Saturday, April 6, 2013
Don't mess with my mother (the Earth)!!
People who don't care about the environment are motherf&%#ers.
Bertrand Russell said "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." How correct he was. I won't even say that he is "right" because I refuse to use right as a synonym for correct, and this takes me directly to my point. So-called right-wing conservatives are so certain that their views must prevail, that this is how our social and political culture has been pushed further and further to the "right". So-called liberals generally are more willing to allow doubts into conversations that a pattern of push-and-acquiesce has been established. The right pushes some point, and the left says "well, perhaps there is room for compromise" and then it's repeated again and again until the entire spectrum is moved to the right, leaving those at the left end, almost literally out on a limb. As a metric of this change, consider how Barry Goldwater was regarded by those on the left, as being radically to the right of the political spectrum, but now could be viewed as a moderate.
This is true with regard to discussions not only of politics, but of science and our very survival.
It's up to us
I was raised by a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the daughter of another. I was raised in a home in which we did not turn on the television on Saturday because it was understood to be a day of rest which God commanded us to observe. I was raised by parents who believed that violence was evil. Our parents lived on a pastor's salary and our father drove school bus and raised bees for their honey and did whatever he could to supplement that salary. Churches who called him to serve provided Dad with a home while in their employ, but had he not inherited his mother's home, I don't know that he would have been able to retire to a home he owned. Our parents spent much of their lives trying to be of service to people even less fortunate than themselves.
Even as a teenager, I was troubled by things which those in church kept saying, which didn't bear out in reality. Like when people said that God would not let you be faced with more than you can handle. But some people do lose it, some do die in the worst possible circumstances, like soldiers in battle. Or like the man I helped search for, who was found months later, just outside our search area. He had died alone, in the cold, when his daughter had gone for help and could not find her way back to him. At least one of the Psalms says God will punish the wicked and the arrogant and the evil ones. It is clear that the wicked reach out and take what they want, and it is rare that one is punished. Innocent, faithful people, on the other hand, contract terrible diseases, are wrongly convicted of crimes, are abused by those they trust, and even murdered. Consider Stevie Ray Vaughan, who had just gotten his life together after overcoming drug addiction, who died in a helicopter crash at the apex of his career. Or George Harrison, who encouraged his band-mates and fans to take personal spiritual journeys rather than just focusing on pleasures, and who organized the first celebrity fundraiser concert for Bangladesh when it had been ravaged both politically and by flooding, but died of throat cancer at the age of 58. Or Abraham Lincoln, who would have been more compassionate toward the Confederate States than those who succeeded him. Or Robert F. Kennedy, who started his career in the service of Joseph McCarthy but became an advocate for the unfortunate and would probably have been the next President of the United States. Or James A. Garfield, who was nominated for President almost by accident, was a most beloved President, and died because of the intransigence of American doctors to accept the idea that antiseptics could save lives. At least his death (and the encouragement of a woman who hoped for the best from him) resulted in the transformation of Chester A. Arthur from a political puppet to a President of considerable integrity and foresight. But what about Lyndon Baines Johnson, who succeeded in enacting measures like the 1964 Civil Rights Act after the death of John F. Kennedy, but was undone by his commitment of American armed forces to Viet Nam. Sure, those are names that are well known, but what about my friend whose sibling stole their parents' trust fund and moved their mother to another state so they learned about the death of their mother in the newspaper, then discovered they had a very virulent form of cancer? Or my other friend who had a child kidnapped but ended up being a federal fugitive though they had not done the things of which they were accused, and then discovered they had a terrible cancer?
Large forces, many of them seemingly beyond comprehension by the human mind, are at work in nature, and sometimes we get in the way of those forces. Sometimes, as in the case of global warming, we interfere at our own peril. Sometimes we can escape and sometimes we can recover, and sometimes we can adapt. Sometimes we can't. What is, is what is. Science is the means by which we come to understand those forces, and ourselves. We are the universe seeing itself, after 14 billion years of existing. This is why I have faith in science: If a theory doesn't work, you change it to match what is empirically observed, rather than trying to impose a framework on the world, which doesn't fit what meets one's senses or scientific instruments. This does not mean that I have no use for religion, for faith. It just means that I understand that I must approach it from an open-ended view. I need to modify or reject a theology or ideology if it does not reflect observed reality. I cannot accept a theology which says the Earth is only 6,000 years, because geology, paleontology, and others all confirm that this is not true. I can not assume to know the truth anymore when observed events contradict a supposition.
