This blog is dedicated to logical Reasoning, political consciousness, religious dialogue, intelligent thoughts, uncommon wisdom, current events, and humor.
Those who know me are well aware that I don’t have a strong stand, either way, about climate change as a result of human activities. I never miss an opportunity to speak with people on both sides of the issue, which has yielded an interesting pattern for me.
Without too much generalization, we can all agree that most conservatives do not believe in global warming as a result of human activities, while most liberals do. We can further agree that religion is a strong pillar of conservatism. That doesn’t imply, and I didn’t say, that liberals are not as strong in their religious faith. Do not leave me irrelevant comments.
That said, the entire equation of global warming is a simple one for most religious individuals. God created everything, and gave full dominion of it to his most awesome creation (humans):
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
On the right side of the spectrum are most religious people who believe that because God created everything and because humans are the designated beneficiaries of everything on earth, using earth’s natural resources could not possibly harm it, much less cause its destruction.
In the middle are religious folks who believe that dominion does not imply domination. Hence, it is not only possible to harm the earth, it is the responsibility of humans to protect and preserve God’s creations. On the left side of the spectrum are non-religious people who, of course, believe earth can easily be harmed by humans because there’s no Divine power to stop it.
If you don’t believe in a higher power, then you are well versed in the concept of randomness and evolution. As such, have you ever considered that perhaps it is our natural evolutionary programming and destiny to destroy ourselves and our home? Therefore, there may be nothing we can do to prevent this inevitable conclusion. That doesn’t mean you should remain silent about your core beliefs. It merely implies that all efforts to conserve and preserve the environment may be fruitless at the end in light of humans’ built-in mechanism of destruction. The end may be a foregone conclusion.
If you do believe in a higher power, then you are likely to not worry about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or drilling for oil. Earth is only a temporary home for humans, and we simply do not have the power or the influence to destroy God’s earthly creations. Species go extinct by God’s will, not by humans’ carelessness. Ice caps melt as God desires, not because humans spew CO2 into the atmosphere. Therefore, there’s nothing to worry about.
Here’s the interesting dichotomy. Religion and conservatism are all about doing the right thing and personal responsibility. The one glaring exception seems to be in the area of environmental movement. In this case, religion appears to give us a free pass.
My daughter has no signs of autism. I have read a great deal about autism and have spoken with many parents with autistic kids. One common message that has come through is about vaccination. Quite often, the story begins with a child under the age of 2 who receives some vaccination. Several days later, the parents notice changes that become permanent markers of autism.
I’m also aware of many research studies that completely debunk those stories as myths. I don’t know which side is right. Quite frankly, it doesn’t really matter. It is likely that there is NO right answer. The only answer that matters is the answer that YOU believe is right.
The right answer for me was to wait until she almost reached the age of 2 for heavy-duty vaccines. Why? I don’t recall hearing any stories of vaccination-autism link that involved children over the age of 2.
I can’t be the only parent who has taken this approach. Have you?
I found this interesting. On April 22, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) talked about carbon dioxide in the context of global warming, climate change, or whatever it is called these days.
“Carbon dioxide, Mister Speaker, is a natural byproduct of nature. Carbon dioxide is natural. It occurs in Earth. It is a part of the regular lifecycle of Earth. In fact, life on planet Earth can’t even exist without carbon dioxide. So necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the oceans, to the vegetation that’s on the Earth, to the, to the fowl that — that flies in the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as part of the fundamental lifecycle of Earth.”
“Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful, but there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that Carbon Dioxide is a harmful gas. It is a harmless gas. “
I personally have not decided whether human activity is harmful to the environment. Tag me as indecisive. I don’t care. We simply do not have sufficient evidence, or time line, to irrefutably prove it one way or another, and we never will.
But I’m sufficiently intelligent to know one thing: natural does not necessarily equate to harmless. To think otherwise is just un-naturally stupid.
Do you know what else is natural Congresswoman? Poo. Is poo harmless in your world?
I loved the Golden Girls. It was the Sex And The City of its time. I think Dorothy was the one that really made the show funny. And yes, I know Bea had a successful acting career even before the Golden Girls.
Here’s a 7-minute video of the best of Dorothy, seasons 1 & 2.
The Government of South Australia (I didn’t know there was a divide!) has released a video in an effort to convince people to get flu shots.
Just a couple of observations:
I wonder if the cameraman has had his flu shot already. I feel bad for the poor bastard.
I didn’t need a super slow motion video to prove to me that a bucket-full of undesirable fluids shoot out when people sneeze. I have a two year-old. I’m quite familiar with the drill.
I hate to say it, but up to the first 45 second mark, they all looked like they were about to have . . . um, an orgasm.
“We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.” — At the 2009 Miss USA Pageant, Ms. California’s response to a question from Perez Hilton about her thoughts on gay marriage
In my opinion, that was a great answer. Perez Hilton did not see it that way. He believes that “Miss USA should be all-inclusive.”
Inclusive? There’s nothing inclusive about any aspect of the Miss USA Contest. These ladies are among the most beautiful women in a land of 310 million inhabitants. Many have talents (swim suit competition doesn’t count, that’s not talent) that have been developed over many years. Most of them have lived privileged lives, and their families are well-off. They are well-educated. They are well-cared for. They have trained for years for this competition – even as little girls. They are definitely not a representation or a a slice of real America. There’s nothing inclusive here Perez. Open your eyes.
I’m all for gay rights and equality. But what’s really gay (pun intended) about this whole thing is that Perez Hilton is now idolized as a brave and public gay-rights activist. Rather, he should be despised as a pathetic jerkwad douche-bag that he really is.
Posted by jmjorat 
“We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.” — At the 2009 Miss USA Pageant, Ms. California’s response to a question from Perez Hilton about her thoughts on gay marriage 
RSS Feed This Blog
