The following is an email from Congressman Randy Forbes, and my reply
to his random, mass email. Maybe I'm just having an off day, but this
really got my underoos in a twist:
A Nation Founded in Prayer
By Congressman Randy Forbes
May 2, 2013
The greatness of a nation comes from its
foundation. Today marks the 62nd annual observance of the National Day
of Prayer, and there could be no more appropriate time than today to
acknowledge the action that has most shaped our country―prayer.
The foundation of America, from the Revolution to
the Constitutional Convention, was steeped in prayer. When the first
Continental Congress met in Philadelphia in 1774, its first act was to
ask a minister to open in prayer. As our war-tattered nation was
struggling to hold fast in the wake of the fight for freedom and the
members of the Constitutional Congress found themselves in a quagmire of
fighting and disagreements, they turned to prayer. Benjamin Franklin
called on the members to begin each meeting in prayer, famously stating,
I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I
live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God Governs
in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground
without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his
aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except
the Lord build the House they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly
believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we
shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of
Babel.
Only after the members heeded Mr. Franklin’s advice
was the world’s greatest founding document, the Constitution, born out
of the ashes of war and disagreement.
Presidential recognition of the vital role of prayer
in the continuance of our freedoms has a strong pedigree. As our
nation was on the verge of splitting in half in 1863, President Lincoln
proclaimed a national day of prayer, that “the united cry of the nation
will be heard on high and answered with blessings no less than the
pardon of our national sins and the restoration of our now divided and
suffering country to its former happy condition of unity and peace.” On
the eve of D-Day in 1944 as General Eisenhower and his troops carried
out the perilous invasion of Normandy, President Franklin D. Roosevelt
led the nation in prayer. Since the inauguration of President
Washington in 1789, there have been well over two hundred fifty
Presidential calls to prayer.
The first National Day of Prayer as we now know it
was passed by Congress on April 17, 1952, and called for the President
to “set aside and proclaim a suitable day each year . . . on which the
people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at
churches, in groups, and as individuals.” On May 9, 1988, President
Ronald Reagan signed the current version of the law, calling on the
President to issue a proclamation each year designating the first
Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer.
Today, we stand at another critical moment in our
nation’s history. We must decide whether we will continue to honor the
principles on which our nation was founded, or allow our religious
freedoms to be squelched in the wake of a cultural shift that champions
equality and tolerance, even as it continues to silence the voice of
faith everywhere except the most private of places.
On this National Day of Prayer, let us continue to
build on the foundation laid for us in faith by our Founding Fathers and
join together today in prayer for our leaders, for our communities, and
for our spiritual welfare. Let us stand up and defend our heritage, so
that all who follow in our footsteps will find we were faithful to the
God who blessed our nation because it was founded in prayer.
My reply:
I do hope that while you encourage a national day of prayer, you also
keep in mind that not all of those who would pray are christians.
Encourage all of us, no matter our faith, to pray. And also encourage
those with no faith to meditate on their morality on that day, as even
those with no spiritual beliefs often have as as high a moral standard
as those who do.
I understand that the majority of our citizens, now as well as when
this country was founded, are christian, but our laws are written to not
only protect christians in the exercise of their faith, but also to
protect the muslim, the jew, the buddhist, the pagan, the atheist and so
forth. No one is trying to squelch any christian's freedom to worship,
so long as all people of all beliefs (or none) are just as welcome. This
is most clearly a case of all or nothing, as the laws of this country
are set up to deny the government the ability to set one belief over
another.
Thank you Representative Forbes for your time and leadership, and
hopefully for your thoughtful consideration and inclusion of those
citizens of the Commonwealth who, like me, are a spiritual minority.
Sincerely,
Rhalynn Blackburn
For those who stuck with me through
these long emails, thank you. I suppose some of the reason I got wound
up is pretty obvious, you know, that whole idea that the government has
no right, or business, espousing any religious belief over another. I
think the thing that really sent me over the edge was the fact that this
politician just assumed that my beliefs are the exact same as his. And
that brings home to me another fact, that most politicians are
completely clueless to the idea that us citizens are not all exactly
alike. And they don't care enough to be sensitive to that fact. I may
be a minority in the spiritual arena, but these politicians work for me
just as much as any other citizen, and they should remember that. Is
that really too much to ask?
