People like Indonesian Communication and Information Minister Tifatul Sembiring who blamed Indonesia’s recent string of natural disasters on television programs that “destroyed morals”.

From the BBC:

His comments came as he addressed a prayer meeting on Friday in Padang, Sumatra, which was hit by a powerful earthquake in late September.

He also hit out at rising decadence – proven, he said, by the availability of Indonesia-made pornographic DVDs in local markets – and called for tougher laws.

Right, that’s why America, which probably has a billion times the amount of porn, is currently being wiped off the face of the map by all these earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes and the other things that aren’t really happening on a national scale.

This is like Pat Robertson blaming 9/11 on the gays, except that this guy is a government official.

To the good people of Indonesia, who I know read my site, please get together and find a way to get this ass out of your government. You deserve better.

As everyone knows, marriage is an outdated, fossilized, oppressive institution that is constantly changing under our feet, evolving into a freer and higher and better form. And if it isn’t morphing into one of its alternatives, we would be better off without it.

As everyone doesn’t know, social science can now show that the “alternatives to marriage” don’t work. A recent news story brought this home in a particularly vivid fashion for that most fashionable of alternatives to marriage: cohabitation.

In Dallas, a mother and her boyfriend were arrested after three of her children were found in a hotel room, starved and abused. The facts of the case fit in with the general pattern of knowledge about the hazards of cohabitation. This story puts a human face on the statistics.

First, we know that a cohabiting boyfriend is the person most likely to abuse a child. From British child-abuse registries, we learn that a child living with his or her mother and a live-in boyfriend is 33 times more likely to be abused than a child living with his or her biological married parents. From a study of inflicted injury deaths in Missouri, we learn that children living in households with unrelated adults were 50 times more likely to die of inflicted injuries than households with both biological parents present. In 82% of the cases, the “unrelated adult” was the mother’s cohabiting boyfriend.

So it was in this case. The boyfriend was the perpetrator. While the mother was out working, he sexually abused her daughter. And although the mother was certainly complicit in locking the kids in the bathroom, the boyfriend was the one beating them.

Speaking of her working, this boyfriend stayed “home” in the hotel room, while the woman went out to work each day. This, too, fits the statistical pattern. Cohabiting men have half the income of married men and work fewer hours.

Each one of the four children had different fathers. The boyfriend’s child, needless to say, was not locked in the bathroom with the other kids. This case illustrates the new phenomenon that demographers have identified. They call it “multiple-partner fertility.” One of the problems associated with multiple-partner fertility is the relationship of each new boyfriend to the children of the previous boyfriends. To not put too fine a point on it: He is interested in the woman, not in her children from past relationships. The children are leftovers from a previous relationship.

You may object that some of these problems are associated with poverty. And that is partly true. But the deeper truth is that channeling sexual behavior and childbearing into marriage creates wealth rather than dissipates it. Men behave differently when they marry, especially when they become married fathers.

When I give campus talks on the risks of cohabitation, I can always count on some smarty to challenge me saying that the risks are not really so great to people like himself. What he usually means (and it is almost always a “he”) is that the statistics are skewed by a large number of poor, uneducated cohabiting couples who are at higher risk for all sorts of problems anyway. Unspoken, but implied, is that he is cohabiting himself and plans not to change based on anything I say.

So, he might argue, this particular boyfriend was just a loser, while the cohabiting men of his own social circle are not. Women of higher income and education will not face such serious problems as this woman living in a hotel room with a creep. But studies that control for education and income still find that cohabitation is risky.

We have created a culture that says sex, marriage and childbearing have no necessary relationship to each other. This culture, like any culture, is made up of the decisions of all of us: the things we choose to do and not do, the justifications we offer for our actions, the things we celebrate and the things we condemn. We have an indirect impact on the culture and therefore on the people around us. Every problem of the poor is exacerbated by the failure of marriage. The “alternatives to marriage” are destroying the culture of the poor.

So I present this challenge to my young friends on campus: “You might get away with participating in social practices that become much more destructive as they trickle down into the lower classes. It is not social justice to claim for yourself the rights to behaviors that you can manage but are a disaster for the less fortunate. Do you want to be part of the solution or part of the problem?”

The world has become like a close-net village
http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4253&p=82713#p82713

Hello Paar, I understand your love of Jesus, Mary and Moses. However, about Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster and Cyrus, are you sure you are not violating the Quranic injunction?

Buddha particularly was an agnostic or a Deist who never really discussed about divinity and supernatural in his teaching. Maybe your answer will be that these people were originally prophets but their teachings interpolated over time period. Right?

How about Confucius? Do you love him too?

Humanity is but one family.

Paarsurrey wrote:

Hi friends.

Since Quran is a Word of Revelation from the All-Wise, the Creator- God Allah YHWH; He sent Messenger Prophets to all the lands of the world to guide the humanity to His path. Now that the world has become like a close-net village; all these Messengers Prophets have been honored by Muhammad. The truthful Revelations, deeds/acts of all these Messengers Prophets have been secured in Quran; and their role has been set by God to introduce their nations and lead them to Muhammad – the Seal of Messengers Prophets; Muhammad authenticates their truthfulness, under lasting principles mentioned in Quran.

I love Jesus, Mary, Moses, Moses’ mother, Krishna, Buddha, Lao Tse , Confucius, Socrates, Zoroaster, Cyrus etc great leaders of the world in Ethics, Morals and Spirituality; I love them all; this is the teaching of Quran/Islam/Muhammad as explained by the Promised Messiah 1835-1908. I think it has got a lot of common sense and wisdom; my Atheist and Agnostic friends would admit.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

I am an American citizen currently living in the United States of America. I am a working class, middle-income person with an average sized family. I have three boys from a previous marriage (all over 19 years old now), and a young boy from my current marriage of fourteen years with a woman who is simply amazing to be around. I’m lucky to have ever crossed paths with her, and now she gave me another wonderful young boy who I am so very proud of!

I tell you about my “place” in this country because it is important to know that we all have a current “place.” And as averages go, most of us change places over time. Perhaps the change is not always seen as positive, but it is change nonetheless. I embrace change, usually. I certainly recognize change when it happens, and I usually make the best of it. If I ever have trouble embracing the change that seems to be inevitable, I make change happen on purpose (I think that’s what we usually do anyway, even if we don’t recognize it happening.) So we have change at a personal level, but what about change at a much higher level?

This country has experienced tons of change over its short history. We have seen all sorts of social change that most people agree is for the best. We have abolished slavery, we have given women equal rights as humans, and we are getting much better at accepting that some humans are homosexual, and deserve the same human rights as everyone else. We have come a long way as well towards granting the handicapped a much easier way in life once we recognized that they are still human! What drove all of this change?

It is who we are. The people that wrote the constitution were trying their very best to understand and accept that we all don’t agree, we don’t think alike, we don’t believe the same things, but we are all humans. Isn’t that a basic summary of what they were trying to do when they wrote it? I’m not a scholar on the constitution, but I can read, and I can understand the spirit of the message. But when they wrote it, we had slaves. Even they didn’t completely understand that what they were doing was hypocritical if slaves were allowed to continue being sold, traded, and owned. We continued, as a nation, to proclaim our self-righteousness around our amazing constitution, while we owned and traded human beings – human beings!

So, we weren’t perfect, but we continue to change. We do the right thing, because it is the right thing to do. What choice do we have? Yet we still have a ways to go, don’t we? We still have citizens who want to impart their morals on others, as though they are right, and others are wrong. There are still millions of Americans who believe that being homosexual is wrong, and should be stopped. Imagine that – the cruelty and disgust aimed at a segment of humans who are homosexual is beyond comprehension by any truly caring individual.

There are still people who believe that this country is actually getting worse! Somehow, even though we are affording more humans the basic rights they deserve, we are going backwards. The reason for this type of belief can be summed up in one single word. Religion. Yes, religious beliefs are, in my opinion, the single strongest factor in supporting a belief that the changes we are making in this country are actually bad. What, exactly, are these people afraid of?

I will tell you what I have actually heard. I have heard that if same-sex couples were allowed to marry legally, they would then be able to adopt (something they can do in every state except Florida already), and then they will raise the children in an “unhealthy” way. I have heard that if we allow same-sex marriage, then we should allow a man to marry his dog – or allow a man to marry a twelve year old girl. I have heard that if we legalize marijuana, then we will have to legalize every other drug, no matter how toxic or dangerous, or benign it may actually be. Even though people don’t die from smoking marijuana, nor are they killed like the thousands by alcohol related accidents, it is illegal. We can’t make progress with this type of thinking.

We all need to embrace change when it is for the greater good. We cannot use religious beliefs as a guideline for morals, because it would be impossible to consider all of the religions and their moral tenets. We MUST embrace the morals that societies accept in general, as a group of humans who live and work cooperatively among each other. We all know that killing another human is usually wrong, but can we agree on when it is right? Is it ever right to kill, or murder? Would you kill another human to save your own life? Would you kill another human to save a loved one, or a friend, what about a stranger?

