This blog is dedicated to logical Reasoning, political consciousness, religious dialogue, intelligent thoughts, uncommon wisdom, current events, and humor.
By now, we all know about President Obama’s visit to Notre Dame. It was filled with controversy for Christians and especially for Catholics. Please! Get real! I have 2 quick observations:
First, I find it fascinating that the Republican party – the party that prides itself on less regulation and more personal responsibility – is so determined to pursue Constitutional Amendments against gay marriage and abortion. Whatever happened to leaving regulations to the States? Whatever happened to leaving personal matters to individuals’ decisions? Clearly, all that big talk apply only if they agree with your religious views and political agendas.
Second, let’s assume abortion is killing a living baby. I can truly accept and, in a way, believe that. Now, some one tell me how abortion can be viewed as a much worse act than killing a living person. Remember the 10 Commandments? Remember the sixth one: thou shalt not murder? No where does it say thou shalt not murder only the unborn.
I find it absolutely hypocritical that most Christians who are so against abortion are precisely the same individuals whose core ideology is the same as that of Rush Limbaugh’s and Dick Cheney’s. The same ideology that merits we (the U.S.) are the king of the world, we should govern the world and protect ourselves at any cost, and if some innocent lives are lost in the process, so be it. Every time we drop bombs and rockets to kill terrorists, we inevitably kill some innocent by-standards in the process. Some of those innocent souls are children, newborns and even unborn. Therefore, we are violating the sixth commandment. Where’s the outrage? Where are the protests?
In no way am I suggesting that we should not fiercely protect ourselves or avoid pre-emptive strikes. And I’m not so naive to think that we can do all that with no non-military casualties. But then I don’t have an existential crisis, and I’m not hypocritically against abortion while practically supporting the deaths of unborn and pregnant women in war. That is not for me to resolve. Those of you Christians who are against abortion and thought Obama’s visit to Notre Dame was an abomination must work this out between yourselves and your God. And be careful what conclusion you reach. If you believe that God agrees with your views and supports your plan, you have reached the wrong conclusion. It should be exactly the opposite!
Eternal damnation is not just for those who support or perform abortion. It is also for those who violate the sixth commandment. That could be you. Think about it.
Here’s a new one from the “I know God agrees with me” files.
The Texas School Board recently held a meeting in which board member Barbara Cargill argued for improving Earth Science standard by replacing the phrase “the concept of an expanding universe that originated 14 billion years ago” with wording that “leaves it up to [students and teachers] to discuss how many billions of years“.
This is what happens when we humans futilely pretend to understand the true intention of the scripture, and attempt to awkwardly fit everything we know into what we believe the scripture says. Here are my observations:
Everything we know, everything we observe, the amount of time it takes for the light of Sun to reach Earth, the gravitational models of stars, the orbits of planets, observed behavior of galaxies, carbon dating, etc. are all consistent with a universe that is about 14 billion years old. If you believe the age of the universe is only 6,000 years, then God must be personally sending your phone signals to cell phone towers, because those signals behave differently and have different speeds in a 6,000 year-old universe than ours.
Can science explain everything? Of course not. There are major holes in all theories. Here’s the point. Gravity existed long before Newton worked on his gravitational theory. Similarly, the nature of gravity was unchanged when Einstein modified Newtonian gravity in his 3 dimensional representation of astronomical objects. Theory does not mean untrue.
Contrary to what Ms. Cargill claims, there are not different estimates of the age of the universe. From a scientific perspective, the estimates are 13.7 billion years plus and minus about 200 million years. That’s an uncertainty of 1.5% which, by itself, does not constitute a different estimate. It’s a long way from 13.7 billion down to 6,000.
From the “I know that literal interpretation of the Genesis is right and I’m sticking to it” perspective, the universe was created 1,000 years after the Sumerians invented glue! If Jesus was around, he would reach out and slap you, followed by saying ‘if you’re not going to use the intelligence I’ve given you, then here’s your sign’.
Don’t get me started on the idea of “God created an aged universe”. You’re only fooling yourself, not God. Again, all you’re doing is making a futile attempt at fitting everything within the model of what you think the scripture says. Wow, God sure seems like a very impatient fellow if he had to fast forward the age of the universe. I wonder what remote control model he’s got? I want one.
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.
A school district in Charlotte, N.C. has pulled a children’s book off the shelves because some parents have deemed it inappropriate. This same book tops the American Library Association’s most banned books in 2008 → source
And Tango Makes Three
The book, ‘And Tango Makes Three’, is a children’s book based on a true story of Roy and Silo, two male penguins in New York’s Central Park Zoo who for six years formed a couple. The book follows part of this time in the penguins’ lives. The pair were observed trying to hatch a rock that resembled an egg. When zookeepers realized that Roy and Silo were both male, it occurred to them to give them the second egg of a mixed-sex penguin couple, a couple which had previously been unable to successfully hatch two eggs at once. Roy and Silo hatched and raised the healthy young chick, a female named “Tango” by keepers, together as a family. → source
The book has won several literary and library awards for story-telling and illustration.
