Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2007 April
2005 February
2005 January
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
My Links
My essay: The Immorality of Marriage
The Onion
SelectSmart
Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas!
Tom Robbins Quotes
Funny Name Analysis
Bushisms
Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain
Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell
Life, Liberty, Logic
Wasting My Time
RedTigress's Blog
Jimmytherighteous's Blog
Octo6er's Blog
Nivek's Blog
Magicjoejoe's Blog
Littlemrmahatma's Blog
Kurtmaddox's Blog
Winstonsmith's Blog
Drforbush's Blog
Juniperflux's Blog
Iron Blog Religion!
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| Gay marriage opposition |
| 11.29.03 (11:44 pm) [edit] |
|
According to Massachusetts' Roman Catholic bishops, "Marriage is a gift of God ... it is not just one lifestyle among many." Now, I looked up the definition of marriage and found nothing about it being a gift of God. Maybe I should consult the Bible, but that would just be more tedious an endeavor than I'm willing to undertake right now. Perhaps someone better versed in the Bible (no pun intended) can assist me with this. Anyhow, there are many different ways of interpretting marriage. It can be a holy union, perhaps a "gift of God;" it can be a commitment of two people in love to stay together forever; it can be an arranged joining together of two persons for social, political, economic reasons; and I'm sure there are several other definitions of marriage. Given that there are so many different ways of interpretting marriage, why is it such a big deal for gays to be given the right to marry? The reason(s) for marriage is (are) not a universal standard. Different cultures marry for various reasons. To say that marriage is a "gift of God" is to assume that the only way to define marriage is according to the standards set forth by religion. While many people do marry for these religious reasons, it is not fair to state that all people consider marriage a "gift of God," and it is extremely small-minded and ethnocentric to attempt to impose standards based on one aspect of a population's beliefs. Marriage is a culturally relative institution. Our culture does consist of a large percentage of religious persons; however, the entirety of our culture does not. The majority of our culture may wish to marry with the religious intent, but even still, it is not the only reason people marry. If a religion is biased against gay people, the marriages do not have to be performed as religious ceremonies; they can be civil ceremonies. If a religion opposes gay marriage based on the principal that homosexuality is somehow wrong (which I've never been able to figure out why that is), that's the prerogative of the religion, but it should not be manifested in our society- especially not in our legislation. Maybe it's because it's been well over 10 years since I last sat through a church sermon, but I cannot understand the opposition to the right of gays to marry. Maybe it's a more complicated issue than I make it out to be. I have no idea, I'm stumped on this one. Maybe someone can explain to me why I'm wrong and why the right to marry should be exclusive to those who comply to the standards enumerated by the Roman Catholic (or any) church. |
| 5 Comments |
| Drugs |
| 11.25.03 (9:49 pm) [edit] |
|
Since I like picking on "sardonic," I thought I'd write a post inspired by this comment: "Difference between LSD and prayer: LSD harms the body, prayer doesn't. Lol." I don't think I can really argue with the statement that prayer doesn't harm the body, aside from promoting a false sense of comfort which could result in harm. However, I would like to argue that LSD, and any other drug for that matter, is only truly harmful if used in excess. And [b]anything[/b] is harmful in excess. Since I'm clearly obsessed with Tom Robbins, I would like to present you with the argument given in his novel [u]Even Cowgirls Get the Blues[/u]. While I'll admit that any argument presented solely on the basis of a fictional novel is less than stellar, Robbins does have a tendency to make some great points through his fiction. In Cowgirls, there is a conflict between a ranch that attracts whooping cranes and has them trained to remain there by the lure of peyote (a hallucinatory drug obtained from mescal) and the FBI, who try and stop the cowgirls from doing this. What is pointed out in this novel is that the whooping cranes are not in any physical danger by their intake of peyote, and it seems to make them quite happy. The reason they are not being harmed by the peyote is that they are given certain amounts, similar to a dosage, I suppose. They do not partake in excessive amounts of the drug. Aside from the argument that drugs are only harmful if used excessively, there is the idea presented in this novel that [i]any[/i] substance- drugs, alcohol, pizza, cheeseburgers, juice, etc.- entering the body alters the state of the chemical makeup of the body. In other words, anything you put into your body will affect you. And anything entering your body in excess amounts will have an adverse affect on your body. I don't think anyone would argue that pizza or juice should be made illegal, but they can be harmful, just as drugs and alcohol [i]can[/i] be. So how can you argue that the government should regulate the intake of any substance? |
| 3 Comments |
| More thoughts on the neurological basis for religion |
| 11.24.03 (11:43 pm) [edit] |
|
First off, I changed the format of my blog, for no real reason other than boredom and fickleness. Anyway, I recently posted a little bit on the topic of neurotheology, and now would like to expand on the issue. I just read part of my friend, Sabine's, group project for her Contemporary Issues in Biology class- this was the subject of their project. As I read this paper, a thought entered my mind (hmm, I wonder if it was due to spiritual forces...). Well, mainly a thought entered my mind after reading the following sentence: "The limbic system is common to everybody, and we all experience periods of hyperactivity, hence the reason we all sometimes see ghosts or feel the need for religion." Now, I propose that, based on this idea, one could argue that for those who do not maintain any religious belief, it is due to some sort of brain defect in the limbic system. Wait, no, I don't propose that- I don't want to assert that [i][b]I[/b][/i] have a brain defect! But it does make at least some sense, at least as much sense as the rest of the proposed ideas derived from research into the link, if any, between neuroscience and religion. I asked Sabine, a Catholic, if she believed that there is a neurological basis for religious belief and she said that she doesn't think so, but she believes that religous belief and spirituality can influence or cause certain brain functions. So, I guess she believes this theory in reverse. Or something like that. Personally, I think that there is hyperactivity in the brain during prayer or meditation, but it is not the result of spiritual actualization- it is merely the result of intense concentration. Some researchers attempt to use these studies to show that religion is all in the mind, completely fabricated by man. While I'd tend to agree with that, it still can't be proven scientifically. Science and religion go together much the same as a comparison of apples and oranges (insert better analogy here, please). |