Religions don’t have the answers because they are exclusive, and they don’t consider that others who don’t believe in their god are not obligated to go along with a particular set of morals. It has never worked, and it will NEVER work to use a specific religion to drive societal morals. In fact, the more someone tries to impart the morals of their religion or their god upon others, the more those morals are rejected and dismissed – because they are not warranted in most cases.

Don’t waste your time trying to impress others with your self-righteous, personal beliefs on how everyone else “should” behave. Get over yourself. There are no perfect set of morals in our world, there are only sets that we all can live with as a group, which means compromise. Aren’t Christians compromising today when they allow the legal system to deal with adultery as opposed to stoning the adulterers to death, as The Bible declares? Yes, they are compromising, and they have been dosing so for thousands of years, as we learn more and more about how to live together, and how to treat each other with respect.

Don’t be afraid of the changes that we are embracing, and the changes that are yet to come. We don’t change in order to make things worse. We change in order to make things better, and more fair to all humans and their basic rights. There is not a single argument on this planet that would ever convince me that same-sex couples don’t deserve the exact same legal rights as heterosexuals. Especially if the argument comes from some god based belief – those are the worst arguments. Embrace what makes this country better. Enjoy your religions in your homes and churches. No one is trying to remove that basic right.

Now what’s next.  I should write about my new path.  But not yet.  I want to write about something else.  I want to go more in depth of how much I lived in a fantasy.  I’m not sure you understand the gravity of me living in a fantasy world.

I remember when ever I had any free time or had time to just day dream my thoughts would go straight to fantasizing.  It was my hobby.  I could write books and books about what I day dreamed.  In years how much have I fantasized in my life?  I would have to say about five years of my life.  That’s if you put every minute that I day dream side by side.  I would have spent probably more than five years.  But I’m giving you an assumption of how much I would day dream.

I remember during recess time I didn’t play with the kids I would go off on my own and day dream.  I would even draw obscene drawings about a man and a women having sex.  But with my barbie dolls I would have two barbies having sex with one another.  The fantasies ran deep within.

I would fall asleep fantasizing and wake up and add to the imagination.  It was if I was living in a never ending day dream and my world was what I had to put up with.  I lived in an constant bubble.  Not letting reality hit me and not allowing myself to get hurt.  It was glass menagerie.  My illusion that I was living some what of a reality but stayed in my dreams when anything wrong was going on.  Never taking responsibility because I didn’t have to.  Especially since I had an older sister and two younger that took up my parents time.  I just slipped through the cracks and made it by as well as I could.  I remember when I was bored in church I would fantasize there too.  I didn’t know any better.  It was my reality.

I sometimes wonder if I were to go mad would I slip into one of my fantasies and believe it to be reality?  If I would forget my family and think that all the celebrities that I have made love to were my loved ones.  How much of me was lost in those daydreams?  How much of me was lost to the imagination?

I now live in the real world but I still day dream.  I still regress into myself right before falling asleep.  It helps keep the monsters at bay.  What monsters?  This is were I try to combine my Christianity.

When I was younger I would feel like there was some kind of presence in my room.  I never knew if it was safe or if it was some presence that shouldn’t be around.  I have always had some kind of spiritual experience.  A year hasn’t gone by in my life when I have had some kind of abnormal experience more like supernatural experience happen to me.  Now please understand that I believe that I have been redeemed with the blood of Jesus Christ and I have spoken in tongues.

Well that was then.  I don’t know about now…

Anyway I have been baptized, I have danced in the spirit, I had a demon casted out of me, and I have spoken in tongues.  I have also given someone a tiny prophesy.  I know you might think she is crazy.  That there is no way that these things could happen to someone but please believe that I am not crazy and I have had these things happen to me.  They are real.  If you do not believe that their are demons, angels, or that you have been redeemed by the son of God then stop reading altogether.  Stop reading because you might not understand or care for the rest of this post.

There are things I cannot not explain that have happened.  That I wish I could scientifically explain and give proof but alas I have none of it.  All of my life I’ve had people say “If you just let go He can do great things in your life!”  If I could go back to them and say “I have let go not in the way you might have wanted it but what now?  What happens to this lost child of His?  I am even lost?  Or was this the plan all along?”  I know that Jesus loves us no matter what.  But I have had a huge fight with myself wondering if He does love the ones that have decided to become homosexual.  Sure sex can be perverted, if you pervert it.  But what if two women or two men have sex in love.  Two people of the same sex love each other and are faithful, have been with each other for years with no other partner… Does not God consider a partnership between two straight people that have had sex with only one another to be husband and wife?  So would they not be a married couple?

For Christians I’m sorry if this may seem blasphemous but do not preach to me what the doctrine says.  Come to me with an open heart and try to explain to me what you think… Not what you know or what it says in black and white.  Come to me with open arms and minds and answer me that.  Answer me what does God do with those who are born one way but in their heart they know its not.  But yet myself who has ran and ran from being a lesbian has had all these spiritual experiences.  Experiences where I should have been frightened but I have ran into God’s arms and have been covered.

I don’t know what else to say.  I don’t know where else to go with this.  This has been one heavy post but it was needed to be said.  I will elaborate more on another one.  But for now I will leave you with that.  Take it in.  If its too much, than I’m sorry but this is me.  I will not apologize for it anymore.  Take it or leave it…

XOXO

~RoMa

There is an amount of pride that comes with being an American citizen; the only way that you’ll be able to appreciate, though, is by losing it. Or, like many, begin without it. I’m proud to be an American. I was born here, not brought here. I did not flee here from somewhere else due to an unfair government, persecution, or crime. I didn’t sneak over in search of a better life,  better living conditions, or a better opportunity. I did not arrive as a war criminal a prisoner, or a prisoner of war. I’ve been able to marry since birth, was afforded the right to vote, and had the privilege of serving my country with little more than a background check. I haven’t been aligned with any group of U.S., or non-U.S. persons that have been racially or religiously profiled due to their affiliation, whether innocent or guilty, with radical groups that commit heinous crimes in the United States or against her citizens and properties in foreign countries.

Living under the auspices and freedoms of the United States of America, I was not born in the wrong city, the wrong body, in the wrong era, near the wrong neighborhood, living in the wrong house, to the wrong parents who wrongly treated me. I did not I was not sent to the wrong school, never got shot at by the wrong crowd, and never killed the wrong person while aiming for someone else. No, I went to a school where I was given the choice to get an education, or not. I applied to jobs where I chose to work, or not. I was approached by the wrong people, and I had a chance to take the easier road, or not. When I made the grades to get into a college, I had a choice to attend classes, or not.

I did not attend classes…a choice that led me to fail college within the first four months. Which caused me to get put on academic probation. I lost my housing, my funding, and my shot at college. Thus, the military.

The military doesn’t provide many choices, so my chances for success immediately improved. I received a Security Clearance, a duty station and a job. My duty station was at a Law Enforcement (LE) and Search and Rescue (SAR) Unit These privileges came with responsibility; I learned to fight, became a marksman and a sharpshooter, and had to show up at my post on-time. I also had to pay taxes and vote.

About a year and a half later, I attended “A” School for telecom installation and maintenance in California.

I spent 9 years in the military, and decided to leave when former President Clinton decided to downsize the armed forces because it meant that I would not get promoted. I was third in line to move up, and the powers that be decided that I would not make it that year, and possibly the next.  So I bailed and went back to college, graduated, and here I am today.

I suppose that in a small way, I should be understanding of all of the downtrodden groups of Americans who cry out that their rights have been violated because the American way of life that they’ve been enjoying for most, if not all, of their lives are somehow now not meeting their freedom-based, perceived needs.

Wasting our time, our money, and our attention on various propositions that, if not voted upon in the desired manner, take to the streets and cry “FOUL.” Their attitude, of course, that when Democracy does not go “their way” then it’s not fair; their God-given rights have been violated, although they do not believe for the most part in God. Well, the truth of the matter is that you really don’t have any rights unless they are given to you. Just because you live in America does not mean that America must bend to your needs, and as an American that has actually given his will to his country, maybe it would be better for all involved if you just got out…you’ve got nothing to lose, after all. America isn’t fair? Move. Leave. Go.

We have become a country that puts the needs of your tiny, meddling, superficial groups to the forefront because our leaders are afraid of being called biased. We spend a lot of time on you…and you know exactly who you are…hearing out your court cases and legal summaries as to why things should be this way, or that way, to be truly fair. Instead of seeking a new haven as so many millions have sought America, you instead use fear and hate to spread your doctrine.