Before you utter the words ‘Godless New York liberal animals’, hear me out. The reason this book is banned is obvious. Some parents believe this book makes homosexuality sound normal.
First, how and why is book-banning even acceptable in the US? Isn’t that, in a way, fascism? What is the worst thing a book can advocate?
Death to America? It’s old news already.
America is moving toward fascism? Fox News tells me that daily.
God doesn’t exit? Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter tell me that he does, and that’s good enough for me.
Kill the Jews? Nice try, but it’s been done before.
Second, what is the point of protesting this book? Are you afraid that nature, perhaps even God, has created two penguines that are not necessarily interested in the opposite sex? Do you really believe that if you just sweep it under the rug, it’s as though it never happened? Does that really serve your child well in understanding all the possibilities and combinations that nature can produce or that God can create? Does your God want you to ignore his creations?
Third, how is banning this book, which is based on a true story, acceptable while books for young adults contain all types of questionable heterosexual encounters containing sex? Aren’t you worried that such books portray casual, unwed sex as normal for teenagers?
Mark Twain might have summed it up best. When Huckleberry Finn was banned by the Library Committee of Concord, Massachusetts for its coarse language. he wrote a friend that the banning was worth the sale of 25,000 copies just by the free publicity alone. → source
The Phoenix First Assembly of God – On-line Prayer Center Connects Your Online Prayer Request with the Prayer Warriors from our Circle of Love and from all over the world! Every Single Time They Pray for your need – You will get a tiny little email that tells you “Somebody just Prayed for You!” Submit Prayer Requests by clicking the Link below.
Praying for complete strangers is nice and dandy, especially if you do it online. But I propose a different approach. We should ask God to open a twitter account. We can all then follow him and just send him tweets. My first tweet is going to be:
Enjoy a couple of actual entries from the website:
HI – sorry to bother you, but my household is under huge attack right now. i am preparing a video clip with family photos for a 50th anniversary party for my mom & dad, & all hell seems to be breaking out against me. i know there’s a huge spirit of rejection in my family, & it appears to be trying to kill the project
==
Pray for the big fat backslidden church playing hypocrite & self proclaim Chief Apostle Beverly Armstead. The demons make her believe that she is some kind of Apostle when she is nothing, but the devil. Pray that God will expose this wolf in sheep clothing and she get her deliverance from demons. thank you,
A 62 year-old woman employed as an administrative assistant at a Church in Arlington, Washington has been accused of stealing more than $73,000 from the Church. In her defense, she claims that “Satan had a big part in the theft.” → source
So, let me see if I’ve got this right. The church lady says that someone made her steal. Oh, let’s see. Who could it be? Who could it be? Could it be . . . SATAN!
The new revelation that Bristol Palin, Sarah Palin’s daughter, is pregnant has rekindled an old debate: should families of nominees be off-limits? I have always maintained that families, beliefs and secrets of all policy makers are fair game. Shocked? Don’t be. The alternative would be silly.
We elect policy makers who set the course of our civic lives. In return, we should expect them to propagate initiatives that they, themselves, adhere to and respect. We should not, under any circumstances, accept the idea of do as I say and not as I do.
Bill Clinton’s difficulty in comprehending what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is notwithstanding, his sexual conduct while President was absolutely fair game. Democrats attempted to diffuse the situation by saying that the President’s sexual conduct had nothing to do with (and did not affect) conducting the business of the people. Wrong! Being the leader of the free world, the trust it requires and the responsibilities it carries have EVERYTHING to do with conducting the business of the people. He had sex with someone other than his wife at the Oval Office. I don’t particularly care about the infidelity part. I do, however, care that it happened while he was President, and that he lied about it.
Feel free to not mention to me that President Bush possibly also lied. This post is about family matters. The premise of the Iraq war is irrelevant here.
Vice President Cheney’s lesbian daughter is absolutely fair game. He should not support a constitutional amendment banning gay/lesbian marriage if his own family includes a lesbian.
Accordingly, Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter is absolutely fair game. Many in her own Republican party would consider this a failure of parenthood, strong family or religion. All efforts by the Palins and the campaign to positively spin this unfortunate occurrence by saying that they are very proud of Bristol’s decision to keep the baby and to marry the young man are meaningless. They have no choice in the matter. Aborting the baby would be considered sinful. Not marrying the father of the baby would make Bristol an unwed, underage, single Mom. Either way, Palin would not have earned a spot on the Republican ticket.