That is all.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Friday, June 15, 2012
Come On! They're Just Boobs! or, What's Your Problem with Breastfeeding, You Repressed Wackadoodle!
Seriously, get over it. They're boobs, big deal. I just can't understand why there is such a controversy over breastfeeding. Honestly, how in the hell do you think any of our ancestors managed to get past infancy in times past? In the scheme of things, formula and bottles are relatively new inventions.
Ok. This is my take on it. In my opinion, the only reason anyone has any problem with public breastfeeding is because for a very long time, a select group of men have run the world. And to those men, breasts are purely a sexual thing. Yes, I understand that breasts do serve a sexual purpose. But ultimately, that sexual purpose serves the higher purpose of nurturing the life that was created. We have all heard the same thing; males are hardwired to seek out a mate that is capable of procreating and sustaining the next generation. And that, folks, is where breasts come into the picture. And yes, I am well aware of the fact that females are hardwired to seek a mate based on his physical characteristics. But somewhere along the line, some men got obsessed with breasts on a level that goes beyond mere procreation. And therein lies the problem. Since men usually made all the rules in times past, I could assume that they made the rule that it was somehow improper for women to feed their babies where anyone could see. Or, I could assume that since somehow it became impossible for some men to exercise any self-control over their obsession, women began placing these restrictions on themselves. Either way, its completely ridiculous. They are just boobs, and everybody has em. Even men have them, duh, although I do realize they aren't exactly the same.
I guess what I am trying to say is grow up people. The human body is a natural part of the world, and if women weren't supposed to feed their babies naturally, they wouldn't have been born with that ability. So why do you care if the woman sitting next to you in a restaurant is breastfeeding? Maybe we don't want to watch you eat your double cheeseburger either, but we aren't bitching about it. Oh, and another thing, why should breastfeeding women be relegated to a bathroom? You wouldn't want to eat that cheeseburger while you're sitting on the john would you?
This issue has been stirring around in my heart and mind for a few weeks, ever since I saw an article about the National Guardswomen who were to be reprimanded for allowing pictures of themselves breastfeeding their children while they were in uniform. Now, officially, the only reason they are in trouble is because they allowed their picture to be used for a civilian cause. Ok, I can buy that. But what really set this off was the Toyota commercial I saw on tv last night. They showed picture after picture of military folks in uniform. TO SELL CARS. How is that any different? To me, this just smacks of some fanatic wackadoodles seeing the picture, getting pissed off (how dare they breastfeed, and let everyone see them!) and pulling out the rule book to stop this behavior that somehow threatens our society IMMEDIATELY! I could be wrong, I have been before and I'm sure I will be again. But I'm like an umpire, I call em like I see em.
If I am incorrect in my assumption, hopefully someone more knowledgeable than myself concerning the rules of the military/National Guard will correct me. In fact, I left the following comment on a post made by someone in the military, in the hopes that person could educate me if I truly am misguided in my assumptions:
"Perhaps I don’t understand the rules completely, since I have never been personally a part of the military/National Guard, but I am confused. These mothers will be reprimanded for allowing a picture to be taken of them that furthers a civilian cause, but what about the Toyota commercial I saw last night on tv that showed a lot of pictures of military women and men in uniform? Am I to understand that the rules only apply to causes, and not to a blatant marketing attempt by a corporation to use our sense of respect for our brothers and sisters in uniform to sell cars? Or is it simply a case of pulling out the rule book because the good ol’ boys don’t like the fact that these women were proud of the fact that not only are they putting food on the table, but also in their children’s mouths?"
In closing, I say women, be proud of the fact that you can sustain life, and don't let anyone push you into a closet or a shithouse to do it. Women who try to oppress other women in their quest to nurture their children, SHUT UP! Men who appreciate the beauty of the natural world, including the human body, keep up the good work! And to the men who only appreciate breasts for their own obsessive fantasies, grow up. They are just boobs you know.
That is all.