It’s a doctrine that is destroying our country and our way of life. Congratulations. While you wage another protest, or sit-in, or attack, the real danger awaits outside our borders. While watching you, we’re forced to take our eye off the true danger. Move to Mexico, Canada, or the Middle East and establish your lives there…I don’t care where you go just as long as it is not here. Goodbye. Good Luck. Get Out. You say that you want freedom and equality, yet you hold the country hostage. I’ve but one more thing left to say: The World Does Not Revolve Around You.

Religious morality is fake; Do like the magic man says in his magic book and receive reward after death.. or torture.. that’s not morality.

Conrad Black has been on my mind recently. He pops to mind every so often when I read something about him, or by him. That’s been the case ever since I met the man, 16 years ago, when we spent two hours together in a small room.

Now that I’ve got your attention, let me tell you about it.

It was 1993, and Mr. Black’s autobiography, A Life In Progress, had just been published. A partner and I had a small television production business at the time producing something called “satellite media tours,” or SMTs. It sounds terribly complicated and impressive – but it was really a simple, beautiful idea that met with some success here in Canada largely because there was a need for the service. This was, after all, before the Internet age.

Some background

The way it worked was this: when people wanted to communicate with a large number of TV stations across the country in a short period of time, an SMT would allow them to do so. My partner and I would make the necessary arrangements. We’d hire a small studio at the Rogers Centre (in downtown Toronto – it was called the SkyDome in those days), and book a couple of hours time on a satellite. Then we’d call TV stations across the country and tell them, “On such and such a date, so and so is available for a one-on-one interview. Would you like to participate?” Each station that wanted an interview would get a ten minute window in which to conduct their own.

At the beginning of the “tour,” the guest would sit in the studio at the SkyDome with a little ear piece in their ear, listening to the questions from the interviewer at station #1, and would talk into the camera to give their answers. The good folks at Dome Productions would uplink the signal to the satellite. The station at the other end would downlink the signal and record their own 10-minute interview. Then we’d move on to the next station’s 10-minute interview and the next. And voila! In the span of an hour or two, you could reach as many stations as typically wanted to do interviews. It was a great little business. We did just about one SMT a month for a couple of years. We could put together a tour in three or four days; and it provided a nice little stream of income in those few days that enabled me to be the stay-at-home mom – all the other days of the month – that I wanted to be.

(I remember on more than one occasion feeding Cheerios one-by-one over my shoulder to my then one-year-old son Mark – who would be in the backpack – in an attempt to keep him happy and quiet, while I negotiated SMT details with participating TV stations from my office in the basement of our home. But that’s a whole other story.)

My partner and I had coffee mugs made up with our company name and logo on them, and the words, “I’ve been uplinked!” We gave them to each of our guests. Including Conrad Black. You see, a PR firm hired us to put together an SMT for Mr. Black to talk about his autobiography. Knowing I would be sitting in a tiny studio (it was not much bigger than a closet, really) with the man for a couple of hours, I decided to read his book, thinking it would give us something to chat about in between interviews.

Something in his book surprised me

Now I really don’t remember what it was, exactly, in his book that surprised me. But I remember reading one particular anecdote and wondering why he had chosen to share it. If I recall correctly, it was something relatively personal, and it struck me that he was making himself vulnerable in the revelation. Why would a person of his wealth and position want to make himself vulnerable like that?

So while in that tiny studio – in between interviews – I asked him why he’d told that particular tale. His response surprised me even more. “Do you think I shouldn’t have?” he asked. I have a mental image of him leaning forward in complete earnest. I was taken aback. What difference could it possibly make to Conrad Black what I thought about anything? Why should he care?

And yet – he seemed to care. Genuinely.

I remember stammering something (probably completely stupid and lame) in response. But I’ve never forgotten his question to me. “Do you think I shouldn’t have?”

I’ve thought of that brief episode – in which my life and his intersected – many times over the past 16 years. I thought of it often as I followed the news coverage of his trial. I’ve reflected on the fact that if he is indeed a person who cares as deeply as he seemed to that day – about what other people think of who he is, what he does and the choices he makes – how difficult it must be for him to be in the position he’s in today.

And often, as he’s come to mind, I’ve breathed a little prayer for the man, asking God to use this experience in his life for his ultimate good.

Infiltrated. Again.

Thus he infiltrated my thoughts and prayers again recently, when I read his Nov. 14, 2009 story in The National Post, Conrad Black on the rewards of teaching fellow inmates.

It’s a “tug-at-your-heart-strings” kind of piece in which Mr. Black makes himself vulnerable once again. “It has been my good fortune to be well-received in some learned and distinguished places,” he writes, “and I am always grateful for considered applause, but never more so than when complimented by my students on receipt of my advanced tutor’s certificate at our graduating ceremony here a couple of months ago.”

Concluding, he writes, “It pains me to verge on platitudes, but life’s rewards do sometimes come in strange ways and unexpected places.”

And as I thought about the once mighty man, typing away on his computer keyboard, all the while processing the lessons he’s learned while in prison, it occurred to me that God sometimes answers our prayers for our fellow men in strange ways and in unexpected places.

***

On another note, do you suppose he still has his “I’ve been uplinked!” coffee mug?

I remember when I first realized that the notions I had regarding politics and social affairs could most closely be called Anarchy.  I was in one of my Spanish literature class (to my delight my second major, Spanish, was filled with all the exciting peripheral fight-the-power ideas that I had been so disappointed to learn that my original major, English, lacked), taught by my favorite professor, an Argentine.  He lectured about three recent political structures:

1st – The Nation/The People - The Nation is ruled by a government that represents the will of The People.  Top-down.

2nd – The Leader/The Masses - Coming from Argentina my professor was especially familiar with Peronism and this form of organization.  The Leader is one who sweeps to power through the overwhelming support of The Masses .  Not empowered by the national sovereignty such as Rousseau talked about…but instead representing a more coarse group outside the structure of government, one that fills government with its exploding will.  Also top-down.

3rd – The Multitudes/Sporadic Potential – He said this was what truly excited him.  The Multitudes combine to create Sporadic Potential which in turn affects the direction of decisions and policies.  Bottom-up. 

Many in my class, especially one young woman, were furious about his teachings.  She called him a communist.  But what I realized was that his political leanings were something even more taboo, which he was understandably loathe to openly admit – an anarchist.  And for the first time I understood Anarchy and it slotted completely into my misgivings about power, government, corruption and subjection.  It all made so much sense then…although this realization made me distressed and uncomfortable at first. 

 As I read further I came to realize that Anarchy had been developed over centuries, and was not as scary as I had once thought.  It seemed that above all other political theorists, the Anarchists had the most beautiful vision of human potential, the most heartrending devotion to what so many others scoff at.

The following conversation stems from an excellent post on one of my favorite blogs on WordPress, Speak Now Peace Works.  It was specifically in response to the post Positively Deviant, which talks about the success observed when ideas come from within groups instead of from outsiders providing guidance, however well-intentioned. 

It was a good opportunity to try and elaborate further on what, for me at least, Anarchy is.  It also raises some very difficult questions that an ideal conception of the world with sporadic, independently-functioning beings would have to address.  But those are the topics for further posts…

• That is why I am mostly an Anarchist!

People can solve their own problems, if we give them a chance. The human brain is more amazing than any machine could ever be…

I believe in bottom-up solutions always and hope that these ideas catch fire throughout the world!

Great to see you have been writing a lot lately, this is one of my favorite stops while my brain is fried from staring at reports and contracts, ugh…

by ssjrem

Okay, well, right off the bat, I may as well avoid any beating around the bush and tell you two stances I hold. One, I’m pro-life. I am against abortion. I’m nowhere near as vehement in that stance as I used to be, but I still hold to it rather strongly. Two, I’m all for euthanasia. I think it’s absolutely ridiculous that abortion is legal while euthanasia is not. Human beings make no sense to me. Of course, opinions that I personally hold are obviously going to make the most sense to me, but when it comes to certain things, I just don’t understand people. Though, I can understand both sides of issues and arguments about 99% of the time. Even still, I’m actually a rather opinionated guy. This isn’t to say I’m close-minded by any means; far from it, actually. But, yeah, let’s get into why exactly I hold these two stances.

I had a conversation with Dukemich the other night while at Dunkin Donuts at about 1:30 in the morning. It certainly wasn’t the first time he and I had a deep conversation during a late night trip to Dunkin Donuts and I sincerely hope that it’s not the last. I do rather enjoy philosophical discussions. I’ve never reckoned myself to be much of a debater, though I think I’m getting better in that regard. Anyway, dukemich and I will often be talking about something like anal sex and that will somehow evolve into a conversation about metaphysics and religion and god and all that good stuff. Go figure, right? Anyway, for whatever reason, the topic of abortion came up and this sparked a good long debate about a number of matters.