| 4 Comments |
| Brilliant |
| 11.24.03 (2:05 am) [edit] |
|
For anyone who ever doubted the brilliancy of Cliff Clavin from Cheers... :wink: "Well you see, Norm, it's like this...A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Now, as we know, excessive intake of alcohol kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. And that, Norm, is why you always feel smarter after a few beers." |
| 1 Comments |
| World Politics vs. Domestic Politics |
| 11.23.03 (8:13 pm) [edit] |
|
Alright, let's clarify the differences between world politics and the domestic political workings. Hopefully this will help to show that the war in Iraq is not legitimized by the claim that since Saddam Hussein didn't comply with the UN's resolutions, we are justified in pre-emptively attacking Iraq. Domestic politics differs from world politics in that there is authority in domestic politics and anarchy in world politics. There is government and law in the domestic realm, whereas in world politics there tends to be a conflict of ideologies due to the fact that there is no international governing body. Under the authoratative manner of domestic politics, there is a fear of misuse of power. However, under the anarchy of world poliltics, there is chaos, a free-for-all, and no security. Government gives security by making and enforcing rules designed to ensure individual security. Domestic poltics creates an environment of safety based on social and legal limits. World politics creates an environment of risk based on the idea that there is no insurance of safety- individual gain motivates actions with no fear of legal repercussions. In domestic politics there are strong legal and social norms which are expected to prevail. If they are broken, punishment ensues. In the realm of world politics, however, there are weak legal and social norms, meaning no fear of punishment. Accordingly, the UN and international law cannot dictate any sort of absolute code of legal norms. Sovereign nations make up world politics (along with IGOs, NGOs, MNCs, etc.). These nations operate under their own set of legal and social norms, and when combined with all the nations of the world, there is a conflict of ideologies in which the anarchic system of world politics is incapable of enforcing legal standards. Treaties can be signed, UN resolutions made, agreements, armistices, but none of these can be relied on. This is why there is a security dillemma inherent in world politics. And this is why it is not a legitimate argument to state that Iraq violated UN resolutions, therefore the US was justified to invade. Even if we operate under the naive assumption that all "legal" matters in the arena of world politics are to be taken up with the United Nations, the claim that the US attacked Iraq pre-emptively in the name of self-defense is inaccurate. There is no evidence of the so-called imminent threat posed by Iraq, though it has been well known for years that Hussein is someone to look out for. In terms of legality based on the UN's standards, this war was not justified. In terms of true world poltics, I suppose you could say that since it is a system of anarchy, it really doesn't matter, there is no form of justice and thus no necessity for justification. But you also have to consider how the decision to go to war affects and involves areas associated with domestic politics. Domestic issues have gone unaddressed and unanswered because of the preoccupation inevitable with war. National security is one thing, but, in my opinion, pre-emptively attacking a country where there is a risk of attacks on us by weapons of mass destruction, seems more like national [b]in[/b]security. This last point is more opinionated than fact-based, but the argument still stands that no war can be legitimized by standards associated with the UN or international law. |
| 4 Comments |
| Religion and morality |
| 11.21.03 (7:16 pm) [edit] |
|
Well, I had a post a few weeks ago discussing arguments for and against God and someone finally commented in disagreement of something I said. Since the post is now archived, I'll just copy and paste the comment left and my response: [b]sardonic: "Well, you would have to live your life for yourself, make your own decisions and trust them as being your own, and you would have no one to count on except for yourself. What's so bad about that?" Hmm... So if everyone thinks this way, wouldn't that mean that the moral system would disintegrate? Therefore, I can do anything I want. I can loot, murder, steal. Because I can only count on myself and make my own decisions. If I decide to shoot you any time it would be justified that I am just counting on myself and thinking that this is right... Is that so?[/b] [i]DragonBait22: Reply to: sardonic No, that does not in any way mean the "moral system" would disintegrate. To claim that would be to assert that we have no free will as it is, that our morals are dictated to us by God or religion. Moral standards are necessary to ensure that you don't go around killing people and such, I agree, but morality is not exclusive to religious belief. Just because I'm an atheist, it does not mean that I am amoral, and it certainly doesn't mean that I am immoral. Have some faith in humanity.[/i] My basic point in all that was that morality is not dependent on religion and we must all take accountability for our own actions. Obviously, this is just my opinion, and I certainly don't claim to be any sort of expert on religion. But the claim that morals are dictated solely by religion is biased, ethnocentric, and unfounded. I could argue that man created religion, therefore man created morals, but there is the obvious counter to this argument: God/religion is responsible for the creation of man and man's morality. I don't think there's any way for either side of that argument to win, so I won't go into it. But, I would like to point out that the argument that if we did not have religion we would not have morals is a bit contradictory and presumptuous. What religion's morals are we to embrace? Each religion's followers would surely claim that their religion is the one that is right, the one in which human morality is based. From a great (slight sarcasm) article ([url=http://www.christiancourier.c...]Read in entirety here[/url] ) "“Right” and “wrong” exist. They are not merely evolved inclinations that were humanly contrived in order to introduce a sense of order and security into society. Nor are “right” and “wrong” subjectively determined so that, practically speaking, each person functions as his own law-maker. Rather, morality is to be measured by the laws and principles of divine revelation, as made known in the inspired writings of the Bible. Ultimately, morality is grounded in the very nature of God Himself." This is a fine and dandy assertion for Christians, but what about any non-Christians? I suppose non-Christians are automatically viewed as immoral. This doesn't seem to make much sense to me. It is impossible to clearly define moral standards by which all humanity is to ascribe to, religion or no religion. I agree that religion fosters morality, and honestly that's about the only justification for religion I see, aside from providing a false sense of comfort for the believer. It is also argued that all moral standards must come from somewhere and that they come from the Bible, ultimately. That may be so, I wouldn't attempt to trace morality's historical heritage, but even so, the Bible can be read as fiction and the stories in it taken as only moral guidelines. Morality is not exclusive to religion. Ultimately, this is a question of belief, a question of faith. I cannot hope to alter someone's belief system by writing this, but I do feel the need to justify and defend my own morality. It is offensive to be judged incapable of having morals solely because of a lack of beliefs. My moral standards are actually quite high. Whether or not the Bible is where my morals are derived, I cannot say, but I can say that my moral standards, and those of any non-Christian, are not dependent on religion or God. |
| 21 Comments |
| Thoughts on love |
| 11.21.03 (1:42 am) [edit] |
|
The fundamental problem of love is how to make it stay. There is obviously no clear solution to this problem, as there is no definitive explanation regarding the nature of love itself. Love varies from individual to individual and from each situation. Cultural differences, moral issues, and economic situations affect and often determine the nature of love. However, though we may not be able to scientifically define love, we can conclude a few things from what we do know of the nature of love, and how to make love stay. Since Tom Robbins can say anything a thousand times better than myself, I'll quote from [u]Still Life With Woodpecker[/u]: "When the mystery of the connection goes, love goes. It's that simple." Well, okay, that's not the most glamorous of Robbins quotes, but it will suffice. According to research by social psychologists, passion is the first quality to fade in a long relationship. The mystery of the connection, as stated by Robbins, is what feeds the passion. When passion starts to fade, love lingers in desparation, and soon fades away as well. Let's throw in another quote by Robbins, this time from [u]Jitterbug Perfume[/u]: "The highest function of love is that it makes the loved one a unique and irreplaceable being." Well, that's great, isn't it? Being loved is integral in a relationship. An equal exchange of love and lust, passion and intensity, is necessary to ensure that love lasts. Surely it isn't that simple. If all it required was an equality in feelings of love within a relationship, more relationships would last, right? Well, I think it really is that simple, though simple may be a bit misleading. It is not simple to find someone who loves you the same amount that you love them. In fact, it's probably damn near impossible for the exchange to be absolutely equal. But the closer the level of intensity of feelings is, the more likely love will stay in a relationship. I think a majority of people searching for love are in it for the wrong reasons, and that is what makes it incredibly difficult to find true, lasting love. Many people seem to be overly concerned with the prospect of having someone, that elusive solution to all life's problems- someone to share your life with. Though there's nothing really intrinsically wrong with this goal, it is not contributive to attaining love. Love requires patience, and there is a certain level of desparation in any attempt at forcing love. Trying to find love is adverse to actually having love. The best way to enter a relationship in the hopes of finding love is to be perfectly fine with not having love. To not feel the need to find love is to be ready for true love. Another problem with the constant search for love, among women, at least, is that there is a tendency to place the responsibility on another person. Wanting to be saved or rescued is a dangerous thing. So many romantic stories have been infused in our culture that many people have such high expectations for their Prince Charming to come along. They want to be swept away. This is unrealistic, however. You must take the responsibility for yourself and accept that you can't count on anyone else. While the problem of how to make love stay is not in any way an easily solved problem, there are ways to ensure that love is true enough to count on. The relationship most likely to survive is one in which love is as equally intense among partners as possible. This is not something that can be forced, and this is the nature of the problem. Attempting to force things, in any respect, tends to lead only to the opposite effect as that desired. In regard to love, attempting to force it is detrimental. This may not be a comforting assertion of the question of how to make love stay, but it is realistic, and it is also realistic to predict that there will never be an easy answer. The challenge of making love stay is perhaps what makes it so desirable. |
| 1 Comments |
| Same-sex marriage |
| 11.19.03 (10:52 pm) [edit] |
|
I don't know why, but I really don't feel like blogging. But, my horoscope has forced me to write this: [i]"Most people prefer to avoid politics, but Capricorn wades right in where angels fear to tread. Your opinions are wise and your solutions are unconventional. Anyone would be lucky to have your support."