Ok. This is my take on it. In my opinion, the only reason anyone has any problem with public breastfeeding is because for a very long time, a select group of men have run the world. And to those men, breasts are purely a sexual thing. Yes, I understand that breasts do serve a sexual purpose. But ultimately, that sexual purpose serves the higher purpose of nurturing the life that was created. We have all heard the same thing; males are hardwired to seek out a mate that is capable of procreating and sustaining the next generation. And that, folks, is where breasts come into the picture. And yes, I am well aware of the fact that females are hardwired to seek a mate based on his physical characteristics. But somewhere along the line, some men got obsessed with breasts on a level that goes beyond mere procreation. And therein lies the problem. Since men usually made all the rules in times past, I could assume that they made the rule that it was somehow improper for women to feed their babies where anyone could see. Or, I could assume that since somehow it became impossible for some men to exercise any self-control over their obsession, women began placing these restrictions on themselves. Either way, its completely ridiculous. They are just boobs, and everybody has em. Even men have them, duh, although I do realize they aren't exactly the same.
I guess what I am trying to say is grow up people. The human body is a natural part of the world, and if women weren't supposed to feed their babies naturally, they wouldn't have been born with that ability. So why do you care if the woman sitting next to you in a restaurant is breastfeeding? Maybe we don't want to watch you eat your double cheeseburger either, but we aren't bitching about it. Oh, and another thing, why should breastfeeding women be relegated to a bathroom? You wouldn't want to eat that cheeseburger while you're sitting on the john would you?
This issue has been stirring around in my heart and mind for a few weeks, ever since I saw an article about the National Guardswomen who were to be reprimanded for allowing pictures of themselves breastfeeding their children while they were in uniform. Now, officially, the only reason they are in trouble is because they allowed their picture to be used for a civilian cause. Ok, I can buy that. But what really set this off was the Toyota commercial I saw on tv last night. They showed picture after picture of military folks in uniform. TO SELL CARS. How is that any different? To me, this just smacks of some fanatic wackadoodles seeing the picture, getting pissed off (how dare they breastfeed, and let everyone see them!) and pulling out the rule book to stop this behavior that somehow threatens our society IMMEDIATELY! I could be wrong, I have been before and I'm sure I will be again. But I'm like an umpire, I call em like I see em.
If I am incorrect in my assumption, hopefully someone more knowledgeable than myself concerning the rules of the military/National Guard will correct me. In fact, I left the following comment on a post made by someone in the military, in the hopes that person could educate me if I truly am misguided in my assumptions:
"Perhaps I don’t understand the rules completely, since I have never been personally a part of the military/National Guard, but I am confused. These mothers will be reprimanded for allowing a picture to be taken of them that furthers a civilian cause, but what about the Toyota commercial I saw last night on tv that showed a lot of pictures of military women and men in uniform? Am I to understand that the rules only apply to causes, and not to a blatant marketing attempt by a corporation to use our sense of respect for our brothers and sisters in uniform to sell cars? Or is it simply a case of pulling out the rule book because the good ol’ boys don’t like the fact that these women were proud of the fact that not only are they putting food on the table, but also in their children’s mouths?"
In closing, I say women, be proud of the fact that you can sustain life, and don't let anyone push you into a closet or a shithouse to do it. Women who try to oppress other women in their quest to nurture their children, SHUT UP! Men who appreciate the beauty of the natural world, including the human body, keep up the good work! And to the men who only appreciate breasts for their own obsessive fantasies, grow up. They are just boobs you know.
That is all.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
My Beliefs Are Mine, So Leave Em Alone!
I've been reading a lot lately about this New Apostlolic Reformation, and boy is my head spinning. First of all, I'm trying to figure out how I somehow was transported from the comfort of my 21st century living room to the superstitous Dark Ages without realizing it. Some of the things the folks associated with this movement spout are the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. I realize that, not being a Christian, I just wouldn't understand. However, even when I was a Christian, there is no way I would have swallowed this crap.
They claim that natural disasters are caused because the people in those areas have sinned against their god. Really? Ok, first off, natural disasters are, well, NATURAL. Hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, volcano eruptions...they are like poo, because it happens. Not to mention the fact that there has been lots of nasty weather recently in areas that are decidely Christian. So what is their excuse for that?
One of their members has even claimed that there is a conspiracy afoot in law enforcement departments across this nation to cover up the ritual sacrifice of babies by their cultist parents. Umm, sure. Another ridiculous claim by said gentleman is that Hilter was sent by god to drive the Jews to Palestine, where god wanted them to be. Really? To the tune of over 6 million DEAD? News flash, you crazy right-wing-nut, Hilter wasn't driving the Jews anywhere, except to the grave. Holy crap on a cracker Batman, with a dude like god helping you out, sounds like you don't need any enemies.