Dukemich and I were discussing a girl we know that has recently gotten pregnant. She’s a young girl and it’s doubtful that she and the father will be able to provide a good life for this child. Dukemich said that they should probably get an abortion and I was hesitant to say anything following that. He then divulged to me that he is pro-choice, which I found rather surprising. Of the two of us, Duke is far more religious. I left religion behind years ago and I have recently come to the conclusion that I am in fact an atheist (see my defining disbelief blog for more information on that, if you’re so inclined). So I found it interesting that the religious one of us was pro-choice and I, the non-religious one am staunchly pro-life. It’s a funny world we live in.

Basically, the debate about abortion has to fundamentally boil down to when exactly you believe that life actually beings. And I have to believe that it begins at conception as opposed to “birth.” If you want to throw religion into this whole thing, I suppose a major question is when does the soul come into play? I don’t think the Catholic Church (or any branch of Christianity for that matter) has ever actually defined when the soul comes about. Does the soul come into being as soon as the sperm hits the egg or is the soul breathed into the baby when he or she takes his or her first breath in the outside world? Really, for the religious, it’s a very important question. However, I prefer to take religion out of debates because it gets too damn personal. So, for all intents and purposes, let’s just use the term consciousness.

That’s kind of an ill-defined word, but I like it better than soul. Basically, I suppose, let’s define consciousness as awareness of one’s existence and the outside world. So, in that way, I guess it’s fairly similar to sapience. Human beings are really defined by their ability to think, to realize their own existences as living beings. It’s a gift to our species that we’ve earned throughout millions of years of evolution. So, when exactly in fetal development does that begin? Should abortions be allowed early in the pregnancy, but no later than a certain point? And can we define exactly what that point is? I just can’t stomach the thought of killing something that in time will definitely become a human being with a fully developed consciousness even if it doesn’t have one at the time. It doesn’t sit right with me.

One of the main aspects of my whole philosophy on life revolves around the idea of personhood. My first “Some Thoughts” blog really got me thinking about a whole shitload of different things. As an atheist, I’m a godless. Thus, some would argue that I am moral-less. And that is something with which I have wrestled quite a bit. Where exactly do morals come from? How are they formed? I do know that I have a conscience, so to speak. I feel remorse or guilt or shame when I do certain things. But where does all that come from? Is it just ingrained from my parents? But then we could just go back and back and back and back and back and back and back throughout history right back to the beginning. Eventually, it has go back to the source and just where the hell does it come from?

This next part is kind of out there, but it’s just a theory; bear with me. Ethics and morals are essentially a by-product of human evolution. Nothing on this earth is anything at all like humans. Our intelligence and ability to influence the world around us is absolutely unparalleled. However, things weren’t always this easy for us. Thousands of years ago, humans every day fought to just survive. Our intelligence bonded us together. Familial bonds were formed that were necessary to just carry on. In order to carry on as a species, we had to force close bonds. We had to develop systems that would enable us to endure as a species. Morals were borne of this. And then as humans grew in numbers and technology became ever better, societies rose up, giving further need for some sort of governing. In order to carry on in a civil fashion, laws had to be created. We can’t just have people going out and killing each other if they felt like it; it would endanger our species.

Yes, I realize it’s kind of weird, but it helps me rationalize how morals might have come about and it also fits in nicely with most of the views about humanity and some of the issues facing us today. First and foremost, we have a right to protect our species as a whole. If there is one thing that goes above our own lives, it’s the lives of those close to us, principally our families. We want to see the race endure and we’re very concerned for the future. This is why the “bad guy” in 2012 actually made way more sense to me than the good guy. If only a few survive, but the species as a whole is preserved, than it’s worth it. It’s a fundamental rule of nature, survival of the fittest, if you will. Humans have largely been able to ignore the usual law of the land. However, given our intelligence and dominance, we do have a right to do that. Humans do still get killed by animals every now and then; it’s not like we’re completely protected. And we get killed in things like car accidents all the time, things animals generally don’t have to worry about. It evens out a tad.

Second to protecting ourselves as a species as a whole, we have a right to protect ourselves as individuals. Each and every separate human being has his or her own consciousness and his or her own body. We have complete and dominion and control over our own bodies. You can do whatever you want with your own body. It’s yours. Your consciousness, your mind, controls this body. But if it’s hurting the species or another individual, then that’s where your right ends. We humans don’t have a hive or collective mind. We all think and cognize separately. Each individual human being has his or her own individual consciousness. Or soul, if you prefer that term. Admittedly, it does have a certain ring to it. And I keep spelling consciousness wrong. Oh well. Each human has a right to protect his or her own body and continue to exist as human being, to perpetuate the existence of one’s consciousness. Most humans don’t want to die, even in our darker hours. Cessation of life is a thing feared by almost all humans. Nobody truly knows what actually happens after one dies.

That does lead me to an interesting thought. When the body dies, does consciousness cease? Or does it continue to exist in some form? Is it possible that the mind continues to work even as the body itself rots underground? Probably not, to be blunt. Even the physical brain will ultimately deteriorate and with that, one would think consciousness would cease as well. But here’s where I suppose a distinction needs to be drawn between consciousness and the soul. Essentially, religions were cultivated out of a fear of death and it’s a powerful one. There is no better way to get people to believe than by speaking of death. And dying still scares the hell out of me. It always will.

Anyway, like I was saying, each individual human has unlimited domain over their own body, so long as what they do doesn’t cause unwanted repercussions for other human beings. Thus, in my philosophy, suicide is no problem. I really don’t have any problem with suicide. I don’t really see it as selfish or anything like that. Hey, it’s your body that you’re destroying. It’s your life. It’s your consciousness that you’re choosing to end. I believe you have every right to do that. However, I do have to factor in the fact that this act may have undesirable consequences for the loved ones of the one who commits suicide. You’ll be causing them pain. So, in a way, it does extend beyond oneself. However, one can never be entirely sure how loved ones will react. You can’t possibly know the repercussions because, well, you’re dead. Generally, I really don’t have any problems with suicide. Kamikaze on the other hand, now that’s a problem. But suicide? If you really and truly believe that you’re in so much pain or have so little to live for, then go for it. However, you really have to weigh the circumstances of each individual case. If someone is a complete nobody or a vagabond or something then as awful as it is to say this, then nobody will care. But, say for instance, you have a really close relationship with your mother and take a trip to the gallows. You will devastate your mother. However, as far as morals go, you can’t really be held accountable for things that occur after your death. How would you know? It is your consciousness, after all, that you’re ending.

So, yes, that also means I’m all for euthanasia. I find it one of the most absolutely ridiculous things ever in the modern world that abortion is legal while euthanasia isn’t. It’s absurd. With euthanasia, you’re making the damn decision. That’s assuming of course you still have the ability to make the decision. As long as you personally make the decision to pull the plug, then it’s okay. Nobody else has the right to do that. They don’t have control over your body. However, in cases of persons in persistent vegetative states, it’s arguable that consciousness has actually ceased. Basically, that means in a way that you’re no longer a human being. Thus, someone else does have the right to pull the plug. I realize that’s extremely touchy and I’m still working out the kinks of my argument concerning that. Then again, sometimes people do often spontaneously awaken from persistent vegetative states, though usually not without severe mental disabilities as a result. It’s all rather grey, is it not? But certainly very interesting. In general, like suicide, I do support euthanasia, though it also does depend on individual case circumstances.

In light of all my talk about one having control over one’s own life and one’s own body, you could make a pretty good case for my being pro-choice. But I’m not and it boils down to one thing. It’s not a fucking choice. There’s no choice there because you’re ending the life of another human being. It does not matter if that fetus actually has developed consciousness at that time; it will. It will be a human being and you can’t argue that. And as a human being, it’s entitled to life. It’s entitled to at least have a chance. Yes, the child might have to endure a horrible life with terrible parents or a shitty life in an adoption center or something. But as a human being, as a living thing with a consciousness, we owe to it to that human to at least provide a chance. There is a possibility that the child could potentially rise up out its circumstances and live a great and fulfilling life. Or the child could be subjected to a literal hell. Even still, I think living in a hell would be better than never getting to live at all. You don’t even give the child a chance.

Yes, the child grows inside of the mother and it is inside the body of the mother. But it still is a separate body with a separate consciousness. That makes it a separate human being. And as a fellow and individual human being, no one has any right whatsoever to end the consciousness of that human being. When it comes down to it, abortion is essentially murder. Just because some fourteen girl made a mistake and got knocked up, that gives her the right to become a murderer? That doesn’t follow. However, I do have to admit that situations like rape resulting in pregnancy or things like thing enter in some morally grey areas. Yes, the mother will want nothing to this child and will have to endure a pregnancy she never desired. Despite that, she still owes it to the child now within her to give it a chance. As a human being, the child has every right to exist and have a chance in the outside world. Yes, it is a lot to ask of the mother; I realize that. I still do think we owe it to a fellow human being to at least give him or her an opportunity at life. You can’t just assume that life is going to be awful for the child.