And now for the kicker. Remember when Britney Spears’ younger sister, Jamie Lynn, became pregnant at 16? I remember how Conservative media personalities such as Limbaugh and O’Reilly had a field day with that. O’Reilly said about Jamie Lynn “. . . the blame falls primarily on the parents of the girl, who obviously have little control over her . . .”
Well, that was then, and it was about a God-less liberal entertainer brat. Sarah Palin’s situation is completely different. Right? Reacting to a Cynthia Tucker column in Atlanta Journal-Constitution, O’Reilly explained why Sarah Palin is not to blame:
Now, the latest thing is that people like me don’t condemn Palin’s family but we condemn other people who, uh, gave birth out of wedlock. I’ve never condemned anybody who gave birth out of wedlock. Ever in my life. I don’t make those kinds of determinations. What I do say and, this nut Cynthia Tucker in the Atlanta Journal Constitution makes a deal out of this, I said that Britney Spears and what’s her sister’s name who’s pregnant, their parents were irresponsible – Jamie Lee – because they were running around unsupervised. Yeah, I said that and I believe it. It has nothing to do with the Palin situation, okay? So, I mean, it just, it really, it makes me angry. → source
Oh, but it has everything to do with the Sarah Palin situation, Mr. O’Reilly. On the one hand, Jamie Lynn’s out of wedlock pregnancy at 16 was a strong indication of failed or absent parenthood. On the other hand, Bristol Palin’s out of wedlock pregnancy at 17 is a private family matter for the Palins only. It doesn’t make sense, does it?
I only have one thing to say about that: WE’LL DO IT LIVE!
Watch this video if you don’t know that reference.
And here’s a video of Bill Clinton’s difficulty with the word ‘is’.
I thought that headline might capture your attention.
The American Family Association strikes again. A few days ago, one could find the following horrifying headlines on their onenewsnow.com website:
“Homosexual eases into 100 final at Olympic trials”
“Tyson Homosexual has run the fastest 100 meters in any conditions . . .”
“Tyson Homosexual easily won his semifinal for 100 meters . . .”
“Tyson Homosexual got quite a fright in his first race Saturday . . .”
“Tyson Homosexual came awfully close to a monumental blunder in his first race . . .”
“On Saturday, Homosexual misjudged the finish in his opening heat and had to scramble to finish fourth . . .”
“It means a lot to me, the 25 year old homosexual said. I’m glad my body could do it because now I know I have it in me.”
I just love the last quote.
Oh, the horror! What happened?
Apparently, the American Family Association has a policy of automatically replacing the word ‘gay’ with the word ‘homosexual’. All content on onenewsnow.com adheres to this policy. You will not find the word ‘gay’ anywhere on their website. All the quotes and headlines above were syndication from the Associated Press (AP) covering the Olympic trials. Tyson Gay, a Track & Field athlete, was the original subject of AP’s reports, which subsequently turned into Tyson Homosexual.
Source: The New York Times
It’s about time someone exposed the gay-looking (sorry, homosexual-looking) outfits those track & field athletes wear. I bet they all listen to some Marvin Homosexual music as they rub ben homosexual on their aching muscles while watching History Channel’s program on Enola homosexual!
This whole thing is sooooooooooooooo gay! Doesn’t the American Family Association know that all homosexuals are gay, but not all gays are homosexuals?! OK, I made that last sentence up. Anyhow, when I see the word ‘family’ appear in the name of an association, I know there is hidden political and religious agenda irrespective of their affiliation with the right or the left. No exceptions. I’ll prove it.
What is the point of replacing the word ‘gay’ with ‘homosexual’? Surf on over to American Family Association’s website. Look around a little. You will find ample information on gay / homosexuality issues: from boycotting McDonald’s because of their support for domestic partnership all the way to meticulous compilation of congressional vote records regarding gay/lesbian issues. You will not, however, see one thing that this so-called family association is doing for the families of our troops. Not one thing. Which one of the following activities is a more commendable and believable family-oriented goal?
A concerted effort to strengthen, assist and stabilize families of our soldiers who have paid the ultimate price with their lives; or
Compiling congressional records on gay/lesbian-related votes
By the way, I don’t have screen shots of the headlines, but you can find some of them here.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Imagine you’re walking down the street. A fire has just broken out at a fertility clinic. You rush in to help. In one corner, you see a 5-year old girl standing near the door. In another corner, you see a tray of 2 in-vitro fertilized eggs. There is enough time to save only one of the two. You are faced with a choice. Save the girl who is clearly a living human, or save the 2 fertilized eggs – both potential future humans. It’s quite a dilemma, isn’t it?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
A few days ago, I posted ‘Viagra + Birth Control + McCain + Reporters = Disaster‘. In it, I argued that the decision of covering the cost of Viagra and not birth control by insurance companies should not be made solely based on religious reasons. I presented that Viagra can be used for many more sinful acts than birth control. For instance, birth control can be used by non-married people, while Viagra can be used by both non-married people and gay men. Therefore, religion should oppose Viagra more strongly than it does birth control.