Another thing that confuses me is how some people talk about their god being all about love and forgiveness, but in the same breath, can be easily pissed off, acts like a jealous child denied a toy, and then will rain hellfire and brimstone down on you. Either I'm missing something, or god is seriously bi-polar. I guess I just have a very difficult time wrapping my black-and-white mind around the duality of it all. I've never felt that my goddess would punish me if I were gay, or didn't give money to her church, or made an offering to another goddess or god for a particular reason.
With that being said, I think Jesus was an awesome guy, and very possibly an ascended master. It concerns me that some people take all the great things he taught, and have twisted them to fit into their superstitious, narrow-minded world view. And that is truly a shame. Its almost as if those few people have taken the "terminator" of the old testament and tried to morph it with the gentle teachings of love and tolerance of the new. And to my mind, the experiment failed horribly.
What this group believes, as it comes across to me, is that Jesus loves you and everything is beautiful, but if you don't do things the way we say, his daddy is gonna be sooooo mad at you, and he is gonna send terrible weather patterns and Christian militants to straighten your ass up. And they believe this so hard, they want to "infiltrate" the government (our collective government, mind you) and force this entire country to do things their way. WITH COMPLETE DISREGARD TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT. You know, that amendment that not only allows all of us to believe as we choose, or not to as the case may be, but also allows them to believe that their god sends tsunamis, AIDS, and all kinds of suffering because of belief in other goddesses/gods, same-sex marriage and welfare programs. Do I agree with these beliefs? Obviously not. Do I feel they have the right to believe this way? Absolutely.
What I don't believe is that they have any justification or license to demand that I believe the same way they do. Just like I don't feel I have any right to tell them they have to think the way I do.
Another thing I find almost comical is that these folks seem to think that unless you believe the same way they do, there is no possible way you can be a functioning, productive, moral member of society. That is truly laughable. My mama never took me to church when I was growing up. She believed in god, but we never had any deep theological discussion about religion. But she taught me right from wrong. I knew to be kind to people, and help those that needed help, and learned compassion at her knee, through the example she set for me. Never once did she tell me god would cause bad things to happen if I was bad. And guess what? I've never done anything more illegal than break the speed limit. I know that to kill another person is wrong, unless they were trying their hardest to kill me first. That's not immoral, that's self-defense. I know that to steal is wrong. I have taken things back into a store to pay for them if I got outside and realized that something didn't make it out of the cart at the checkout. And I know that honesty is one of the most important virtues a person can have. My mama taught me all these things, which I now try to teach my children, without the threat of some invisible policeman spying on me and ready to send retribution not only to me, but the entire world if I took one mis-step.
I'm not saying Christianity is wrong, all I'm saying is it is not the path for me, and I believe there is a path for everybody. And the thing that concerns me about groups that try to shove what they believe on others (and Christians have not cornered the market on fundamentalism), is that some of them do attempt to "infiltrate" the government, and they can sometimes fly in under the radar and succeed. By then, it is too late too fight for our rights, because they already will have been stripped.
All I can say is, be kind to each other whenever you can, agree to disagree, live and let live, but also be vigilant about losing the rights that our fore-mothers and -fathers fought so hard to win for us. This is their legacy, and to truly honor and pay tribute to their sacrifices, we must keep that legacy alive.
That is all:)
They claim that natural disasters are caused because the people in those areas have sinned against their god. Really? Ok, first off, natural disasters are, well, NATURAL. Hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, volcano eruptions...they are like poo, because it happens. Not to mention the fact that there has been lots of nasty weather recently in areas that are decidely Christian. So what is their excuse for that?
One of their members has even claimed that there is a conspiracy afoot in law enforcement departments across this nation to cover up the ritual sacrifice of babies by their cultist parents. Umm, sure. Another ridiculous claim by said gentleman is that Hilter was sent by god to drive the Jews to Palestine, where god wanted them to be. Really? To the tune of over 6 million DEAD? News flash, you crazy right-wing-nut, Hilter wasn't driving the Jews anywhere, except to the grave. Holy crap on a cracker Batman, with a dude like god helping you out, sounds like you don't need any enemies.