[/i] So, as you can see, I clearly had to write this. It's in the stars... As you well know unless you have paid absolutely no attention to anything today or yesterday, Massuchesetts' highest court declared that gay couples have the right, under the state's constitution, to marry. I wasn't shocked by this decision and thought it was perfectly acceptible. Apparently, the majority of US citizens does not feel the same. I [i]was[/i] shocked when I heard on Nightline, or some show that was discussing it last night, that 55% of Americans oppose same-sex marriage. Wow. I would expect some opposition, but not that much. I will leave the debate of homosexuality alone and just focus on the constitutional validity of this decision. To be against something is one thing, but to support enforced legislation against something is another. For example, I am generally against partial-birth abortions, but I do not support the recent ban Bush signed into legislation against partial-birth abortions. I am against marriage, but I support the right to marry, same-sex or not. This is not hypocritical; it is only logical. In the United States we have individual rights, individual freedoms. Unfortunately, they seem to be disappearing. Individuals have the right to decide their own sexual orientation and, therefore, should be given the right to marry whomever they choose. The government should have absolutely nothing to do with marriage, regardless of sexual orientation. What scares me is that George W. Bush seems to think it is okay to impose his personal moral beliefs on the entire nation. It's not right, I would never dream of forcing anyone to abide by my moral standards, and the president shouldn't either. Bush stated in criticism of the Massachusetts ruling: "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman" and declared that the ruling "violates this important principle." But that's his principle, not mine. He also vowed to work with Congress to "defend the sanctity of marriage." He shouldn't be allowed to decide what is moral and the government should not interfere with individual rights. Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., called the Massachusetts decision "just one more assault on the Judeo-Christian values of our nation." (from Yahoo news) Again, the nation was not founded on Judeo-Christian values, the nation was founded on the principle of religiouis freedom. If you [i]choose[/i] to worship God, that's great. In fact, if you choose to worship turnips, that's great too. Just don't try and assert that the entire nation must worship turnips as well. Christians oppose same-sex unions, and that's fine, it's their choice. But, again, the government does not have the right to make that decision for the citizens, and especially not on the basis of Judeo-Christian values- there is separation of church and state to ensure that this doesn't happen. I for one don't want to live in a country where my morals are dictated to me by my government. Let's just hope common sense and the constitution win in the end. Betting on it wouldn't be wise though, I'm afraid. |
| 3 Comments |
| Neurology and religion, who'd have thought... |
| 11.18.03 (1:10 am) [edit] |
|
Honestly, I don't know much about this, I just glanced at something about it on [url=http://www.brain-mind.com/cha...]this site[/url]. But I thought it was interesting, so here's my take on it. There have been claims made that there are links between religious/spiritual experiences and reactions in the brain. This is just too good, I'll have to quote directly from the book advertised on the site: "It has been declared that god is dead, that spirituality is an "opiate" for the people. And yet, there is a scientific, neurological, and genetic foundation for religious belief, spirituality, and paranormal phenomenon, including the experience of gods, demons, spirits, souls, and life after death. There is historical and scientific evidence demonstrating the participation of "god" in the destruction of previous civilizations, and in the last century, Hitler's rise to power." Oh my. Nietzsche and Marx would love the use of their quotations in this book, I'm sure. Especially considering Marx said that [i]religion[/i] is the opiate of the masses, not spirituality. There is a difference between religion and spirituality. Religion is comprised of the dogma and rituals associated with a specific belief, spirituality is internal. So, I think that this discussion should focus on spiritual experiences rather than religion- the premise is that there is a neurological basis for religious/spiritual belief. The utter absurdity of the assertion that there is a 'scientific, neurological, and genetic' basis for religious belief is nearly overwhelming. The argument is that people have claimed to see God or spirits while in a state of hyper-consciousness. Now, I'm no scientist, but I don't see how these 'visions' can be deemed scientific evidence. A person having a vivid dream is having a spiritual experience? Maybe, but I think not. There have been studies showing that while a person is in a state of meditation or prayer, certain parts of the brain have heightened activity. My first thought upon hearing this was, well yeah sure, the person is in a state of intense concentration, of course the brain would have heightened activity. But I suppose that's too simplistic an answer. These people are claiming that the brain's heightened state in these situations is evidence of a neurological link to religious/spiritual belief/experiences. I just don't think so, I don't think it equates to that. But it's an interesting concept, I suppose. I'll try and post more on this after actually reading about it ;). |
| 1 Comments |
| Jaded...and the Imperialistic legacy of the United States |
| 11.14.03 (8:52 pm) [edit] |
|
[i]No one knows nothing about me I'm guessing I'll just keep 'em guessing No one sees what I see This is my blessing And I'm looking for a way to get out of here Get me out of here, out of here, out of here We lived through another day It's a good excuse to celebrate Take a number, knock on wood Find a reason to feel good I know you know you wanna know how I feel I can't even tell (3)[/i] -"Can't Even Tell" by Soul Asylum [LINE] I feel jaded, faded, almost sedated. I am the epitome of apathy. My life is nothing but a myriad of undifferentiated monotony. Ah, but I like it. I don't like it. It doesn't matter. Should I be sent to a psychiatric asylum? No, I don't think so. I'm perfectly fine, just incredibly jaded. Anyway, enough with the semi-psychotic rambling. I have a question for anyone knowledgeable in the area of world politics. I understand world politics to be equivalent to anarchy. There is no legislative body over all the nations in the world, there is no way to govern all the nations of the world. So why do we try and force nations to comply with our rules, our standards, our policies, even our culture? Not just the US, but other countries as well. The UN makes no sense to me. Well, no, it makes some sense. Forming a group to oversee and submit guidelines for the nations that choose to cooperate is beneficial. But only to a certain extent. The countries that do not wish to comply, do not wish to participate in globalization, are attacked for not cooperating. There can not be any form of government over the entire world, it's just not a good idea. But we continuously try and impose our government on other nations. There will always be opposing political philosophies and trying to force one ideology on another nation will only lead to escalating conflict. Whatever happened to Laissez-faire? The idea of [b]starting[/b] a war to prevent attacks by a country makes no sense to me. The idea of overthrowing a dictator in the aims of "freeing" the people and then occupying the territory makes no sense to me. Iranian leader, Khamenei, said the Americans "overthrew an Iraqi dictator and installed a foreign dictator in his place." How arrogant are we to impose our standards and our form of government on any other nation? Maybe I just don't understand foreign policy or world politics, maybe I'm just naive, but I don't like the way the US tries to act like the world police. We aren't, we can't be, and we certainly shouldn't try to be. Back to being apathetic... |