So, yeah, I guess I’m pretty much done here. I feel like all my points and arguments made sense, but of course I do. I am me, after all. They are my arguments. And these are my stances about abortion, suicide, and, well, essentially about human nature. I didn’t get anywhere near as deeply into my evolution of morals idea as I would’ve like, but this blog is gargantuan as it is. It’s an intriguing idea to me and I’m really going to do some research to see if I can back up. So, scientifically, I really shouldn’t call it a theory. It doesn’t have much backing it up. It’s much more of a hypothesis than anything. By taking Ethics this semester and Philosophy last year, my already substantial interest in philosophy has only grown more intense. I’m minoring in philosophy and if I thought a major in philosophy would actually get me anywhere, I would do that. The days of going to the town square and spouting philosophy have long since left us behind. Heh, maybe I should bring them back. Anyway, yeah, I’m slowly putting together my grand philosophy about, well, everything. Human nature, consciousness, life, the universe, metaphysics. I’ve been piecing all of this together in my head and this is my first attempt at getting down some basic parts of my philosophy. Hmmm, I’m going to have to come up with a name for this. Anyway, yeah, I’m about done. I realize a lot of that got very controversial and into some very morally grey areas. But that’s just part of philosophy, I suppose. I’m out. Happy 150^th anniversary of On The Origin of Species, everyone! Until we meet again.

]]> http://radiofloyd57.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/mario-sticks-it-to-the-man/ Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:50:51 +0000 radiofloyd57 http://radiofloyd57.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/mario-sticks-it-to-the-man/

It had been almost over a year since i wrote my article about Hollister, but yet i still had the job.

I did not seem to mind anymore. I continued the tradition of swallowing my pride, but no longer  did I care about my discount, my job became an important social aspect of my life.

Oh yes, this was until we got the new boss.

Everyone knows what it’s like getting a new boss. He or she will either be a pushover or a complete toolbag. For me, it always seems to be the latter.

His name was Derek. He was a large man who barely fit into the company’s clothing. This was because he spent most of his life at the gym. I think by spending so much time sculpting his guns he may have constricted a few too many blood vessels.

He seemed to have been pointing out flaws in everyone’s work and letting us go unappreciated for the hours we were putting in.Luckily for me, he hadn’t found a flaw yet.

I think this panicked him. So for my final month working, he stalked me. Hid behind plants, lurked quietly in the corner, watching, waiting for me to screw up. And then I did.

A woman old enough to George Burn’s mother walked into our store. I was not about to berate this woman with the company’s tagline “Hey, what’ up?” It would have only have confused her, and I did not feel like giving this woman a cerebral aneurysm by explaining it.

"My mother was a saint!"

So I said “Hi, how are you doing today?!”

Big fucking mistake.

According to my manager, being hip and cool out weighs friendly and polite. No more could i work for this man, so I wrote him this letter

“Dear Derek,

If you don’t know by now, I don’t enjoy my job. If you haven’t noticed, it’s because you’re completely devoid of human emotion.

I started this job with high hopes. I thought working here would be a relaxed environment; my oh my how naïve I was.

I soon was whisked into a world of mass consumerism and materialism that I couldn’t have begun to fathom before I started working here. For instance: the company’s idea of model standards.

I’m not an idiot; I can hear your conference calls. I heard Chelsea complaining about our model’s not wearing enough plaid. I heard the other managers talking about their new recruitments. “I think she’s really cute, she’d be great” or “I don’t like him, especially after he shaved his head.”

How about this, who gives a fuck?

It wasn’t until recently that I realized this, I’ve known this forever. If you didn’t know I’ve been with the company longer than you have, so for me to only notice this now would be absurd.

The last string was pulled earlier this week. According to anonymous sources at the manager meeting, the managers, you believe that we are stressed out because of the company’s instance for us to wear plaid.

^Way too stressed out

I’m tired of making witty comments and transfusing them with sarcasm, so I’m just going to be blunt. It’s not the plaid; it’s you.

By hearing this quote I realized there is no getting through to you. You have no idea of how other human beings think or act. It’s the only explanation

You’re like a robot.

But it doesn’t matter, because you don’t. I can think of a long list of things that are more important than Hollister’s and your impact in the world including Atkins, contact lenses, snuggies, antiperspirant deodorant,  Go-gurt, crystal meth, red states, socialism, Hayden Panterrie, that funny asian guy off of Knocked Up, construction paper, Bonanza, barracudas, cheap cologne, and George Clooney.

So I’m going to go back to my life of yager bombs and happiness and you can go back to yours of snorting testosterone and So Cal.

Yours truly,

Mario

PS: PULL UP YOUR FUCKING PANTS!!!!!!! “

I hope I made my point.

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

Looking back on the pre-presidential election days can be quite interesting. Take this:

Filmmaker Spike Lee said that God put Barack Hussein Obama in the Oval Office. He is certain that Barack Hussein Obama will walk into the White House
because heaven ordained it to be so.

Lee says that he can feel it. It is without question. There is such certainty in Lee’s conviction.

However, Lee is not known for his biblical sensitivity or theological learning. Lee is not considered a spiritual advisor of excellence.

Nevertheless, that did not stop Lee from publicly pronouncing his soul witness endorsing Barack Hussein Obama as deity’s choice for America’s President.

Per Jeff Poor of Business & Media Institute, “Lee revealed he thought the economic difficulties that are presently plaguing the country were ordained by God to help get Barack Obama elected president.”

Therefore, add to the Lee certainty that God has placed Barack Hussein Obama on Pennsylvania Avenue that God also planned the nation’s financial mess. In other words, thank you, God, for two weird blessings wrapped in one package.

“Lee appeared on ‘Morning Joe’ and, in an interview with co-host Joe Scarborough, he made the revelation.

“‘I’ve always believed, and it seems naive, that God had a hand in America,’ Scarborough said. ‘And I get a real sense you feel that God has had a real hand in this.’

“‘So many things have happened – all of a sudden, the economy goes south at that moment, and then McCain,’ Lee replied. ‘There were so many things.. It was almost a movement that had to be ordained, I think.’”

So there you have it. Lee the prophet. Lee the advisor for future events and analyzer for past happenings.
This is Lee the film designer giving forth the Holy Spirit’s messages to his own spirit.

What is so odd is that Lee’s testimony does not square with God’s Word. And of course if Lee is speaking for the Bible’s God, then what he states as divinely ordained should square with divine revelation.

However, it does not.

Lee’s idol, Barack Hussein Obama, is pro-choice for womb killing mothers. This is not God sanctioned.

Obama desires homosexual activity to be permitted throughout America as a legitimate pastime. This is not God sanctioned.

Obama states that reading the Koran was a poetic, aesthetic experience for his own soul experience. This is not in line with the Bible as divine revelation in comparison to the Koran as demonically scribed.

Obama holds that all religions are one. That is not sanctioned by the Bible’s God.

Obama embraces Islam as a legitimate religion, holding a long history of being pro-Muslim so that many suspect him to be a mask Muslim. That is not
God sanctioned.

Lee obviously speaks for other than God. If he sincerely means that a spirit spoke to his spirit, that spirit would have to be a satanic spirit, not the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit cannot contradict His own inspired Word. The Holy Spirit cannot cancel out biblical ethics. The Holy Spirit cannot endorse an immoral agenda such as that proposed by Barack Hussein Obama.

Lee, check out your spirit. It does not appear to be in line with the Holy Spirit, therefore, your analyses are suspect, evidently.

A colleague shared this piece with me, and when I shared it in my Motivational Message last week, it got an overwhelming ‘thumbs up.’

Here it is for you:

Things I Believe

A Birth Certificate shows we were born A Death Certificate shows we died Pictures show we lived!

Have a seat….Relax. ..And read this slowly.

I Believe…
Just because two people argue,
Doesn’t mean they don’t love each other.
And just because they don’t argue,
Doesn’t mean they do love each other.

I Believe… We don’t have to change friends if
We understand friends change.

I Believe….
No matter how good a friend is, they’re going to hurt
You every once in a while and you must forgive them for that.

I Believe….
True friendship continues to grow, even over
The longest distance. Same goes for true love.
I Believe…
You can do something in an instant
That will give you heartache for life.

I Believe….
it’s taking me a long time
To become the person I want to be.

I Believe.
You should always leave loved ones with
Loving words. It may be the last time you see them.

I Believe…
You can keep going long after you think you can’t.

I Believe…
We are responsible for what we do, no matter how we feel.

I Believe…
Either you control your attitude or it controls you.

I Believe…
Heroes are the people who do what has to be done
When it needs to be done, regardless of consequences.

I Believe…
Money is a lousy way of keeping score.

I Believe…
My best friend and I can do anything or nothing And have the best time.

I Believe…
Sometimes the people you expect to kick you
When you’re down will be the ones to help you get back up.