Another thing that confuses me is how some people talk about their god being all about love and forgiveness, but in the same breath, can be easily pissed off, acts like a jealous child denied a toy, and then will rain hellfire and brimstone down on you. Either I'm missing something, or god is seriously bi-polar. I guess I just have a very difficult time wrapping my black-and-white mind around the duality of it all. I've never felt that my goddess would punish me if I were gay, or didn't give money to her church, or made an offering to another goddess or god for a particular reason.
With that being said, I think Jesus was an awesome guy, and very possibly an ascended master. It concerns me that some people take all the great things he taught, and have twisted them to fit into their superstitious, narrow-minded world view. And that is truly a shame. Its almost as if those few people have taken the "terminator" of the old testament and tried to morph it with the gentle teachings of love and tolerance of the new. And to my mind, the experiment failed horribly.
What this group believes, as it comes across to me, is that Jesus loves you and everything is beautiful, but if you don't do things the way we say, his daddy is gonna be sooooo mad at you, and he is gonna send terrible weather patterns and Christian militants to straighten your ass up. And they believe this so hard, they want to "infiltrate" the government (our collective government, mind you) and force this entire country to do things their way. WITH COMPLETE DISREGARD TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT. You know, that amendment that not only allows all of us to believe as we choose, or not to as the case may be, but also allows them to believe that their god sends tsunamis, AIDS, and all kinds of suffering because of belief in other goddesses/gods, same-sex marriage and welfare programs. Do I agree with these beliefs? Obviously not. Do I feel they have the right to believe this way? Absolutely.
What I don't believe is that they have any justification or license to demand that I believe the same way they do. Just like I don't feel I have any right to tell them they have to think the way I do.
Another thing I find almost comical is that these folks seem to think that unless you believe the same way they do, there is no possible way you can be a functioning, productive, moral member of society. That is truly laughable. My mama never took me to church when I was growing up. She believed in god, but we never had any deep theological discussion about religion. But she taught me right from wrong. I knew to be kind to people, and help those that needed help, and learned compassion at her knee, through the example she set for me. Never once did she tell me god would cause bad things to happen if I was bad. And guess what? I've never done anything more illegal than break the speed limit. I know that to kill another person is wrong, unless they were trying their hardest to kill me first. That's not immoral, that's self-defense. I know that to steal is wrong. I have taken things back into a store to pay for them if I got outside and realized that something didn't make it out of the cart at the checkout. And I know that honesty is one of the most important virtues a person can have. My mama taught me all these things, which I now try to teach my children, without the threat of some invisible policeman spying on me and ready to send retribution not only to me, but the entire world if I took one mis-step.
I'm not saying Christianity is wrong, all I'm saying is it is not the path for me, and I believe there is a path for everybody. And the thing that concerns me about groups that try to shove what they believe on others (and Christians have not cornered the market on fundamentalism), is that some of them do attempt to "infiltrate" the government, and they can sometimes fly in under the radar and succeed. By then, it is too late too fight for our rights, because they already will have been stripped.
All I can say is, be kind to each other whenever you can, agree to disagree, live and let live, but also be vigilant about losing the rights that our fore-mothers and -fathers fought so hard to win for us. This is their legacy, and to truly honor and pay tribute to their sacrifices, we must keep that legacy alive.
That is all:)
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Your Group Persecuted My Group, So Now My Group Is Going To Persecute You Back, and Persecute Some Other Groups....HUH?
I have never understood the desire to "do unto others as you have been done unto". Ok, maybe I can sort of understand the whole payback thing, you know, you did something mean to me so now I'm going to do something mean to you. No, that's not right, but I understand that part. On an individual basis, of course.
So is it just human nature to generalize? I mean, why do so many people in this world think its the right thing to be hateful to an entire group just because one or two people of that group have done something to them, or their group in the past?
I was reading an article that urges Christians to pray for the safety of other Christians who may be in Muslim-majority areas during the season of Ramadan. Ok, I can get with the idea of being concerned for other people, I think that's great. But that got me thinking about a lot of things.
First of all, although I may not personally agree with enforcing religion on people, I have to respect the idea that if I go to a different country where one religion is it, and that country has laws to uphold the observance of that religion, then I should be respectful of their practices, and also understand that if I were to blantantly disregard that country's laws, I would be punished. No, it's not right, or humane, in my opinion. That's why I stay right here, where my right to worship as I please is protected, for the time being that is (which will bring me to another point further down).
