist Checklist
over at BitingBeaver a blogger posted the Rapist Checklist.
Apparently, people don't like to be called a rapist. She had to restrict her blog because of threatening comments.
I'd like to call it the "Some Shit You Should Never Do" list.
I think this list is about self respect. What self respecting human being would do things like this? I know it happens a lot. Some of the things have happened to me. I had to reflect and admit that the situation was fucked up and if I had any respect for myself, I wouldn't let it happen.
I only want to be with people who want to be with me. I'd feel like shit if I had to beg, coerce, or trick anyone into having sex with me.
Now this list is supposedly speaking to a male audience. The only people who appreciate it are women who've had to deal with this.
I think this list is universal and genderless. Anyone can perpetrate these acts. Anyone can be a victim.
I think everyone should use this list for self reflection. I'm not saying you should turn yourself into the police. That'd be a bit ludicrous.
But just to say, "man I remember that... That was pretty fucked up".
1. You are a rapist if you get a girl drunk and have sex with her.
2. You are a rapist if you find a drunk girl and have sex with her.
3. You are a rapist if you get yourself drunk too and have sex with her. Your drunkenness is no excuse.
4. If you are BOTH drunk you may still be a rapist.
5. If she’s alternating between puking her guts out and passing out in the bed then you’re a rapist.
6. If she’s sleeping and you have sex with her you’re a rapist.
7. If she’s unconscious and you have sex with her then you’re a rapist.
8. If she’s taking sleeping pills and doesn’t wake up when you have sex with her then you’re a rapist.
9. If she is incapacitated in any way and unable to say ‘Yes’ then you’re a rapist.
10. If you drug her then you’re a rapist.
11. If you find a drugged girl and have sex with her then you’re a rapist.
12. If you don’t bother to ask her permission and she says neither ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ then you could be a rapist.
13. You are a rapist if you ‘nag’ her for sex. Because you manage to ply an eventual ‘yes’ from a weary victim doesn’t mean it’s not rape. You are a rapist.
14. You are a rapist if you try to circumvent her “No” by talking her into it. She’s not playing hard to get, and, even if she IS it’s not YOUR responsibility to ‘get’ her. You’re still a rapist.
15. You are a rapist if you manipulate her into sex when she doesn’t otherwise want it. If you say, “If you loved me you’d do X” then you’re a rapist. If you say, “All the other kids are doing it!” then you’re a rapist.
16. If you threaten her, or act in a way that SHE thinks you’re threatening her then you’re a rapist. If you puff up and get loud and frustrated while trying to ‘talk’ her into sex then you’re a rapist.
17. You are a rapist if you don’t immediately get your hands off of her when she says ‘no’. You are a rapist if you take your hands off of her and then put them back ON her after 10 minutes and she eventually ‘gives in’ to this tactic.
18. You are a rapist if you won’t let her sleep peacefully without waking her every 15 minutes asking her for sex. Sleep depravation is a form of torture and YOU are a rapist.
19. If you’re necking with her and you’re naked and you’ve already gone down on her and she says ‘No’ to sex with you and you have sex with her anyway then you’re a rapist.
20. If you’re engaged in intercourse and she says ‘No’ at ANY point and you don’t immediately stop then you’re a rapist.
21. If she said “Yes” to sex with a condom and that condom breaks and you proceed anyway then you’re a rapist.
22. If she picked you up at a bar looking for sex and then decides that she doesn’t WANT sex and you continue then you’re a rapist.
23. If she changes her mind at ANY point for ANY reason and you don’t immediately back off or you try to talk her into it and get sex anyway then you’re a rapist.
24. If you don’t hit her and she says ‘No’ you’re still a rapist.
25. If you don’t have a knife or a gun or a garrote and she says ‘No’ then you’re still a rapist.
26. If you’re a friend of hers you can still be a rapist.
27. If you had sex with her the night before but she doesn’t want morning sex and you pressure her for it anyway then you’re a rapist.