I am not advocating that Congress should pass legislation requiring insurance companies to cover the cost various medications and pills – far from it. That is not central to the premise of my post. I only argue that employing religion as motive and rationale in such decisions is injudicious.
I received a deluge of personal emails and one comment by Milo criticizing my approach. Their argument revolved around the central idea of sanctity of life. Milo went one step further by saying that it is not a stretch to believe Viagra promotes life while birth control suppresses it. He’s right; it’s not a stretch. The question, however, is this: how is the worth of an unborn life measured against the already born? And before you roll your eyes up, irrespective of which side of this issue you are on, be prepared to examine your beliefs.
Consider the following example:
Imagine you’re walking down the street. A fire has just broken out at a fertility clinic. You rush in to help. In one corner, you see a 5-year old girl standing near the door. In another corner, you see a tray of 2 in-vitro fertilized eggs. There is enough time to save only one of the two. You are faced with a choice. Save the girl who is clearly a living human, or save the 2 fertilized eggs – both potential future humans. It’s quite a dilemma, isn’t it?
If your religion dictates that life begins at the moment of conception (or fertilization in the case of fertility treatments), then you must logically save the contents of the tray and not the girl. A fertilized egg represents a life according to (at least) Christianity. And if your choice is to save the tray, then you clearly place a higher value on 2 unborn fertilized eggs than you do on 1 living and breathing born human. You should now pause and contemplate your choice which, you must admit, seems somewhat inhumane.
If you are not bound by religious views, you’re more likely to save the girl. But even though you are likely to not consider fertilized eggs as actual humans, you do understand that they have the potential of becoming humans someday. Don’t you? Would you not rather save 2 humans instead of 1 – albeit you may have to wait a while for those humans to be born?
Try to contemplate your choice if the tray contained 100 fertilized eggs rather than 2. Will you alter your decision? What if the tray contained 1000 fertilized eggs?
During a Q&A session with reporters last week, John McCain was asked why he has voted down a bill requiring insurance companies to cover prescription contraception in light of the fact that many do cover Viagra. The origin of this question came, interestingly enough, from Carly Fiorina who is now a McCain adviser – source. Remember, McCain has publicly admitted to using Viagra. Watch this video, ponder the 8 second pause, and consider my argument below.
Haven’t you learned the art of dealing with reporters, Mr. McCain? If you’re at all unsure about a question, either don’t talk about it, change the subject, or turn the question into a matter that you are comfortable speaking about. Thou Shalt never take a question, think about it for a while, show the look of struggle on your face, and then refuse to respond by actually admitting your lack of knowledge about the topic.
Just for the record, I feel bad for McCain. He tried desperately, albeit detrimentally, not to duck the question. Congressional votes are not simple. A no vote on a seemingly simple issue often times turns out to be much more complicated than it appears on the surface.
Now, why is it that dispensing Viagra is OK, but dispensing birth control is not? McCain’s vote was shaped by either his business/lobbyists connections or by his religious views. Let’s give Mr. McCain the benefit of the doubt and assume there were no unethical business forces influencing his vote. That leaves only one other possibility. So, was his vote based on religious reasons? Was it?
Consider this! Viagra can help married couples enjoy a better . . . well, we all know what it’s for. However, Viagra also happens to help perverts (sin), non-married individuals (sin), gay men (major sin), non-married gay men (double sin), and even old non-married perverted gay men (sin, sin, sin, and sin)! In other words, Viagra can be used for sinful purposes.
Now let’s examine birth control. Aside from the assortment of condoms, spermicides, etc., there are basically 2 types of pills: those that prevent pregnancy and those that end pregnancy (as in the case of morning after pills). Let’s consider the first kind of pills for this argument since the proposed bill was for prescription contraceptives. Those pills can be used by non-married individuals (sin) . . . and that’s it. Perverts don’t use them, gay men don’t need them, non-married gay men don’t buy them, and old non-married perverted gay men can’t find a good use for them.
So, Viagra is OK and birth control is not. Wow, my logic must be truly flawed!
By the way, I did not research whether Mr. McCain did in fact get back to the reporter with the reason for his vote.
Posted by jmjorat 
Posted by jmjorat 
Posted by jmjorat 
==
RSS Feed This Blog