Point number two: Many people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs since the beginning of time, whether they are Pagan, Christian, Muslim, Buddist, Jewish, etc. So if Christians were fed to the Lions by the Romans, Christians burned witches at the stake and perpetrated "Holy Wars" against Muslims, Muslims perpetrate their own "Holy Wars", Jews were annihilated by the millions, and so on and so on, how exactly does it work to keep fighting each other? I'm totally on board with the idea that we all need to protect ourselves, but at what point do these religious leaders take a minute and use the brains that their respective goddesses/gods gave them? When do we all stop and say, hey, maybe I don't agree with what you believe in, but all this fighting and bickering for thousands of years has not gotten us anywhere? Has any side of the religious debate truly been successful? Do we all believe the same thing? No, we don't. And so what? So why keep doing it?
My third point, how can a group be persecuted, then turn around and do it to other groups? Its almost as if the mentality is "well since members of my group are being beaten, tortured and murdered, I'm just going to be hateful to other groups". Where the hell is the logic in that? Haven't they heard two wrongs don't make a right? Somebody, somewhere in this world is going to disagree with you. And you with them. Not a problem. But when you start shoving yourself into somebody else's life, that's crossing the line. As an example, there is a group of people planning to wage "spriritual warfare" during the Samhain season this year, and they seem to think they can infiltrate the government and dictate how people of this country worship. How is that any different than the way things work in the Middle East? It's not, except the deity in question has a different name.
I realize that even though we generalize (as humans, we have some weird compulsion to group things and give them labels) not every single person believes exactly the same thing as someone else in the very same group. And I truly think that's the way it should be. So enjoy the fellowship with like-minded individuals, and identify with a group if you want. But don't be a sheep. Don't blindly follow along with hatred, just because that's what your group or leaders or whatever says that you should do. Don't think in terms of "that's wrong", but in terms of "that's wrong because it will actually hurt another person".
Is this really so difficult?
That is all:)
So is it just human nature to generalize? I mean, why do so many people in this world think its the right thing to be hateful to an entire group just because one or two people of that group have done something to them, or their group in the past?
I was reading an article that urges Christians to pray for the safety of other Christians who may be in Muslim-majority areas during the season of Ramadan. Ok, I can get with the idea of being concerned for other people, I think that's great. But that got me thinking about a lot of things.
First of all, although I may not personally agree with enforcing religion on people, I have to respect the idea that if I go to a different country where one religion is it, and that country has laws to uphold the observance of that religion, then I should be respectful of their practices, and also understand that if I were to blantantly disregard that country's laws, I would be punished. No, it's not right, or humane, in my opinion. That's why I stay right here, where my right to worship as I please is protected, for the time being that is (which will bring me to another point further down).
Point number two: Many people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs since the beginning of time, whether they are Pagan, Christian, Muslim, Buddist, Jewish, etc. So if Christians were fed to the Lions by the Romans, Christians burned witches at the stake and perpetrated "Holy Wars" against Muslims, Muslims perpetrate their own "Holy Wars", Jews were annihilated by the millions, and so on and so on, how exactly does it work to keep fighting each other? I'm totally on board with the idea that we all need to protect ourselves, but at what point do these religious leaders take a minute and use the brains that their respective goddesses/gods gave them? When do we all stop and say, hey, maybe I don't agree with what you believe in, but all this fighting and bickering for thousands of years has not gotten us anywhere? Has any side of the religious debate truly been successful? Do we all believe the same thing? No, we don't. And so what? So why keep doing it?
My third point, how can a group be persecuted, then turn around and do it to other groups? Its almost as if the mentality is "well since members of my group are being beaten, tortured and murdered, I'm just going to be hateful to other groups". Where the hell is the logic in that? Haven't they heard two wrongs don't make a right? Somebody, somewhere in this world is going to disagree with you. And you with them. Not a problem. But when you start shoving yourself into somebody else's life, that's crossing the line. As an example, there is a group of people planning to wage "spriritual warfare" during the Samhain season this year, and they seem to think they can infiltrate the government and dictate how people of this country worship. How is that any different than the way things work in the Middle East? It's not, except the deity in question has a different name.
I realize that even though we generalize (as humans, we have some weird compulsion to group things and give them labels) not every single person believes exactly the same thing as someone else in the very same group. And I truly think that's the way it should be. So enjoy the fellowship with like-minded individuals, and identify with a group if you want. But don't be a sheep. Don't blindly follow along with hatred, just because that's what your group or leaders or whatever says that you should do. Don't think in terms of "that's wrong", but in terms of "that's wrong because it will actually hurt another person".