I Believe….
Sometimes when I’m angry, I have the right to be angry,
But that doesn’t give me the right to be cruel.

I Believe…
Maturity has more to do with what types of experiences you’ve had
And what you’ve e learned from them, and less to do
With how many birthdays you’ve celebrated.

I Believe…
It isn’t always enough to be forgiven by others;
Sometimes, you have to learn to forgive yourself…

I Believe…
No matter how bad your heart is broken,

The world doesn’t stop for your grief.

I Believe…
Our background and circumstances may have influenced who we are,
But we are responsible for whom we become.

I Believe…
You shouldn’t be e so eager to find
Out a secret. It could change your life forever.

I Believe…
Two people can look at the exact same
Thing and see something totally different…

I Believe…
Your life can be changed in a matter of
Hours by people who don’t even know you.

I Believe….
Even when you think you have no more to give, when
A friend cries out to you – you will find the strength to help.

I Believe…
Credentials on the wall do not make you a decent human being.

I Believe….
The people you care about most in life are taken from you too soon.

I Believe…..
You should send this to all of the people you believe in, I just did.

‘The happiest of people don’t necessarily have the best of everything;
They just make the most of anything.’

Debbie Wysocki is the owner of Women with Dreams and residual Money secrets – companies that empower the average person to live an extraordinary life by teaching how to build profitable businesses in the network marketing arena. She is a wife, mom, volunteer, a top producer in the MLM industry, a real estate investor, author, trainer, and former Beverly Hills financial analyst who is passionate about helping others succeed. Her motto is ‘How you do anything, is how you do everything!’ For more information or to contact Debbie directly: Debbie@WomenWithDreams.com

954-781-6629

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

Canon Law Regarding Catholics and Abortion:

“Canon Law 1398 Catholics who have obtained an abortion, or performed an abortion, have excommunicated themselves latae sententiae (automatically by their very action) from the Catholic Church. They remain outside the church until the reception of the sacrament of Penance through a good confession.

“Canon Law 1329 Catholics who are accomplices in enabling and permitting the crime of abortion to occur, who without their assistance the crime would not have been committed, incur the same penalty.

“Canon Law 915 (an exception to receiving Holy Communion) “Others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

All bishops should follow their own Canon Law concerning their constituency and the abortion atrocity.

Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin sets the morally correct standard. He refused Patrick Kennedy the sacrament in Rhode Island.

Kennedy’s endorsement of child killing is abhorrent to God. It is abhorrent to the Roman Catholic ethical understanding of Scripture—the inerrant, infallible Word of God.

Kennedy favors killing womb infants. That is called “murder.” Female rights have no right to murder.

Therefore, the devil is in the process when mortals slay mortals who are in female bodies. That is not only how Tobin sees it; that is the way biblical believers understand divine revelation.

TV’s The View Whoopie Goldberg had a field day this morning when it came to her understanding of what the church does with its constituency’s views of right and wrong. With that, she went on her evangelistic diatribe about her understanding of Scripture.

She concludes that the Bible allows a human to do what he or she wants to do as long it is in keeping with that individual’s personal communication with God—no interference from churchly organizations or spiritual leaders.

On one part, she is accurate: a mortal can communicate with God and is served the consequences of that via accountability from that God.

But on the other part, she is so wrong. The God of the Bible does not have various moral codes for various persons depending on what they say they “hear” from God. God’s biblical standard is there as an eternal verity; it is not waffling to left or right, up or down.

Whoopie always has a good old time of it when trying to make deity out to be a Nice Guy on everything from communion altars to sex. In that she makes a lot of viewing friends for they likewise serve a deity who is totally into relativism, discounting absolutes.

However, Tobin is in line with the true understanding of Scripture when he holds the line on not permitting those who claim to be “Christian” yet murder to have Communion. They in no way have the ethical right to partake of the body and blood of Christ. That is atrocious in itself.

Think about it: Did Savior Christ suffer severe mistreatment on the cross in order to share His body and blood with persons who slay children? I don’t think so.

Did Christ stretch His holy presence on Calvary, permit nails to be driven through His hands and feet, then endure the spear slice in His side to allow pious appearing church goers the honor to partake of the sacrament representing that redemptive offering?  I don’t think so.

Did Christ anywhere in His public ministry ever teach that slaughtering womb innocents is okay if it is not in a person’s life plan?  I don’t think so.

Would to God that more clergy kept the same biblical standard that Tobin keeps. All spiritual leaders in the Christian tradition should obey God, His moral base and instruct those under their care to do the same.

“Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an ‘imperfect humanity.’ Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members,” Tobin told Kennedy.

Stay the holy course, Tobin. Stay the holy course.

FOOTNOTE:

The Bible speaks of a fetus as a person, not simply tissue that can be discarded if found to be a bother or nuisance. Since the fetus is a person from the moment of conception, then the destroying of the fetus is killing a person.

“In the past, some people have mistakenly speculated that perhaps the body might be in the process of formation for some time, and then ‘God breathes a soul into it.’ They had it backward. The life that is present forms matter into a body for itself’” (Joseph Breig, “Life Forms Matter,” The Catholic News, Jan. 24, 1974, p. 8).

“Your hands shaped me and made me. Will you now turn and destroy me? Remember that you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust again? Did you not pour me out like milk … and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life and showed me kindness, and in your providence watched over my spirit” (Job 10:8-12 NIV).

“Before I was born the LORD called me; from my birth he has made mention of my name…and now the LORD says–he who formed me in the womb to be his servant…” (Isaiah 49:1, 5).

“The word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations’” (Jeremiah 1:4-5).

In the following passages we note that personality is ascribed to the unborn.

“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that fully well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be” (Psalm 139:13-16).

“Sons are a heritage from the LORD, children a reward from him” (Psalm 127:3).

Exodus 21:22-25 relates how Israel was to judge a circumstance relating to the death of the unborn:

“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”

All of the latter deals with unintentional hurt that comes to a pregnant woman; how much more will divine penalty come upon those who intentionally discard the fetus? The Gospel of Luke ascribes personality to the fetus within Elizabeth:

“When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit… As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy” (1:41, 44).

Mere tissue does not leap for joy; only personhood leaps for joy. The Bible regards the fetus as having personality. In Galatians, Paul speaks of himself as a person while still in his mother’s womb, but more a person consecrated by God for a holy mission (compare Jeremiah 1:5 for the same accent):

“But when God, who set me apart from birth, and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles…” (Gal. 1: 15-16).

Since the Bible regards the fetus as personality, then the aborting of the fetus is murdering personality.

Some verses from Scripture dealing with murder are then appropriate for study, such as Genesis 9:6: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” Also, read Exodus 23:7: “Have nothing to do with a false charge, and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty.” Note I Peter 4:15: “If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer…”

If the Republic returned to the biblical definition of personhood, we would defend every womb child.

John Adams said the following:

“Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”

Andrew Jackson said the following:

“The BIBLE is the rock on which our Republic rests.”

Daniel Webster:

“If we abide by the principles taught in the BIBLE, our country will go on prospering.”

“For all the talk of freedom and self-determination, the abortion movement is at its heart a movement denying rights to a silent segment of humanity and soliciting public sanction, support and subsidy to its own cause” (Donald P. Shoemaker, ABORTION, THE BIBLE AND THE CHRISTIAN, Hayes Publishing Co., 1976, p. iv).

by Star Parker at Townhall.com

…More

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

Biblical ethicists defy left-of-left government intrusion if the latter prods believers to deny their values.

These stalwarts are in the line of Jesus overturning temple tables, sending merchants fleeing. Jesus defied the power structure in favor of hallowing His Father’s House of Prayer.

Christians through centuries have defied evildoers. They have stood for the God of the Bible while secularists threatened them with harm.

So it is today those adhering to scriptural morals inform a secularist-prone government to move over. These godly disciples will not bend to unbelievers’ demands. They will serve God as God.

“Because we honor justice and the common good,” it states, “we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide or euthanasia or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family.”

The document referred to is the Manhattan Declaration per Washington Times’ Julia Duin.

It is bolstered by evangelicals, Roman Catholics and Orthodox leaders in particular. Moralists of all stripes agree with its mission.

Prison Fellowship founder Charles Colson and Princeton University professor Roman Catholic Robert P. George spearheaded this Christian witness. Scores of others join them.

As Barack Hussein Obama, Marxist Muslim, continues to gather about him anti-Christian cohorts, particularly as czars in his shadow government, Christians do what Jesus told them to do.

Jesus instructed His grace children not to hide their lights under bushels. Jesus told His own they were the salt of the earth. Jesus Himself defended heaven’s moral base against the odds, finally being murdered for doing so.

Jesus instructed that in every age His saved ones are to be in the world but not of the world, hence Christians take their testimony into the marketplaces. For that some have been persecuted, others martyred. Nevertheless, Jesus followers boldly hold to His example worldwide.