28. If you’re her husband you can still be a rapist.
29. If it’s your wedding night and she doesn’t WANT to have sex with you and you force or coerce her anyway then you’re a rapist.
30. If she’s had sex with you hundreds of times before but doesn’t want to on the 101st time then you’re a rapist.
31. If you penetrate her anally, orally or digitally against her will then YOU my friend, are ALSO a rapist.
32. Women do not owe you sex.
33. Buying her dinner does not entitle you to sex.
34. Paying her mortgage does not entitle you to sex.
35. Buying her clothing does not entitle you to sex.
36. Buying her lingerie does not entitle you to sex. It also doesn’t mean that she has any obligation to wear that lingerie around you.
37. Spending any amount of money on her does not, ever, entitle you to sex.
38. Seeing her legs or cleavage does not entitle you to sex.
39. If she ‘turns you on’ you’re not entitled to sex.
40. If she has fucked every man in a 10 square mile radius and she doesn’t want to fuck you and you have sex with her anyway, then you’re a rapist.
41. Her clothing is not a reason for you to rape her. Her LACK of clothing is no reason to rape her. If she’s wearing a thong and pasties you STILL have no right to rape her.
42. If she’s a prostitute and she says “No” then you’re a rapist.
43. If she’s a stripper and she says “No” then you’re a rapist. Likewise, if she’s a stripper and she’s been rubbing against your &!#@ all night long and you follow her to her car and have sex with her against her will then you are ALSO a rapist.
44. If you watch a woman being raped without calling the authorities then you’re as bad as a rapist and you may also be a rapist yourself.
45. If you don’t fight rape then you accept rape.
46. If you don’t believe a woman when she says she was raped then you’re encouraging rape.
47. If you choose to remain friends with a man who raped a woman you are encouraging rape.
48. If you confess to the authorities that you raped a woman it does not exonerate you. You are not suddenly a model of good behavior.
49. If you ‘only’ raped one woman, you’re STILL a rapist.
50. You cannot tell who is a rapist by the way they look. Rapists are your friends, your brothers, your fathers and you won’t know it.
51. Do not get frustrated with a woman if she doesn’t trust you. SHE already knows that rapists don’t wear signs on their foreheads. Something you think is innocuous SHE may find terrifying.
Apparently, people don't like to be called a rapist. She had to restrict her blog because of threatening comments.
I'd like to call it the "Some Shit You Should Never Do" list.
I think this list is about self respect. What self respecting human being would do things like this? I know it happens a lot. Some of the things have happened to me. I had to reflect and admit that the situation was fucked up and if I had any respect for myself, I wouldn't let it happen.
I only want to be with people who want to be with me. I'd feel like shit if I had to beg, coerce, or trick anyone into having sex with me.
Now this list is supposedly speaking to a male audience. The only people who appreciate it are women who've had to deal with this.
I think this list is universal and genderless. Anyone can perpetrate these acts. Anyone can be a victim.
I think everyone should use this list for self reflection. I'm not saying you should turn yourself into the police. That'd be a bit ludicrous.
But just to say, "man I remember that... That was pretty fucked up".
1. You are a rapist if you get a girl drunk and have sex with her.
2. You are a rapist if you find a drunk girl and have sex with her.
3. You are a rapist if you get yourself drunk too and have sex with her. Your drunkenness is no excuse.
4. If you are BOTH drunk you may still be a rapist.
5. If she’s alternating between puking her guts out and passing out in the bed then you’re a rapist.
6. If she’s sleeping and you have sex with her you’re a rapist.
7. If she’s unconscious and you have sex with her then you’re a rapist.
8. If she’s taking sleeping pills and doesn’t wake up when you have sex with her then you’re a rapist.
9. If she is incapacitated in any way and unable to say ‘Yes’ then you’re a rapist.
10. If you drug her then you’re a rapist.
11. If you find a drugged girl and have sex with her then you’re a rapist.
12. If you don’t bother to ask her permission and she says neither ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ then you could be a rapist.