Is this really so difficult?
That is all:)
Saturday, July 16, 2011
What Really Goes On In Kids' Heads?
I've thought about this quite a few times, and this morning I got to wondering again. Bean, my youngest daughter, was telling me about a dream she had, where a she and a friend of hers from school went to my cousin's house to hang out with my cousin's kids. Apparently the friend and my cousin's kids didn't like each other, so the friend tied my cousin's kids up with a rope, and there was a fire under them. Bean said she saved them. This makes me wonder what kind of fears she has, under the surface, that maybe she doesn't even realize. How do I address that? In the waking hours of daylight, all my kids seem like they have a pretty good handle on things, and they don't walk through the day timid and scared.
I remember as a child being scared of the big bad world; so much so that as a senior in high school, I had unexplained panic attacks. Of course, I didn't realize it then; the lens of adulthood and hindsight sharpened that focus.
It makes me realize that there is such a fine line between nurturing your children and making them feel secure and confident, and smothering and protecting them too much to where they fear even living life. I want to protect them and keep them safe, but I also want them to be strong and sure in their abilities. I worry that i shelter them too much, so I ease off a little, then I worry that by backing off, I'm throwing them to the wolves!
I've heard it said that if you worry that you are doing the right thing with your kids, then you are doing the right things. I sure hope so!
That is all:)
I remember as a child being scared of the big bad world; so much so that as a senior in high school, I had unexplained panic attacks. Of course, I didn't realize it then; the lens of adulthood and hindsight sharpened that focus.
It makes me realize that there is such a fine line between nurturing your children and making them feel secure and confident, and smothering and protecting them too much to where they fear even living life. I want to protect them and keep them safe, but I also want them to be strong and sure in their abilities. I worry that i shelter them too much, so I ease off a little, then I worry that by backing off, I'm throwing them to the wolves!
I've heard it said that if you worry that you are doing the right thing with your kids, then you are doing the right things. I sure hope so!
That is all:)
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Since When Did Animals Become Human, and Subject to Our Rules?
In the county where I live, there was a recent case where a 6 month old child was left alone in a room with a dog. All the adults in the house at the time, including the child's mother, were in another room. The dog bit the child on the head, and the poor baby died. The whole situation is just horrible. My heart breaks for the baby. And for the mother. Granted, I really don't think I would leave my baby in another room with any animal, no matter how well-behaved and domesticated it may be. But that doesn't mean that we don't all make mistakes at some point or another, and I can't imagine the pain she has to suffer with every day of her life, always thinking to herself, "If only I didn't leave him in there, even for a second".
Now, I'm not exactly a card-carrying member of PETA, but I do have feelings for animals (except for spiders, they are icky!). I guess that's why I'm surprised that so many people seem to think that putting the dog down was the right thing to do in this situation. First of all, this dog was an animal. Animals are part of the NATURAL world. In other words, they aren't human, and they do what is natural to them. I think that people in general are very presumptuious in assuming that just because they bring an animal into their home, and love it, and feed it, and take care of it, that their "pet" is just another human roaming around the house. They aren't. Animals can be very companionable, and loving, and even so protective of their human companions that they would lay down their lives. But they are still "natural" beings. Second of all, although the dog in question was rescued from an abusive home, he had never shown any sign of being aggressive. He was also deaf, which may have played a part. Unfortunately, no one will ever know for sure.
So was it right to put him down? Part of me says no; based on the fact that there were no prior incidents, perhaps there could have been another alternative. But the other part of me, the one that would kill anything with her bare hands should her children be in danger, says that I'm just not sure. I'm just thinking that us humans have tried to control Nature for so long, we expect everything in nature to adhere to our rules. And I think that is a mistake.
A comment on an article discussing this case is what got me thinking about all this. In the comment (we'll just say it was written by Bob to make things easy), Bob states that if a human being had killed the baby, they would be charged with murder. Well, according to Bob, even though the dog carried out the evil deed, it is still murder, and the doggie got his just desserts. Wow. Really? I know dogs are really smart, they learn all kinds of stuff, and can even be trained, but honestly, I think that the belief that a dog understands what murder is, and that it is wrong, is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard in my life! What next, are we going to put the snakes on trial for killing and eating the mice?!