This does not mean that I simply reject everything about religion. I have simply come to realize that the Universe is structured without fairness, and not according to what humans find reassuring. "Mother Nature" has no fury, either. Nature simply is. It is up to us humans to bring fairness and justice into being. As Carl Sagan said "For me it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is, than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
Even as a teenager, I was troubled by things which those in church kept saying, which didn't bear out in reality. Like when people said that God would not let you be faced with more than you can handle. But some people do lose it, some do die in the worst possible circumstances, like soldiers in battle. Or like the man I helped search for, who was found months later, just outside our search area. He had died alone, in the cold, when his daughter had gone for help and could not find her way back to him. At least one of the Psalms says God will punish the wicked and the arrogant and the evil ones. It is clear that the wicked reach out and take what they want, and it is rare that one is punished. Innocent, faithful people, on the other hand, contract terrible diseases, are wrongly convicted of crimes, are abused by those they trust, and even murdered. Consider Stevie Ray Vaughan, who had just gotten his life together after overcoming drug addiction, who died in a helicopter crash at the apex of his career. Or George Harrison, who encouraged his band-mates and fans to take personal spiritual journeys rather than just focusing on pleasures, and who organized the first celebrity fundraiser concert for Bangladesh when it had been ravaged both politically and by flooding, but died of throat cancer at the age of 58. Or Abraham Lincoln, who would have been more compassionate toward the Confederate States than those who succeeded him. Or Robert F. Kennedy, who started his career in the service of Joseph McCarthy but became an advocate for the unfortunate and would probably have been the next President of the United States. Or James A. Garfield, who was nominated for President almost by accident, was a most beloved President, and died because of the intransigence of American doctors to accept the idea that antiseptics could save lives. At least his death (and the encouragement of a woman who hoped for the best from him) resulted in the transformation of Chester A. Arthur from a political puppet to a President of considerable integrity and foresight. But what about Lyndon Baines Johnson, who succeeded in enacting measures like the 1964 Civil Rights Act after the death of John F. Kennedy, but was undone by his commitment of American armed forces to Viet Nam. Sure, those are names that are well known, but what about my friend whose sibling stole their parents' trust fund and moved their mother to another state so they learned about the death of their mother in the newspaper, then discovered they had a very virulent form of cancer? Or my other friend who had a child kidnapped but ended up being a federal fugitive though they had not done the things of which they were accused, and then discovered they had a terrible cancer?
Large forces, many of them seemingly beyond comprehension by the human mind, are at work in nature, and sometimes we get in the way of those forces. Sometimes, as in the case of global warming, we interfere at our own peril. Sometimes we can escape and sometimes we can recover, and sometimes we can adapt. Sometimes we can't. What is, is what is. Science is the means by which we come to understand those forces, and ourselves. We are the universe seeing itself, after 14 billion years of existing. This is why I have faith in science: If a theory doesn't work, you change it to match what is empirically observed, rather than trying to impose a framework on the world, which doesn't fit what meets one's senses or scientific instruments. This does not mean that I have no use for religion, for faith. It just means that I understand that I must approach it from an open-ended view. I need to modify or reject a theology or ideology if it does not reflect observed reality. I cannot accept a theology which says the Earth is only 6,000 years, because geology, paleontology, and others all confirm that this is not true. I can not assume to know the truth anymore when observed events contradict a supposition.
This does not mean that I simply reject everything about religion. I have simply come to realize that the Universe is structured without fairness, and not according to what humans find reassuring. "Mother Nature" has no fury, either. Nature simply is. It is up to us humans to bring fairness and justice into being. As Carl Sagan said "For me it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is, than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Really?
A little over a year ago (not long before the date indicated above), I was engaged in a conversation on a friend's page on Facebook, regarding global warming. A friend of my friend, with whom I've interacted before on this subject, was saying things that confused me as to his position. So I asked him if he didn't believe warming was happening, or only if he thought humans weren't causing it. He did reply, but I didn't have time to respond immediately. Now I have. His original words are in standard font. My comments are in italics.