13. You are a rapist if you ‘nag’ her for sex. Because you manage to ply an eventual ‘yes’ from a weary victim doesn’t mean it’s not rape. You are a rapist.
14. You are a rapist if you try to circumvent her “No” by talking her into it. She’s not playing hard to get, and, even if she IS it’s not YOUR responsibility to ‘get’ her. You’re still a rapist.
15. You are a rapist if you manipulate her into sex when she doesn’t otherwise want it. If you say, “If you loved me you’d do X” then you’re a rapist. If you say, “All the other kids are doing it!” then you’re a rapist.
16. If you threaten her, or act in a way that SHE thinks you’re threatening her then you’re a rapist. If you puff up and get loud and frustrated while trying to ‘talk’ her into sex then you’re a rapist.
17. You are a rapist if you don’t immediately get your hands off of her when she says ‘no’. You are a rapist if you take your hands off of her and then put them back ON her after 10 minutes and she eventually ‘gives in’ to this tactic.
18. You are a rapist if you won’t let her sleep peacefully without waking her every 15 minutes asking her for sex. Sleep depravation is a form of torture and YOU are a rapist.
19. If you’re necking with her and you’re naked and you’ve already gone down on her and she says ‘No’ to sex with you and you have sex with her anyway then you’re a rapist.
20. If you’re engaged in intercourse and she says ‘No’ at ANY point and you don’t immediately stop then you’re a rapist.
21. If she said “Yes” to sex with a condom and that condom breaks and you proceed anyway then you’re a rapist.
22. If she picked you up at a bar looking for sex and then decides that she doesn’t WANT sex and you continue then you’re a rapist.
23. If she changes her mind at ANY point for ANY reason and you don’t immediately back off or you try to talk her into it and get sex anyway then you’re a rapist.
24. If you don’t hit her and she says ‘No’ you’re still a rapist.
25. If you don’t have a knife or a gun or a garrote and she says ‘No’ then you’re still a rapist.
26. If you’re a friend of hers you can still be a rapist.
27. If you had sex with her the night before but she doesn’t want morning sex and you pressure her for it anyway then you’re a rapist.
28. If you’re her husband you can still be a rapist.
29. If it’s your wedding night and she doesn’t WANT to have sex with you and you force or coerce her anyway then you’re a rapist.
30. If she’s had sex with you hundreds of times before but doesn’t want to on the 101st time then you’re a rapist.
31. If you penetrate her anally, orally or digitally against her will then YOU my friend, are ALSO a rapist.
32. Women do not owe you sex.
33. Buying her dinner does not entitle you to sex.
34. Paying her mortgage does not entitle you to sex.
35. Buying her clothing does not entitle you to sex.
36. Buying her lingerie does not entitle you to sex. It also doesn’t mean that she has any obligation to wear that lingerie around you.
37. Spending any amount of money on her does not, ever, entitle you to sex.
38. Seeing her legs or cleavage does not entitle you to sex.
39. If she ‘turns you on’ you’re not entitled to sex.
40. If she has fucked every man in a 10 square mile radius and she doesn’t want to fuck you and you have sex with her anyway, then you’re a rapist.
41. Her clothing is not a reason for you to rape her. Her LACK of clothing is no reason to rape her. If she’s wearing a thong and pasties you STILL have no right to rape her.
42. If she’s a prostitute and she says “No” then you’re a rapist.
43. If she’s a stripper and she says “No” then you’re a rapist. Likewise, if she’s a stripper and she’s been rubbing against your &!#@ all night long and you follow her to her car and have sex with her against her will then you are ALSO a rapist.
44. If you watch a woman being raped without calling the authorities then you’re as bad as a rapist and you may also be a rapist yourself.
45. If you don’t fight rape then you accept rape.
46. If you don’t believe a woman when she says she was raped then you’re encouraging rape.
47. If you choose to remain friends with a man who raped a woman you are encouraging rape.
48. If you confess to the authorities that you raped a woman it does not exonerate you. You are not suddenly a model of good behavior.