That is all.
Now, I'm not exactly a card-carrying member of PETA, but I do have feelings for animals (except for spiders, they are icky!). I guess that's why I'm surprised that so many people seem to think that putting the dog down was the right thing to do in this situation. First of all, this dog was an animal. Animals are part of the NATURAL world. In other words, they aren't human, and they do what is natural to them. I think that people in general are very presumptuious in assuming that just because they bring an animal into their home, and love it, and feed it, and take care of it, that their "pet" is just another human roaming around the house. They aren't. Animals can be very companionable, and loving, and even so protective of their human companions that they would lay down their lives. But they are still "natural" beings. Second of all, although the dog in question was rescued from an abusive home, he had never shown any sign of being aggressive. He was also deaf, which may have played a part. Unfortunately, no one will ever know for sure.
So was it right to put him down? Part of me says no; based on the fact that there were no prior incidents, perhaps there could have been another alternative. But the other part of me, the one that would kill anything with her bare hands should her children be in danger, says that I'm just not sure. I'm just thinking that us humans have tried to control Nature for so long, we expect everything in nature to adhere to our rules. And I think that is a mistake.
A comment on an article discussing this case is what got me thinking about all this. In the comment (we'll just say it was written by Bob to make things easy), Bob states that if a human being had killed the baby, they would be charged with murder. Well, according to Bob, even though the dog carried out the evil deed, it is still murder, and the doggie got his just desserts. Wow. Really? I know dogs are really smart, they learn all kinds of stuff, and can even be trained, but honestly, I think that the belief that a dog understands what murder is, and that it is wrong, is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard in my life! What next, are we going to put the snakes on trial for killing and eating the mice?!
That is all.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Guns Dont Kill People, People Kill Other People With the Use of Guns (and Knives, Cars, Bombs, Poison....)
I've been reading some things lately concerning our right to bear arms in the United States, and I have to say, it's all been a real head-scratcher. I'm trying to figure out how restricting my right to own a gun is going to stop terrorists and criminals from doing their thing. When people want to do something wrong, they will find a way to do it. I mean, come on folks, they are already doing illegal shit to begin with. Do you really think that more gun control laws will put them out of business? These folks apparently lack any respect for common decency, as well as the lives of decent people who are just trying to live their lives. So what makes the gun control advocates think that changing the laws will have any kind of impact on the criminals? That they will just retreat with their tails between their legs, change their ways, and become hardworking, productive members of society? Yeah, ok. When rainbows start shooting out of my butt!
Another thing that makes me scratch my head is the opinion of Garry McCarthy, Superintendent of Chicago Police. Apparently, he recently made a speech that suggested that the government is perpetuating racism by not having stronger and more restrictive laws for gun control. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Maybe I'm looking at this wrong, but if I were a black person, that statement would completely piss me off. To me, this guy is saying that black people are no more discerning than children, and that they need the government to tell them what is right and what is wrong. That maybe they can't handle the heady rush of freedom and power over their own lives. What a crock of shit!
Well, all that being said, I'll leave with this little tidbit: Maybe it's about time people started learning how to be responsible, and the government started learning how to make each individual accountable for their actions. Taking freedoms away from all just because a few dumbasses don't know how to behave doesn't work. It will just leave the law-abiding citizens vulnerable, and the dumbasses will still be up to their criminal, no-good ways.
That is all:)
Another thing that makes me scratch my head is the opinion of Garry McCarthy, Superintendent of Chicago Police. Apparently, he recently made a speech that suggested that the government is perpetuating racism by not having stronger and more restrictive laws for gun control. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Maybe I'm looking at this wrong, but if I were a black person, that statement would completely piss me off. To me, this guy is saying that black people are no more discerning than children, and that they need the government to tell them what is right and what is wrong. That maybe they can't handle the heady rush of freedom and power over their own lives. What a crock of shit!
Well, all that being said, I'll leave with this little tidbit: Maybe it's about time people started learning how to be responsible, and the government started learning how to make each individual accountable for their actions. Taking freedoms away from all just because a few dumbasses don't know how to behave doesn't work. It will just leave the law-abiding citizens vulnerable, and the dumbasses will still be up to their criminal, no-good ways.
That is all:)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)