| 0 Comments |
| Political absurdities abound |
| 11.12.03 (11:46 pm) [edit] |
|
Ah, God bless the USA. The [url=http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...]trial for the Alabama Chief Justice[/url] who refused to follow an order from a federal judge to remove his display of the Ten Commandments in the state courtroom rotunda began today. Moore, the Chief Justice on trial, stated: "Not only did I fulfill what I told the people of Alabama I would do, I also had a duty to uphold the constitutions of the United States and the state of Alabama. They both acknowledge God," Moore said. Alright, the constitutions [i]acknowledge[/i] God. More importantly, the US Constitution (I know nothing of Alabama's) emphasizes the necessity of a separation of church and state. Displaying the Ten Commandments in the state courthouse seems to be imposing a religious doctrine. That seems pretty clear to me, maybe I'm wrong though. Apparently my interpretation of the constitution differs from that of Moore, and he is a state Chief Justice, so I'm sure he knows more about this than I do. A few years ago, a state delegate here in Virginia tried to have a bill passed into legislation in which schools would be "allowed" to post the Ten Commandments. It was scary. The bill was passed by the House of Delegates, but thankfully did not make it in the Senate. The bill was crafted in a manner to evade the prohibitions detailed in the Establishment Clause by including posting text from three secular documents as well as the Ten Commandments, and claimed to be about instilling the values with which the country was founded. Obviously, it was an attempt at displaying a religious document in the schools and luckily was shot down. The values promoted in the Ten Commandments are perfectly valid and promotion of these values is fine. However, posting the Ten Commandments is unnecessary to this process and, in fact, slows the process down by only causing controversy. But for some reason, religious fanatics seem to feel that it is necessary to infiltrate society with the messages of their religion. I have nothing against the Ten Commandments, but posting them in public schools or courtrooms does violate the constitution. In other news, the Senate is having a 30-hour debate starting tonight. I would love to be there. But I'm not a senator, for some reason, so I'll just have to settle for commenting on here. The debate is over the four Bush nominees that didn't make it to the federal appeals bench. I am amazed at the absurdity of this. This would actually be really amusing if it wasn't for the fact that there are so many issues that are so much more important. The fact that the Democrats filibustered to prevent the nominations of four of Bush's nominees just really isn't that important. I can understand the outrage by the Republicans at this, but, come on, 4 out of 168 really isn't that big a deal. Especially considering the lack of attention being paid to other, more important issues because of this. It's great to see that our representatives have such a great sense of humor (signs and shirts by the Democrats including: "I'll be home watching 'The Bachelor'", "We confirmed 98 percent of President Bush's judges, and all we got was this lousy T-shirt"), but I'm losing mine. Thirty hours spent debating something that has a much less significant effect than so many other issues (Iraq, economy, health insurance, etc.) is beyond ridiculous. |
| 0 Comments |
| Ah, marriage |
| 11.11.03 (10:23 pm) [edit] |
|
The other day I was flipping through the channels and came across Dr. Phil, the topic was marriage. As you well know if you've read my essay or know me, I am against marriage. If you'd like to know my reasoning behind that, please read my essay (first link on the left) and feel free to leave comments here on it, especially if you can prove me wrong. Anyway, the main theme of the Dr. Phil show was women who are obsessed with the wedding, but not really prepared for the actual marriage. There was one girl who was 20 years old and a pre-Med. major planning on attending Med. school at about the same time she intended on getting married. Her mom was trying to convince her that she was too young and naive to think that she could get married and commence a life with another person while simultaneously attending school. The girl just wanted her mom to back off. I have to say, I was a little disappointed with Dr. Phil's advice to the mother and daughter. Basically, he told them to each consider the other's viewpoint for about 15 minutes and then discuss it rationally. That's it. Well, he gave the girl some statistics about how high the divorce rate is for couples who marry before age 25, but that was the extent of his advice. My thoughts on this would be if she really loved the guy and truly wanted to be with him for the rest of her life, the act of getting married could wait. They could still be together, just without the responsibilities and difficulties of marriage. Granted, I am opposed to marriage, but I really don't understand the obsession with getting married. I suppose it is just such a culturally ingrained standard and people feel as though they are missing out until they are married. I don't know. But I know that few people feel the way I do, that love is more important than marriage (and is undermined by marriage), but I've never had anyone explain to me why they feel the way they do about marriage. The best argument for marriage I have encountered was while watching an episode of Dharma & Greg. For those unfamiliar with the show, Dharma's parents were unmarried, but stayed together regardless (eventually, they did get married, and I was highly disappointed when they did). Dharma said in one episode that, though her parents always told her that it was more meaningful that they stayed together without being married because they [i]chose[/i] to stay together each morning, she worried as a child that one morning they may not choose each other. At first glance, this is a good point, that it would be difficult for the child and cause them to worry about their parents leaving one another. However, once I thought about it, I realized that it's no different than how it is for a child whose parents are married, except that the child would not operate under the naive assumption that mommy and daddy will always be together because they're married. Divorces occur all the time, and generally only after prolonged difficulties within the marriage that affect the child/ren. Without marriage, it may cause a child to worry a little, but at least the love is true. That's much more important, to me anyway. |