“There are at least 224 million Christians in the United States, according to the Web site Adherents.com.

“The document, which was drafted over the summer, is being released at a time of high stress for many of the groups that signed it. The Archdiocese of Washington is under fire for saying it will not comply with a pending D.C. law that would force the Catholic Church to give health benefits or adoption services to same-sex couples.”

For biblical ethicists there is no thought of compromise, no matter how threatened. Allegiance is having none other than the God of the Word. His law comes first; defending it is paramount.

Read “Religious leaders vow civil disobedience on anti-life issues” at http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/21/religious-leaders-vow-civil-disobedience/

You can choose your friends, but your family – you’re stuck with them like it or not. There is usually someone in the family we don’t particularly like, there’s always your favorite relative, often one member of the family is better off financially than any others (and they won’t share), everyone is at a different place in their life and there are usually one or two members of the family that no one else seems to understand…but you love them all anyway.

Even when they completely annoy or upset you – you still love them. Even when they let you down, break your heart, do something to hurt you, or turn their back on you – you can’t help it – they’re family and you still love them.

At this time of year, we all put (or try to put) our differences aside and give thanks for what we have. If would be nice if we could find a way to extend those kind, selfless actions further into the year…but at least we all do this at some point in the year.

Your friends are the ‘family’ you choose – and at this time of year, if you’ve had an argument or disagreement of some sort, I highly recommend extending the olive branch and making amends. There are very few things worth ending or hurting a friendship over.

Peace.Love.Happiness – that’s what this time of year is about. Embrace it and enjoy it.

Pilgrimage Statistics

Consecutive Days Riding: 43                              Consecutive Days Blogging: 44

Today’s Mileage:  10                                           Total Trip Mileage: 365

Visitor Center

As I ride the bike I recognize that we are quickly approaching the west coast of Florida.  We will visit Marco Island in coming days and then head towards Naples and our next Pilgrimage Site.  Our travels today take us past the Collier Seminole State Park so I will include photos from the park for your enjoyment.

Red Shouldered Hawk

Yesterday I spoke about the “levels of analysis” we may use when talking about spiritual and religious matters.  In my Psychology of Religion class I steer my students away from the usual “who has the right/proper form” questions towards these questions: how do religions and spiritual systems attempt to meet individual and community needs? How are different religions meeting the same functions with similar processes?”

Canoe trail

Today I’d like to speak briefly on the topic of morality from a functional perspective. Specifically  I would like to address the question:  how do we judge morality? I often hear people speak of other people’s behavior as being moral or not moral.  This is a deceptive simplification of the issue, we call dichotomous thinking.  It’s not that one person has a set of morals and the other is totally without.  The real issue is that the one person’s behavior (the actor) falls outside of what the other (the viewer) sees as moral.  However, in all likelihood, it fits the definition of “moral” held by the actor.  While one person might view going on a gay date as immoral, the person going on the date may judge it as the moral thing to do as they are acting in a congruent way between their feelings and actions.  For that person to deny and not act on their homosexuality, would  be for them, a deceptive and immoral action. I believe if we step back and take a functional approach to analyze conflict laden situations, we will see that both individuals have morals and both use them to judge their actions and choices. It’s in the content of their morals where the differences exist.

Primrose with visitor

In my current academic research I have come across the works of several Social psychologists in working  the field of Moral Foundations Theory. Recently the authors, Jesse Graham, Jonathan Haidt, and Brian Nosek, have reported finding that liberal and conservative individuals base their moral judgment and decisions on different sets of moral foundations. 

Moral Foundations Theory hypothesizes that there are five sets of “moral intuitions” which people use to make their moral judgments.  These include: 1) Does the action harm another and is it caring (Harm/Care),2) Is the action Fair towards the other individual and promote reciprocity (Fairness/Reciprocity), 3) Does the action fit with a loyalty towards one’s group (Ingroup/Loyalty), 4) Does the action show respect for prevailing authority (Authority/Respect), 5) Does the action fall within one’s views of what is a pure or sanctified behavior (Purity/Sanctity). Their research indicates that while individuals tend to use all five of these foundations, clear difference exist between individuals who rate themselves as liberals, who make primary use of Harm/Care and Fairness/Reciprocity, versus conservatives, who make more or less equal us of all five foundations.

Salt Marsh Mallow

These findings point to and highlight the source of conflict between individuals on the opposite ends of political and religious discussions.  Liberals look first and foremost at the impact a choice or decision has on minority members of the society. Conservatives give significantly more weight to tradition, established authority figures and ideas of “right and wrong” as defined in sacred texts.

These authors note: “Western societies are growing more diverse and with diversity comes differing ideals about how to best regulate selfishness and about how we ought to live together.” Political and religious issues overlap in areas like abortion, separation of church and state, waging “just” wars, and gay rights issues, to name a few.  Whenever I hear a discussion concerning political and religious issues among individuals from opposite ends of the political spectrum, I remind myself that we all have morals and that we strive to live by them.  While this recognition may not help us find a common ground on questions of content and form, it will at least keep us focused on the other issue: the shared need to find a basis for our living together as a community.

What are your moral foundations?  Go to www.yourmorals.org and complete the online questionnaire to find out!

Sunset over the park

Thanks to the Florida State Parks Service for the wonderful photos.  Visit www.floridastateparks.org for more information.

A few weeks ago I was watching a local news segment on TV where a felon-on-the-loose is profiled in hopes that someone will turn him or her in. The name of that night’s registered (but missing) sex offender was unusually familiar, and the photo, age, and location of the criminal brought it all together. It was someone I’d gone to high school with — an awkward boy with horribly rotten teeth who was somehow a member of the ”in” crowd that I envied at church. We had one class together at school, and he paid more attention to me than I liked, given his gross dental state and the general uneasy feeling I had around him. But I was polite, since I didn’t want to ruin my chances of joining the “in” crowd myself. That never happened, and I don’t remember ever interacting with the boy outside of class. 15 years after youth group he’s a sex offender.

That news segment was perhaps the boldest entry on the long list of reasons I regret having been seduced by the flashy church of my high school years. I was born into a conservative Christian home, and attended church every Sunday and Wednesday from childhood until college. When I was a teenager, my mom joined the worship team of a new and exciting church in town. One with throw your hands in the air and dance around the stage gospel music. And long sermons where the pastor loses his voice and the audience shouts out “Amen!” and “Hallelujah!” You even got the occasional alter call, complete with the laying on of hands (and accompanying fainting spell) and speaking in tongues. It was an adrenaline rush that the old hymnal book and scripted sermon couldn’t compete with.

The excitable pastor had one topic that every message he delivered ultimately would center upon: If you are a Christian, God wants to bless you abundantly with wealth and heal you from all your infirmities. In each sermon he quoted the same scripture verses: “… a good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and overflowing…” “…God will pour out such a blessing that you will not have room enough to receive it…” He even had his own take on the Lord’s prayer, turning it into a command rather than a supplication: “COME Kingdom of God! BE DONE will of God!”

Many in the congregation would crowd the stage during the alter call, praying aloud that God would heal them on the spot. And they’d write hefty checks, believing that God would richly bless their faithfulness. Not being an overly dramatic or emotional person by nature, I would only raise my arms up halfway — enough to feel like I could fit in, but not so much as to catch any attention. I waited for the Spirit to take hold of me, for the wave of the Holy Ghost to knock me over into the aisle. I even pretended to speak in tongues, wondering if I was really filled with the Spirit, or if I was making up the gibberish. But I felt the same as I’d always felt in church. That I believe in God, and I know Jesus died for me, and it’s just part of who I am. The venue was exciting, but the movement in my heart wasn’t changing.

Because it wasn’t real. One summer the pastor was rallying to raise funds for a mega church development project. The timeline was fast and so the pressure was on to finance the building. I was in college at this point, and preparing to study abroad. But I fell naively for the hype and wrote a sizable check, considering the poor state of my finances. My mom and her husband gave an extremely generous donation as well — they gifted a small business that they’d purchased, one that was too much for them to handle. That was a turning point for me. I realized that my mom had pursued many avenues in search of wealth, and she was faithful in her tithes and “offerings above” for the church. But she remained at a modest standard of living — God wasn’t pouring out the financial blessing as promised by the pastor.

It would be 9 years before that new church building was constructed. And by the time they moved in, the flashy pastor (who frequently had claimed God called him to stay permanently in our city) had moved halfway across the country. In reflecting on my time at that church I often recall a comment my religion professor wrote at the top of one of my essays in college. I’d written about how Jesus was actually a very wealthy man, and he wants us to be wealthy too. My professor replied, “I think your church is misleading you on this point.” I was quietly defensive, secretly ashamed. And now I feel only regret.