49. If you ‘only’ raped one woman, you’re STILL a rapist.
50. You cannot tell who is a rapist by the way they look. Rapists are your friends, your brothers, your fathers and you won’t know it.
51. Do not get frustrated with a woman if she doesn’t trust you. SHE already knows that rapists don’t wear signs on their foreheads. Something you think is innocuous SHE may find terrifying.
Solution for Iraq?
It's all about autonomy. We should ask the Iraqi government if they want our presence. They could even put it up for a vote. They are supposed to be a democracy. If their vote was good enough to elect officials, it should be good enough to vote on other matters. Unless we are willing to admit that things have gotten worse and voting would not be a working option.
Really, I don't think anyone has been honest about the reasons we went into Iraq.
To protect our security. Their violation of sanctions. Their WMDs. Al Qaeda. Their oil. Revenge. Establishing a stronghold in the Middle East.
Whatever the reason, we went in and basically destroyed their country. Disposed of their government. Immediate withdrawal would be irresponsible. "Leave it like you found it". I wish: but, that's not possible. I think we're leaning towards "If you break it you bought it".
But is this something that can be fixed from afar? Do we really need troops dying to ensure our victory? Don't we have weapons systems that can pin point enemy targets and destroy them? Don't see why we have to make ourselves more vulnerable by sending all of our troops to a country whose fate is really out of our hands.
It's up to the Iraqi people to handle this situation by themselves.
UPDATE
Iraq insists on U.S. withdrawal timetable
Really, I don't think anyone has been honest about the reasons we went into Iraq.
To protect our security. Their violation of sanctions. Their WMDs. Al Qaeda. Their oil. Revenge. Establishing a stronghold in the Middle East.
Whatever the reason, we went in and basically destroyed their country. Disposed of their government. Immediate withdrawal would be irresponsible. "Leave it like you found it". I wish: but, that's not possible. I think we're leaning towards "If you break it you bought it".
But is this something that can be fixed from afar? Do we really need troops dying to ensure our victory? Don't we have weapons systems that can pin point enemy targets and destroy them? Don't see why we have to make ourselves more vulnerable by sending all of our troops to a country whose fate is really out of our hands.
It's up to the Iraqi people to handle this situation by themselves.
UPDATE
Iraq insists on U.S. withdrawal timetable
24 March 2008
Remember When Music was Art?
I like my music visceral.
I don't care for technical perfection.
I want someone to show me their heart through their song.
I don't care for technical perfection.
I want someone to show me their heart through their song.
Common Courtesy
I don't know if it's a regional thing or an age thing; but, it seems that common courtesy is fading fast in this country.
When I lived in Virginia, people would say hi when walking by each other on the street. I've gotten into the habit of saying, "How ya doing?" I guess this is a bit much. I really don't expect an answer; but, if they did, I would listen.
I've also started to say excuse me when I get into someone's personal space, I define that as being within arms reach.
Now living on the west coast, I've noticed that people tend to avoid eye contact when passing each other. But, I've noticed that older people will greet. Maybe it's a generational thing.
I also like to open doors for people. I heard that this is insulting to some people???? Wow. Well, how about not letting the door slam in the face of the person behind you? Is that respectful enough?
I think I'm the only one who will leave the room to answer my cell phone. Actually, I should silence it when I'm eating, in a meeting, or just conversing with an acquaintance.
We don't need to go over "please", "thank you", and "May I"
When I lived in Virginia, people would say hi when walking by each other on the street. I've gotten into the habit of saying, "How ya doing?" I guess this is a bit much. I really don't expect an answer; but, if they did, I would listen.
I've also started to say excuse me when I get into someone's personal space, I define that as being within arms reach.
Now living on the west coast, I've noticed that people tend to avoid eye contact when passing each other. But, I've noticed that older people will greet. Maybe it's a generational thing.
I also like to open doors for people. I heard that this is insulting to some people???? Wow. Well, how about not letting the door slam in the face of the person behind you? Is that respectful enough?
