Calmer Thoughts
I feel a lot better now, thank you. I'm not quite as angry, but I still have a hard time wrapping my brain around this whole religion-taking-over-politics thing. Also, the Daily Show and political cartoons have helped. At this point, the best case scenario for the next 4 years is a repeat of the past 4 years: one Village Idiot President, one Major Terrorist Attack, one Soveriegn Nation Invaded, one Bill Restricting a Social Freedom, 4 years of absolutely priceless Daily Shows. Right now, I'm hoping for the best rather than fearing the worst. Although, I prety much know for a fact that we're in for at least one Sweeping Change REMOVING A Social Freedom, but I suspect we'll get 2 of those in addition to some restriction some where down the road.
Anyway, I think, until those things come about, this will be my last politically volitile blog. I know it's far more fun to read non-pol stuff, and Lord knows it's less stressful to write them. But in closing, I'd like to direct everyone to the following blog, which my friend Steve sent me to:
http://backseatphilosopher.blogspot.com/
Read it. It's thoughts from some crazy zen-master kinda guy. Those of you who have met Steve (Blair, I know you have, though you may not remember him) will know that this guy is right up his alley. And those of you that know me know he no where near mine. So here are rebuttles to each of his questions.
- True, the UN has flows. Major flaws. To impy that it's wonderful and perfect shows a pure naivety in World Politics. However, to take the opposite approach, as our esteemed Lead Shit Head has done, and ignore it completely, to isolate (uh-oh, there's that word) this nation saying the current system is flaw so therefore can be rejected and ignored, prevents us to help be a driving force in it's change. To say I'm not going to play until teh game has MY rules ensures that all the other players will look at you with distain, resentment and then ultimately, not look at you at all. It is far better to work from within than without.
- True, you cannot measure the dead and say that the war sux because it is beyond the acceptable limit. If those 1000 died while still trying to smoke Bil Laden out of his cave, I can't imagine there would be too many people that would have cried foul for such a cause. But when your stated grounds for the war in question (Iraq) are constantly flawed and in flux (having WMD's, threat of having WMD, threat of paying for others' WMD's and now FREEDOM), and the suspect grounds are highly questionable (profit, period), then 1 dead, our side or theirs, is unacceptable.
- I like this arguement. This would have been a nice plan in August when Supreme Scrotum Sack got an e-mail briefing saying that Bin Laden was looking to use airplanes to attack us on our soil. However, it is not a nice plane when the enemy in question has never had, nor is there any reason to believe he ever would have, plans to attack us.
- My only problem here is that the definition has always been implicit. You won't find any laws or codes in the past says that the married couple is a man and a woman. It's just a couple. You know that means a man and a woman. I think taking the implicit nature of the definition and feeling the need to make it explicit IS biased and bigotted (this is like my Shrek rule, some gays want to get married and as a reaction, the right OVER REACTS and says let's ammend the Constitition).
- Great point. I wish the arguement they were make were as concise. I'm glad this guy isn't a Right-wing Religious Nut-job.
- Here's the problem with using the Bible as your letter-of-the-law basis for all decisions: you can find a passage in the Bible to support just about every stance on every position imaginable. It's wrought with contradictions and ambiguities. Many passages can be used as an excuse both in favor and against a single opinion, based on whether you decide to ignore or respect the context of the quote. The Bible has been transformed from a collection of wonderful stories with a very solid moral road map and has been manipulated into a weapon in which to attach the very fabric of the ideas of freedom of speech, freedom of thought and even free will. To use it as such, and imply that Jesus would want us to be bombing Iraq, is to take it to an absurdist extreme. THAT is what the Religious Right does and THAT is why they are dangerous. The Bilbe should be taken in context to the situations you yourself are experiencing and the very different world in which we live.
Whew! That was tougher than I thought it would be.
Love to all my peeps!
Anyway, I think, until those things come about, this will be my last politically volitile blog. I know it's far more fun to read non-pol stuff, and Lord knows it's less stressful to write them. But in closing, I'd like to direct everyone to the following blog, which my friend Steve sent me to:
http://backseatphilosopher.blogspot.com/
Read it. It's thoughts from some crazy zen-master kinda guy. Those of you who have met Steve (Blair, I know you have, though you may not remember him) will know that this guy is right up his alley. And those of you that know me know he no where near mine. So here are rebuttles to each of his questions.
- True, the UN has flows. Major flaws. To impy that it's wonderful and perfect shows a pure naivety in World Politics. However, to take the opposite approach, as our esteemed Lead Shit Head has done, and ignore it completely, to isolate (uh-oh, there's that word) this nation saying the current system is flaw so therefore can be rejected and ignored, prevents us to help be a driving force in it's change. To say I'm not going to play until teh game has MY rules ensures that all the other players will look at you with distain, resentment and then ultimately, not look at you at all. It is far better to work from within than without.
- True, you cannot measure the dead and say that the war sux because it is beyond the acceptable limit. If those 1000 died while still trying to smoke Bil Laden out of his cave, I can't imagine there would be too many people that would have cried foul for such a cause. But when your stated grounds for the war in question (Iraq) are constantly flawed and in flux (having WMD's, threat of having WMD, threat of paying for others' WMD's and now FREEDOM), and the suspect grounds are highly questionable (profit, period), then 1 dead, our side or theirs, is unacceptable.
- I like this arguement. This would have been a nice plan in August when Supreme Scrotum Sack got an e-mail briefing saying that Bin Laden was looking to use airplanes to attack us on our soil. However, it is not a nice plane when the enemy in question has never had, nor is there any reason to believe he ever would have, plans to attack us.
- My only problem here is that the definition has always been implicit. You won't find any laws or codes in the past says that the married couple is a man and a woman. It's just a couple. You know that means a man and a woman. I think taking the implicit nature of the definition and feeling the need to make it explicit IS biased and bigotted (this is like my Shrek rule, some gays want to get married and as a reaction, the right OVER REACTS and says let's ammend the Constitition).
- Great point. I wish the arguement they were make were as concise. I'm glad this guy isn't a Right-wing Religious Nut-job.
- Here's the problem with using the Bible as your letter-of-the-law basis for all decisions: you can find a passage in the Bible to support just about every stance on every position imaginable. It's wrought with contradictions and ambiguities. Many passages can be used as an excuse both in favor and against a single opinion, based on whether you decide to ignore or respect the context of the quote. The Bible has been transformed from a collection of wonderful stories with a very solid moral road map and has been manipulated into a weapon in which to attach the very fabric of the ideas of freedom of speech, freedom of thought and even free will. To use it as such, and imply that Jesus would want us to be bombing Iraq, is to take it to an absurdist extreme. THAT is what the Religious Right does and THAT is why they are dangerous. The Bilbe should be taken in context to the situations you yourself are experiencing and the very different world in which we live.
Whew! That was tougher than I thought it would be.
Love to all my peeps!
posted by RauluaP at 1:29 PM
1 Comments:
I'm sorry if my comments offended you Christy. However, they are my true feelings and I know they speak for many who fear the power the religious right wields in this country. I don't think anyone is affraid for our lives, but I assure you we are very affraid for our freedoms. And in this country, people give their lives for those freedoms.
Post a Comment
<< Home