| 2 Comments |
| Who to vote for in 2004 | |
| 11.10.03 (9:09 pm) [edit] | |
Yeah, I know it's almost a year away, but still, good to have someone/something tell you who to vote for. :wink:
|
|
| 0 Comments | |
| The Immorality of Marriage- an essay |
| 11.08.03 (7:28 pm) [edit] |
|
[u]The Immorality of Marriage[/u] If I mention to someone that I do not believe in marriage, they generally will assume that it is due to cynical reasons that I feel this way. However, it is more for romantic reasons that I do not agree with marriage. I do not believe in marriage, I believe in love. Marriage goes against true love in that it implies that it is necessary to commit to one another, under law, and thus undermines one of the most basic elements of a healthy relationship- trust. To me, the ultimate expression of love is not committing to love, honor, and obey a partner, but is found in the act of loving for love, and not out of duty. Committing to stay together causes a relationship to become an obligation. It is much more meaningful if love is maintained not because a couple has vowed to stay together, but because they truly love one another. Morality is distinguishing between right and wrong. On the issue of love, the right, and therefore moral, thing is love for love’s sake. Love for the sake of duty, which marriage embraces, is wrong, and consequently immoral. Marriage causes love to become an obligation, and thus negates the idea of true and absolute love. This is immoral because it goes against the nature of true love. Loving for the sake of love, and only for this reason, is the morally legitimate decision. There are three basic aspects of marriage that cause it to be immoral. First, there is the issue of trust. Marriage endangers trust by making a relationship a legally binding contract in which trust is immaterial. Next, marriage forces commitment, resulting in false love. True love cannot be something that is an obliged agreement; marriage, in forcing commitment, goes against love. Lastly, the legality of marriage lessens the possibility of love being true. Making love an issue of the state, and a contractual agreement is demeaning to the nature of love. Marriage detracts from the components that are essential to a relationship where love is true. Trust is the fundamental element of a good relationship, and is undermined by marriage. Without trust, love is uncertain and dubious. An integral part of trust is honesty. If a relationship embraces honesty and the couple remains honest and truthful to one another always, it will result in trust. This not only makes marriage unnecessary, it also follows that marriage can be detrimental to trust. Marriage forces a couple to commit to one another, regardless of whether there is trust. This causes the trust in a relationship to become questionable. If a couple must commit to one another, under law, in order to ensure that they will remain together, there may not be any actual trust. This results in the implicit possibility of love not being earnest. Marriage equates to a forced commitment. While it is plausible to commit to love someone, in the sense of caring for them, it is impossible to honestly make a commitment to be in love, or be intimately involved with and feel passionately about someone, forever. This suggests that making such a commitment is dishonest and unrealistic. Therefore, it is immoral to commit to be in love with someone forever. Love is an emotion, not a decision. Love, in the romantic sense, is unpredictable and therefore one cannot make the decision to commit to be in love with someone. Commitment, as marriage implies, results in false love, or love that is rooted in duty and obligation. While there is nothing intrinsically wrong with acting out of duty and obligation, if love is treated in this manner, it demeans true love and is immoral. Another issue with marriage involves the legal aspect of matrimony. The legality of marriage detracts from the possibility of true love. The fact that the union of two people becomes a legally binding arrangement demonstrates the lack of ethical principles regarding love. One complaint about the immorality of marriage as a legal practice is that the state has no business interfering in the very private matter of love. Love should involve only the couple, and not the government. It should not be a responsibility of the government to mediate in any matters involving love, so long as there is no unlawful act committed. Also, if people are supposed to get married because they love each other, it should not be necessary that they are legally committed to one another. Love implies that there is, at the very least, trust. When a relationship becomes a legal commitment, trust must not be present. While marriage may not necessarily dissipate trust, therefore negating love, if a couple truly is in love and trusts one another, marriage is not necessary. To defend marriage, I will say that it is beneficial in some situations to be committed to one another through marriage. In some instances, it is quite likely that a couple could separate only to regret it much later in life when, had they committed to stay together, they may have been absolutely happy and in love forever. Alternatively, there could be a couple that gets married and later realizes that decision was right in that they could have lost each other had they not gotten married. However, though marriage can potentially help a couple stay together, it is still unnecessary and disadvantageous in the pursuit of true love. There are also many ways in which marriage is misused and this misuse is especially harmful to the prospect of love. There are situations in which a couple perceives it as necessary to get married, such as pregnancy. While it is certainly a positive thing for a couple to stay together when they have a child, it should not be viewed as necessary. It is not advantageous to the child if the parents are not truly in love and remain together for the sake of the child; this can be harmful to the child. An alternative to marriage in situations such as this could be an agreement of some sort involving a commitment of monetary aid and support as well as arrangements for custody or visitation, regardless of whether the couple stays together. Also, it is unfortunately a common practice to marry for money or social status rather than love. Many people take love for granted in regard to marriage and do not conceive of love being necessary for marriage. This corruption of marriage further demonstrates the immorality