I think I'm the only one who will leave the room to answer my cell phone. Actually, I should silence it when I'm eating, in a meeting, or just conversing with an acquaintance.
We don't need to go over "please", "thank you", and "May I"
The Oppressed Oppressor
For some reason, people find it incredulous that someone who has been/is being oppressed would oppress others. Apparently people believe that being a victim of oppression builds some sense of compassion.
I'm going to have to go against this logic; based on observation and reasoning.
First, I've rarely seen someone who is empathetic to a cause that they have not directly/indirectly experienced. Lesbians advocate for lesbians, Blacks advocate for blacks, Cancer survivors advocate for cancer, etc...
The oppressed seem to be self-righteous in their oppression. There's an attitude of "your suffering is insignificant and doesn't compare to what I've been through. I've Had to fight my own battles, don't expect any sympathy."
It seems that the oppressed become so wrapped up in their oppression and the effort to fight it that they fail to recognize the suffering of others. More importantly, they fail to see how they make others suffer.
I'm going to have to go against this logic; based on observation and reasoning.
First, I've rarely seen someone who is empathetic to a cause that they have not directly/indirectly experienced. Lesbians advocate for lesbians, Blacks advocate for blacks, Cancer survivors advocate for cancer, etc...
The oppressed seem to be self-righteous in their oppression. There's an attitude of "your suffering is insignificant and doesn't compare to what I've been through. I've Had to fight my own battles, don't expect any sympathy."
It seems that the oppressed become so wrapped up in their oppression and the effort to fight it that they fail to recognize the suffering of others. More importantly, they fail to see how they make others suffer.
03 March 2008
We Are One
John 17
"I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled. "I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.
"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. "Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. "Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."
"I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled. "I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.
"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. "Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. "Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."
27 February 2008
Pluralism
Anais Nin said, "We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are."
I believe in absolute truth; but, I think our inherent subjective nature keeps us from knowing that truth. In order to see things clearer; I seek to venture beyond my distorted perceptions. I study all different religions, world views, and personal spiritual beliefs. When I put these together I look for common themes. I think that these common themes are closer to absolute truth. Such as love, the golden rule, karma, charity, etc.
I personally believe that there is something that unites us all (life and the universe). We are all one. That some people sense this or have subjective experiences that attest to this. But I don't believe humans are capable of finding objective metaphysical evidence.
Instead of believing all religions are true. I believe they are all useful in seeking the truth. While I don't believe anyone can find the truth; seeking is a beautiful thing.
I believe everyone is a teacher. Whether through observing their actions, their history, their ideas. How they have overcome, how they have accomplished their goals, how they have failed. It is all valuable.
I believe in human autonomy. Due to our subjective natures, we are all unique individuals with unique paths ahead and behind us. No one can truly direct the steps of another. Even though you want what is best for another; doesn't mean you know what is best for them. I know that what works for me may not work for someone else. Better to assume my advice is just another option that they may not have considered.
Really, that's all we can offer each other in the realm of knowledge: many options.
The best thing we can offer is love and support as we journey together into becoming more. Also, to treat people as they wish to be treated.
I believe in absolute truth; but, I think our inherent subjective nature keeps us from knowing that truth. In order to see things clearer; I seek to venture beyond my distorted perceptions. I study all different religions, world views, and personal spiritual beliefs. When I put these together I look for common themes. I think that these common themes are closer to absolute truth. Such as love, the golden rule, karma, charity, etc.
I personally believe that there is something that unites us all (life and the universe). We are all one. That some people sense this or have subjective experiences that attest to this. But I don't believe humans are capable of finding objective metaphysical evidence.
Instead of believing all religions are true. I believe they are all useful in seeking the truth. While I don't believe anyone can find the truth; seeking is a beautiful thing.
I believe everyone is a teacher. Whether through observing their actions, their history, their ideas. How they have overcome, how they have accomplished their goals, how they have failed. It is all valuable.
I believe in human autonomy. Due to our subjective natures, we are all unique individuals with unique paths ahead and behind us. No one can truly direct the steps of another. Even though you want what is best for another; doesn't mean you know what is best for them. I know that what works for me may not work for someone else. Better to assume my advice is just another option that they may not have considered.