Over the years I’ve heard stories of the cool kids from the youth group. They were high schoolers who had gotten saved after rebellious years of living in sin. And after a few years at our hyper church, they backslid. One got a girl pregnant, married her, and then divorced. Others married young from within the group, and those marriages also fell apart. And there is, of course, the sex offender.

My mom left the church a couple of years ago, and I was hopeful that she too was getting cleansed from the Health and Wealth poison. She found a new church that she likes, and from her description of the preaching it seemed sound. I didn’t realize, though, that the Hubs has been acquainted with the pastor — a man who drives an $80k sports car. He mentioned this to my mom, with a warning that she might be cautious in case the pastor’s motives aren’t pure. I was shocked that my mom is still deceived — she replied that she believes pastors should have $80k sports cars. “If movie stars in Hollywood can do it, then why can’t a pastor?”

Because the world doesn’t look to Hollywood to see an example of what it means to live like Christ. It’s really difficult to draw a line between what’s appropriate and what’s inappropriate for a pastor — for any Christian, for that matter. But here is what I believe. God does provide for us. In my life, it means I’ve never been hungry and I can afford health care, a modest house, and a safe, reliable car to transport my family. And I believe I have an obligation to give my money and my time to help those who can’t afford food and medicine. It would never be acceptable for me to have a luxury car or a mansion — I don’t believe a Christian should live at such a standard when there are people in need. I think the world judges us, and our faith, when we do. It makes me sad that my mom doesn’t get that.

I believe we should give because God calls us to, not because we want to be blessed in return.

The Tough Guise

While watching the movie entitled “Tough Guise: Media Images and the Crisis in Masculinity” two of my close male friends kept appearing in my mind while Jackson Katz explained the various effects that media has on young men and women and their idea of what masculinity is. The following night that we finished the video, I was talking to these two friends and decided to ask them a couple questions just to see what they thought about different topics. Friend 1 is what I believed to be one of the best examples of a stereotypical male, and Friend 2 is what I believed to be not as largely affected by the stereotypical expectations of men.

From the various questions asked I picked the strongest six questions and responses to present in this blog…

Questions:

1)      Do you firmly believe in sports, and if so why?

2)      Why do you believe that sports are mandatory for men?

3)      How has your parents (particularly your father) influence your personal relationships and views on what a man should be?

4)      What would you describe as an acceptable man/ what would a guy have to be like to be your friend?

5)      Describe your dream girlfriend.

6)      How do you feel about how women are portrayed in ads (like the sex-pot, dish-pot, silenced objects of sex type ads)?

Answers…

Friend 1:

1)      Yes because sports are like mandatory for men.

2)      Because that how I was raised? You were a boy; you must play sports or be fat.

3)      I don’t know.

4)      Dutch and athletic.

5)      She has to be shorter than me, brown hair, not huge boobs, but has boobs. Walks with confidence in herself, cares about me and respects who I am.

6)      It doesn’t bug me, it’s their choice.

Friend 2:

1)      Yes… in a way, where they build character and friendships, and also that reassurance comfort from a team.

2)      No, they don’t make or shape a man. Nor do they don’t prove your manly, your virtues and beliefs do.

3)      I don’t want to be like him, he played sports and was a jock – I don’t (I’m a girly boy)  , his virtues and morals are few – mine are high, so my view on men and what they should be are of my own, and a man should be fair and just to everyone, treating everyone with respect. A man is as only good as his word – for relationships/commitments. Also a man should take responsibility for all his actions.

4)      An acceptable man would be someone who does what he can for himself and others around him, while treating everyone equal, and has a sense of duty to complete what he has committed himself to. An acceptable man also could be a man who tries to make the world better for himself and everyone else. For a guy to be my friend he just has to be who he is, as a man should be accepting of what anyone chooses to be. One thing though is that if morals of a guy are low and he treats people poorly I wouldn’t want him to be my friend, but I would accept him.

5)      My dream girlfriend would be described as someone who can accept me as I am, and not dislike me for what I’m not. Also I feel she should have strong morals and beliefs, in that she would stand up for anyone down and out or a cause that people might think stupid. She should also be able to wear pants.

6)      It’s wrong but women model for it sooooo? Also sex sells, which is wrong too, because if something can’t be sold because it’s not needed and needs to be sold as something “sexy” is just pathetic and a waste of time.

  CONSIDERATIONS:

Friend 1:

-         Lives as an only child although he has an older brother (who does not live with him)

-         Lives with both parents in the home

-         Is very sports focused throughout his entire life

-         Sixteen years old

-         Is currently in a relationship

Friend 2:

-         Lives with a younger sister

-         Parents are divorced and he lives with his mother

-         Has never been entirely sports focused

-         Sixteen years old

-         Is currently in a relationship

Analysis:

From the first and second questions it is easy to distinguish what each value and get out of the sports that they participate in. Friend 1 has a very straight focus on winning and looking athletic (of the physical benefits of sports) while Friend 2 focuses on the mental and emotional benefits of sports.  From these initial responses Friend 1 has already put the “tough guise” on and refuses to show any deep emotion when regarding sports for fear of appearing weak, while Friend 2 accepts it.

 The third question emphasizes the ability/want to look within themselves to find an answer that may not be able to quickly grasp. Friend 1 fluffs off the question with a simple “I don’t know” therefore showing that he does not feel the need to look for the answer or to appear weak by analyzing within himself. Friend 2 looks for the answer and hints heavily at the affect that his parent’s divorce has had on him by stating things like “I don’t want to be like him” and “A man is as only good as his word – for relationships/commitments. Also a man should take responsibility for all his actions.” From these two examples it is easy to gather that Friend 2 does not have a particularly strong relationship with his father. This is probably due to the stress that the divorce has placed on him and incidents that have happened afterward.

It is interesting to note that in the fourth question, for Friend 1, race enters the picture; therefore amplifying the racial stereotypes that are found within the media. Athletics, again repeats itself within Friend 1’s answers showing the need for acceptance through sports. Friend 2, again, identifies moral qualities and characteristics within men who he looks to befriend. He also stresses the idea of acceptance of all even though he may not agree with everything that that person does.

Regardless of the other questions, I believe that question five is the most telling of these two individuals. Friend 1 immediately identifies physical characteristics that are shallow and changeable (hair colour and breast size), he identifies height as an issue demonstrating that he needs to feel powerful in the relationship by being taller. The use of confidence, made me laugh to myself because the first thing I thought of was the phrase “confidence is sexy” contributing to the fact that he wants his girlfriend to be “sexy” which then can be related to other things. Both Friend 1 and 2 identify that they want to be accepted as who they are by their girlfriends and the need to be accepted; showing that they are both insecure with themselves. Friend 2, reinstates his importance for morals and values and shows a humorous side by adding, “She should also be able to wear pants.”  This phrase can be easily linked to, how he does not need a “girly-girlfriend” in order to feel appreciated.

The last question, I believe is also interesting to see how each of these young men appreciates women. Friend 1 says that it doesn’t bug him, therefore implying that he does not care for women’s rights and that he does not truly value or appreciate the women in his life. Friend 2 shows that its wrong but it’s also the women’s fault (as stated before with Friend 1). He also recognizes that most products do not relate to the sexy image that they are advertised with but admits that as a society, sex sells.

I find it very interesting that both of these friends have grown up in small towns and small schools so the exposure through schools is not high for either of these boys. The sibling issue is interesting however, that Friend 2 has a younger sister so he is more accustomed to having females around, and that Friend 1 has grown up in an environment where he is generally the center of his parents’ attention since his older brother does not live with him.

The imaging that the media presents to all young people are shocking and disgusting (see” I Gotta Feeling” post) but to see the direct influence that these medias have in both positive and negative effects hit so close to home is very eye-opening for myself.

**Both friends were notified that their answers would be published on the blog.

More than 150 Christian leaders, most of them conservative evangelicals and traditionalist Roman Catholics, issued a joint declaration Friday reaffirming their opposition to abortion and gay marriage and pledging to protect religious freedoms.

The 4,700-word document, called “The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience,” sounds familiar themes from political and social debates over the health care overhaul and gay marriage battles.

While acknowledging that “Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage,” the group rejects same-sex marriage. The declaration states that opening a legal door for gay marriage would do the same for “polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships.”

President Barack Obama’s desire to reduce the need for abortion is “a commendable goal,” but his proposals are likely to increase the number of elective abortions, the document contends.

“The present administration is led and staffed by those who want to make abortions legal at any stage of fetal development, and who want to provide abortions at taxpayer expense,” it says.

Obama has said he wants to strike a balance on abortion coverage in the health care overhaul.

The declaration also cites threats to health care workers’ conscience clauses and anti-discrimination statutes it argues impinge on religious freedoms.

Signatories include 15 Roman Catholic bishops, including New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan and Washington Archbishop Donald Wuerl; Focus on the Family founder James Dobson; National Association of Evangelicals president Leith Anderson; seminary leaders, professors and pastors.