of marriage, as it is obvious that love is not of principal concern in marriage. In summary, there are three integral aspects of marriage that are immoral. Marriage jeopardizes trust, forces a commitment regardless of whether a couple remains in love, and allows the state to interfere in a private matter by making it a legally binding arrangement. Marriage is only necessary if a couple does not trust one another, wants to remain together forever regardless of whether they are in love, and needs this to be a legal agreement in order to stay together. However, this is not true love; it is quite contrary to love. The notion of committing to love someone, in the romantic sense, forever is contradictory to the nature of love. True love is fickle, unpredictable, and uncertain. Therefore, it goes against love to try and impose standards on love or attempt to force love to stay in a relationship when the couple may not truly love one another. These factors, in combination with the corrupt practices common in the realm of marriage, demonstrate the lack of morals concerning love that marriage espouses. It is in this manner that marriage is immoral. If a relationship embraces true love, marriage is unnecessary and harmful. There is no need to commit to stay in a relationship if the relationship is one of love. Marriage should not be the result of love, for love is an end in itself. Thus, loving for the sole sake of love is the morally acceptable action. Loving out of some instilled sense of duty or obligation, as marriage encourages, is wrong, and therefore immoral. To view in a slightly better format, [url=http://dragonbait22.crimsonzi...]click here[/url] For more of my thoughts on love, go here: http://www.tblog.com/template... |
| 14 Comments |
| Arguments for and against Christianity |
| 11.07.03 (6:26 pm) [edit] |
|
This [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]blog[/url] by therealspartacus007 has inspired this.. blame it on him. :wink: Allow me to start with some arguments FOR the existence of God, arguments FOR a belief in Christianity. Then we'll move on to the fun stuff. (note: a great deal of this is taken from other sources and not my own original thoughts, just my interpretation of others' ideas) 1. First-Cause Argument- This states that everything in the universe has an origin, a cause, and in order for this to be so, there must be a first-cause; God. 2. Natural Law- The laws of nature, the way nature operates, are in accordance to a plan executed by God. 3. Argument from Design- The design of the univerese requires that there be a God. Everything in the world is made just so that we can manage to live in the world- if anything was slightly altered about the world, we could not live in it. 4. Moral Arguments- There are two main forms of moral arguments for God's existence: there would be no right or wrong unless God existed, and God brings justice into the world. 5. The Ontological Argument- Proposed by St. Anselm in the form of a proof. The condensed form basically states that God must exist since we can conceive of His existence. Alright, now let's critique. 1. First-Cause- If everything in the universe must have a cause, then God must also have a cause. 2. Natural Law- In [url=http://www.positiveatheism.or...]"Why I Am Not A Christian," [/url] (which is admittedly where I am getting a good deal of this) Bertrand Russell argues that natural laws are a description of how things actually behave, and you cannot argue that there must be someone who told them to do that. Also, it is inconsistent to argue that God imposed these natural laws because there is then the questin of why God would issue only those specific natural laws. 3. Argument from Design- Consider adaptation, evolution, science in general. If the world was to change, we could adapt. 4. Moral Arguments- [i]a.) there would be no right or wrong unless God existed.[/i] As someone who operates under the assumption that God does not exist, I must argue that I do exercise morality, I do distinguish between right and wrong, and I do not need God to consider the moral implications of any given situation. [i]b.) God is necessary to ensure justice in the world.[/i] What justice? I cannot comprehend how God possibly has anything to do with justice. Russell's argument is that there is injustice in the world, and to say that there must be heaven and hell to ensure that, in the long run, there is justice, is absurd because, scientifically, it makes no sense to state that something unknown may have certain attributes uncommon to the object that is known. Meaning that since there is injustice on earth, it is absurd to say that there may be justice in heaven and hell. 5. The Ontological Argument- This proof operates solely on assumption and does not actually prove anything. I can conceive of purple unicorns, but does that mean they must exist? Now, there have been countless philosophers who have given reasons justifying or countering religious belief. I will not attempt to summarize them all, just those above. The arguments given for Christianity, or for any religious belief, are easily questioned, easily dismissed. Reasons against religion tend to go unanswered. The most basic concept for not believing in God is that there is no proof, no evidence, no real reason to justify a belief in God. Pascal's wager, the idea that the risk of not believing in God and taking the chance of eternal damnation if there turns out to be a God is not worth it, so we might as well believe in God, seems to be a little lame to me. And if I were a Christian, I would be offended by that concept, not embrace it. The most logical justification for a belief in God is to have an esoteric approach at faith. The esoteric approach focuses on an internal belief in which the world is seen as a manifestation of God- God is in everything; God is realized through spiritual practice (not belief, ritual, and ethics); Heaven and Hell are states of being, not actual places; the Bible is not taken literally but is considered to have many stories in it to be interpreted symbolically; and knowledge is stressed rather than faith. This approach allows for a more loosely defined God, one in which the main attributes are based on an internal and individual belief, not on anthropomorphic ideas of what God is. To accept religion in terms of the exoteric approach (basically the opposite of the esoteric approach outlined above), is to base all thoughts of God on faith and accept the Bible as literal. It is this approach that many people embrace and it is this approach that scares me. Religious fanatics who focus on the Bible as 'the word of God' and do not attempt to question their faith and gain knowledge are the ones who cause problems. Wars have been fought in the name of God, in the name of religion. I don't think God would approve, unless he is the sick, vengeful God depicted in the Bible. I am an