Really, that's all we can offer each other in the realm of knowledge: many options.
The best thing we can offer is love and support as we journey together into becoming more. Also, to treat people as they wish to be treated.
18 November 2007
Power to the States - Downsize the Executive Branch
The only necessary entities within the federal executive branch are the Department of State, and Defense.
Every other entity that doesn't involve our defense and foreign relations should be controlled by the individual states with congressional oversight.
U.S. Code not dealing with defense, foreign affairs, and commerce should be turned over to the states and they can decide if they want to enforce them or not.
This is in line with the tenth amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Every other entity that doesn't involve our defense and foreign relations should be controlled by the individual states with congressional oversight.
U.S. Code not dealing with defense, foreign affairs, and commerce should be turned over to the states and they can decide if they want to enforce them or not.
This is in line with the tenth amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Repeal Income Tax
Abolish the IRS.
Have each state adopt a sales tax.
Have each state give a portion of their tax earnings to congress. The amount would be dependent on the revenue of each state.
housing would be exempt
farmed food would be exempt (meats, dairy, grain, fruit, vegetable), primary housing would be exempt
Have each state adopt a sales tax.
Have each state give a portion of their tax earnings to congress. The amount would be dependent on the revenue of each state.
housing would be exempt
farmed food would be exempt (meats, dairy, grain, fruit, vegetable), primary housing would be exempt
Or better yet
adopt voluntary funding.
Each person donates funds to specific government programs.
The problem with taxation is it is money taken by coercion.
Taxes should be taken by explicit consent.
Each person should have a direct say in where their money goes.
Even if I agree to taxation, I may not agree to what my money is being used for
adopt voluntary funding.
Each person donates funds to specific government programs.
The problem with taxation is it is money taken by coercion.
Taxes should be taken by explicit consent.
Each person should have a direct say in where their money goes.
Even if I agree to taxation, I may not agree to what my money is being used for
Marriage
Marriage should be left to the religious (or non-religious) institutions. Marriage should not be recognized by the State. Married people should not receive any special legal rights or privileges.
Marriage as a civil institution should be replaced by Family contracts. Contracts in which the participants are seen as immediate family members; and, are allowed whatever rights and privileges inherent in that title. That includes declaring a person to be a dependent of another.
I have no problem with marriage in it's basic form. An institution among people that says "We are joining families and we are creating a family."
The only good reason to get married is to have children.
And most people in bad marriages never should have been married to begin with.
Marriage as a civil institution should be replaced by Family contracts. Contracts in which the participants are seen as immediate family members; and, are allowed whatever rights and privileges inherent in that title. That includes declaring a person to be a dependent of another.
I have no problem with marriage in it's basic form. An institution among people that says "We are joining families and we are creating a family."
The only good reason to get married is to have children.
And most people in bad marriages never should have been married to begin with.
10 April 2007
blind faith
Blind faith. I don't like how this term is thrown around and applied to everything religious. There is a reason behind all faith; it may not be properly examined; but it's there. Be it tradition, acceptance, a crutch, intuition, or those events in your life that lead you to your faith. My faith as undergone great examination and still is. Some may not care to examine it because it serves its purpose without conflict or they're just not that serious about it.
If religious faith were so blind, why are there so many different religions and denominations? Dissension is antithetical to blind following. Our pluralistic world is a testament to the rarity of blind faith.
If religious faith were so blind, why are there so many different religions and denominations? Dissension is antithetical to blind following. Our pluralistic world is a testament to the rarity of blind faith.
Science Vs. Religion
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941 ...
"Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values.
The two are not rivals. They are complementary.
Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism."
Martin Luther King Jr.
Ridiculous. That's what I think of the "debate"
Science deals with objective facts. Religion deals with subjective perceptions. Two totally different things that need not be argued about. Both exist harmoniously in the human experience.