My position is: Warming is happening. It has been happening for thousands of years. Mankind is having an impact on the environment and has contributed to warming of the planet, but not to the extent that it is being portrayed. I believe that mankind should use its time, talents, resources, and technology to find ways of living with the change and not squander its time, talents, resources and technology on trying to stop something that is NOT going to be able to be stopped or reversed. With 7 billion people on the planet to feed, house, and support, it is totally naive of anyone to think that we are going to cast aside the use of fossil fuels to supply the needs of the population in favor of ridiculously expensive, unproven cleaner energy options.
So you agree that we are warming the planet, but not as much as most scientists agree is the case. Why would you be correct, and almost every climate scientist on the planet be wrong?
You don't think we should do anything to slow it down? If we can change it in one direction, why not in the reverse direction? Because it's expensive? The costs of slowing global warming will likely be smaller than the costs resulting from doing nothing to slow climate change. Maybe a lucky planetary wobble or small solar cycle 25 will help us out, but that's just knocking on wood and crossing fingers. We REALLY can't do anything about those things.
You say it's naive to think we can cast aside fossil fuels? There is no choice. That's the one inevitable thing to which we must adapt. Fossil fuels will only become harder to find and extract. We can wean ourselves off fossil fuels proactively, or it will be difficult and tragic later on. It's already begun, for some people.
You say clean energy is unproven and expensive? If there is ANY truth to your statement, it is only because fossil fuels have artificially low prices because they are subsidized, and the fossil fuel producers lobby to squelch innovation and regulation at every turn. The fact is that many of these technologies are viable, but haven't been broadly applied because of resistance from fossil fuel monopolies, who now can buy their way around Washington. If it weren't for artificial inequalities, alternative technologies would be much more competitive. And if the societal costs of fossil fuel use were accounted for, alternative energy sources would be more than competitive.
I firmly believe that all available cleaner technology should be utilized in as much new construction as possible. We as a nation should be able to take full advantage of our natural resources and not be obstructed by government or environmentalists in doing so. I believe that governments, federal, state and local are too intrusive in our lives. When I see that I need to apply for a zoning permit and a building permit to construct an out building over 64 square feet, I see intrusion.
So you agree that we should be efficient, but don't want to be required to be efficient. You agree that new buildings should employ efficient technology, but where is a builder's incentive? When has voluntary efficiency EVER worked on a broad scale? People you call "libtards" do it, and some people are efficient because they don't have "money to burn", but how else but by regulation, can this be made to happen? We saved countless barrels of oil when Carter imposed the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit. But I've been in favor of positive-incentive-based regulation for a long time. And what about the rights of our children and grandchildren to have fossil fuels available to them while they are making the inevitable adaptation to non-fossil-fuel-energy.
I see our freedoms being stripped from us 1 by 1, and people sitting idly by accepting it. I see unnecessary regulation being forced upon us in the name of progress and ideology.
Our freedoms ARE being stripped from us because of things like the Patriot Act, enacted by a President who REALLY played the scaremongering game you keep accusing me of doing. Our freedom is disappearing because of things like the Citizens United case, which allows a few affluent people to spend all the money they want, to spread whatever disinformation they wish. Like denial of climate change. And too many are buying it, to everyone's peril.
I see a country in moral decay, because people have changed the definition of freedom. I am old school. I realize a problem and either correct it if I can, or learn to embrace it if I can't. I do not waste time trying to fix something I can't to perpetuate an image or ideology that makes me look or seem cool at the time. I am against federal grant money of all kind. If the cause is just, right and necessary, the people should come together and promote it and fund it. Let the private sector do what is designed to do.
Moral decay? I see that, but probably not how you mean. I see too many things that indicate we are in another "Gilded Era" when ruthless people were allowed to get away with whatever they want.
You say the private sector should do what it's designed to do? The private sector is designed to make profit. Period. They do that, whether they are causing global warming or not. And that IS the problem. That is why we need regulation: To limit the wanton destruction of every resource by people who care only about profit, and not about their impact on other people.
Get the scientists out in the private sector where their ideas have to stand on their own and not be propped up by the government, thus forcing them to contrive science to keep the money flowing in. I can go on, but by now you should have an understanding of what I'm about.