atheist. I have plenty of reasons to disbelieve in God, the most basic being that there is no proof that God exists. Can I prove that God [i]doesn't[/i] exist? Probably not. But consider this. What if there is no God? What if the universe was not created by some being, but came into existence on its own accord. What if there is no external award in the afterlife, what if there is no afterlife? What if heaven and hell are only imaginary? What if there is no God looking out for you, making sure you are taken care of? Well, you would have to live your life for yourself, make your own decisions and trust them as being your own, and you would have no one to count on except for yourself. What's so bad about that? [LINE] Mark Twain, as Satan, on the Bible: "It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies." -[url=http://www.positiveatheism.or...]Letters From the Earth[/url] "My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question 'Who made God?'" -John Stuart Mill "In the so-called ages of faith, when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was the Inquisition, with its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion." -Bertrand Russell, "Why I Am Not A Christian" "I don't mind Jesus or his squad. I'm not afraid, I'll face anybody's god. Follow your own creed, If my freedom's guaranteed. I don't mind - no, not I. I don't mind, why should I ? Follow any creed, If my freedom's guaranteed I don't mind." - "I Don't Mind" by the Hoodoo Gurus "I believe in nothing, everything is sacred. I believe in everything, nothing is sacred." -Tom Robbins, [u]Even Cowgirls Get the Blues[/u] |
| 5 Comments |
| Oh, my.. Roe v. Wade may soon be forgotten |
| 11.05.03 (10:53 pm) [edit] |
|
Good ol' Georgie signed into legislation a [url=http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...]bill banning partial-birth abortions[/url] today. Wow, amazing. A president who has led us into an unnecessary and horrifying war, a president under whom our economy continues to suffer, a president whose political agenda is frightening, has the gumption to sign a bill challenging the ruling of Roe v. Wade. I'm shocked. Well, no, not really. Nothing surprises me anymore considering who our president is. Personally, I don't really agree with partial-birth abortions, I think they are generally a shady practice. However, my opinion doesn't matter, and the president's opinion shouldn't matter either. It's a matter of choice (well, no, apparently it's not.. but it should be), and the government should have nothing to do with it. The president actually stated: "For years a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth while the law looked the other way. Today at last the American people and our government have confronted the violence and come to the defense of the innocent child." This is.. hmm, what's the best way to put it?.. a crock of shit. And a nice exaggeration of the "violence directed against children." Bush, who nonchalantly causes the death of countless innocent Americans and Iraqis, is apparently so very concerned about the welfare of unborn children. There are justifiable reasons for having a partial-birth abortion that are now irrelevant. There are health factors regarding the women and they are now irrelevant. And Bush is celebrated by anti-abortionists and right-wingers for this. Celebrated for "saving" innocent lives. What about the countless innocent lives lost because of Bush? What about the repercussions this decision that will almost inevitably lead to at least an attempt at overturning the Roe v. Wade desicion will have? What about the government infringing on yet another individual freedom and right, the right to choose? Yes, bravo, Bushie. |
| 1 Comments |
| When is war justified? |
| 11.02.03 (12:34 am) [edit] |
|
"I would welcome your comments on what justification and circumstances a nation (in today's time) should enter into war ... and what rights does the world community have in agreeing or sanctioning unilateral warfare." -SamAdams I feel that war is seldom justified. Especially in today's time when most wars seem to be fought on the basis of political interests and not out of necessity. War is necessary in some circumstances, and these times are the only possible times war is justified. Even then I think it is questionable whether there is true justification for going to war. The Revolutionary War is an example of a necessary and justified war. To be controlled by a tyrannous government and given few rights is justification to revolt. The current situation in Iraq is horrendous. Though Bush claimed it was 'necessary' to go to war, it certainly could have (and should have) been avoided. I said before in a blog somewhere in the archives that I was honestly scared when I watched Bush's State of the Union Address this year. The idea of preemptively striking a country [i]because[/i] they have weapons of mass destruction just made absolutely no sense to me. If Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and the U.S. attacked, don't you think there would have been major repercussions for us? That scared me. But, as it is, the so-called war on terrorism will only encourage terror, will only result in loss- loss of lives, money, U.S. economy, etc. Perhaps the Iraqi people are better off since Bush stepped in and took care of Saddam. But I believe in Laissez-faire government- as long as they don't mess with us, we shouldn't interfere with any other country's government. Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks of September 11, so how is attacking Iraq fighting terrorism? It's not, it won't do any good, and this war certainly isn't justified. Hmm, I think I got a little side-tracked there, sorry. I suppose my basic stance is that war is only justified if it is necessary to ensure the individual rights of the citizens, but wars of this nature should only be instigated by the citizens in question, not by another country. As far as the rights of the world community, I really don't know. As I said before, I don't think one country has the right to interfere with the internal politics of another country. Even though there is the UN, there is no governing body over world politics. World politics equals anarchy. There is international law and the UN, which serve to unify the nations of the world, but they are only effective as long as all the nations involved in world politics cooperate. This is hardly possible and shouldn't even be expected. The international system is chaotic and unpredictable, with no legitimate form of international law-enforcement. As such, I don't know that there can be any definite 'rights' given to the world community in terms of sanctioning unilateral warfare. I hope that answered the question, I'm not so sure it did though heh.. I'm just too tired to formulate a well-thought out response right now... comments are welcomed, of course. |
| 0 Comments |