First, after actually enjoying my science classes and taking the time to read various sacred texts by myself; I think the science/faith argument is rather silly. I may be simplifying this too much; but, science is objective and faith is subjective. How do you use a text written by poets to determine the age of the universe? How can science actually prove/disprove God (the worldview not just a specific religious diety)? I see two different realms of existence that don't need to piss on each other.
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941 ...
"Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values.
The two are not rivals. They are complementary.
Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism."
Martin Luther King Jr.
Ridiculous. That's what I think of the "debate"
Science deals with objective facts. Religion deals with subjective perceptions. Two totally different things that need not be argued about. Both exist harmoniously in the human experience.
First, after actually enjoying my science classes and taking the time to read various sacred texts by myself; I think the science/faith argument is rather silly. I may be simplifying this too much; but, science is objective and faith is subjective. How do you use a text written by poets to determine the age of the universe? How can science actually prove/disprove God (the worldview not just a specific religious diety)? I see two different realms of existence that don't need to piss on each other.
Religion and today's society
Does religion have a useful role in today's society?
I see this question a lot and I'm starting to have issues with it. It's almost like asking if art, marriage, and prostitution are worthwhile. Bad associations, I know; I mean, it seems to be a moot point. Religion is so rooted in the world just like art and prostitution. It's a function of culture. It'll never be eradicated; it just changes right along with the rest of society.
It seems like people think that if everyone would just learn to think scientifically and logically, then religion would vanish. I think this notion fails to acknowledge some key factors in the human experience; like emotion, subjectivity, and intuition. I'm saying that there are fundamental cultural traits that will always feed religion; positively and negatively.
Religion is a man-made institution. An organized group with common supernatural ideas. It is subject to the same fame and faults of any organization. It depends on those who created it and those who participate.
It's been argued that religion is not needed as a moral guideline. My spiritual ideas about myself, others, and this world greatly affect my principles, my conscience, and my actions. No one can invalidate the basis for my values because those basis don't apply to them.
As long as a majority of charitable organizations are founded by religions; I'd say religion will remain worthwhile.
Of course, I have to quote the bible: James 1 v 26,27
"If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
I see this question a lot and I'm starting to have issues with it. It's almost like asking if art, marriage, and prostitution are worthwhile. Bad associations, I know; I mean, it seems to be a moot point. Religion is so rooted in the world just like art and prostitution. It's a function of culture. It'll never be eradicated; it just changes right along with the rest of society.
It seems like people think that if everyone would just learn to think scientifically and logically, then religion would vanish. I think this notion fails to acknowledge some key factors in the human experience; like emotion, subjectivity, and intuition. I'm saying that there are fundamental cultural traits that will always feed religion; positively and negatively.
Religion is a man-made institution. An organized group with common supernatural ideas. It is subject to the same fame and faults of any organization. It depends on those who created it and those who participate.
It's been argued that religion is not needed as a moral guideline. My spiritual ideas about myself, others, and this world greatly affect my principles, my conscience, and my actions. No one can invalidate the basis for my values because those basis don't apply to them.
As long as a majority of charitable organizations are founded by religions; I'd say religion will remain worthwhile.
Of course, I have to quote the bible: James 1 v 26,27
"If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
05 January 2007
Doctrine of Inclusion
Leader of the New Dimensions Center, Carlton Pearson says God inspired him to rehash an old doctrine.
Basically, the doctrine says that God sent Jesus to save the world; therefore, no one will go to hell.
I heard about this on NPR a while back.
Surprisingly, a very unpopular doctrine.
Viewed as heresy
I'm not quite sure I agree; sounds nice though. I like his shiney website and suit.
Whether or not it's a good product, he's selling it; but, who's buying it?
Basically, the doctrine says that God sent Jesus to save the world; therefore, no one will go to hell.
I heard about this on NPR a while back.
Surprisingly, a very unpopular doctrine.
Viewed as heresy
I'm not quite sure I agree; sounds nice though. I like his shiney website and suit.
Whether or not it's a good product, he's selling it; but, who's buying it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)