You say scientists are propped up by the government? So are businesses. The private sector is not some idealistic, pristine environment. It's a jungle out there, and our government is supposed to do those things that private enterprise can't or won't, like keep people from harming EVERYONE'S environment for their own profit.
My position is: Warming is happening. It has been happening for thousands of years. Mankind is having an impact on the environment and has contributed to warming of the planet, but not to the extent that it is being portrayed. I believe that mankind should use its time, talents, resources, and technology to find ways of living with the change and not squander its time, talents, resources and technology on trying to stop something that is NOT going to be able to be stopped or reversed. With 7 billion people on the planet to feed, house, and support, it is totally naive of anyone to think that we are going to cast aside the use of fossil fuels to supply the needs of the population in favor of ridiculously expensive, unproven cleaner energy options.
So you agree that we are warming the planet, but not as much as most scientists agree is the case. Why would you be correct, and almost every climate scientist on the planet be wrong?
You don't think we should do anything to slow it down? If we can change it in one direction, why not in the reverse direction? Because it's expensive? The costs of slowing global warming will likely be smaller than the costs resulting from doing nothing to slow climate change. Maybe a lucky planetary wobble or small solar cycle 25 will help us out, but that's just knocking on wood and crossing fingers. We REALLY can't do anything about those things.
You say it's naive to think we can cast aside fossil fuels? There is no choice. That's the one inevitable thing to which we must adapt. Fossil fuels will only become harder to find and extract. We can wean ourselves off fossil fuels proactively, or it will be difficult and tragic later on. It's already begun, for some people.
You say clean energy is unproven and expensive? If there is ANY truth to your statement, it is only because fossil fuels have artificially low prices because they are subsidized, and the fossil fuel producers lobby to squelch innovation and regulation at every turn. The fact is that many of these technologies are viable, but haven't been broadly applied because of resistance from fossil fuel monopolies, who now can buy their way around Washington. If it weren't for artificial inequalities, alternative technologies would be much more competitive. And if the societal costs of fossil fuel use were accounted for, alternative energy sources would be more than competitive.
I firmly believe that all available cleaner technology should be utilized in as much new construction as possible. We as a nation should be able to take full advantage of our natural resources and not be obstructed by government or environmentalists in doing so. I believe that governments, federal, state and local are too intrusive in our lives. When I see that I need to apply for a zoning permit and a building permit to construct an out building over 64 square feet, I see intrusion.
So you agree that we should be efficient, but don't want to be required to be efficient. You agree that new buildings should employ efficient technology, but where is a builder's incentive? When has voluntary efficiency EVER worked on a broad scale? People you call "libtards" do it, and some people are efficient because they don't have "money to burn", but how else but by regulation, can this be made to happen? We saved countless barrels of oil when Carter imposed the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit. But I've been in favor of positive-incentive-based regulation for a long time. And what about the rights of our children and grandchildren to have fossil fuels available to them while they are making the inevitable adaptation to non-fossil-fuel-energy.
I see our freedoms being stripped from us 1 by 1, and people sitting idly by accepting it. I see unnecessary regulation being forced upon us in the name of progress and ideology.
Our freedoms ARE being stripped from us because of things like the Patriot Act, enacted by a President who REALLY played the scaremongering game you keep accusing me of doing. Our freedom is disappearing because of things like the Citizens United case, which allows a few affluent people to spend all the money they want, to spread whatever disinformation they wish. Like denial of climate change. And too many are buying it, to everyone's peril.
I see a country in moral decay, because people have changed the definition of freedom. I am old school. I realize a problem and either correct it if I can, or learn to embrace it if I can't. I do not waste time trying to fix something I can't to perpetuate an image or ideology that makes me look or seem cool at the time. I am against federal grant money of all kind. If the cause is just, right and necessary, the people should come together and promote it and fund it. Let the private sector do what is designed to do.
Moral decay? I see that, but probably not how you mean. I see too many things that indicate we are in another "Gilded Era" when ruthless people were allowed to get away with whatever they want.
You say the private sector should do what it's designed to do? The private sector is designed to make profit. Period. They do that, whether they are causing global warming or not. And that IS the problem. That is why we need regulation: To limit the wanton destruction of every resource by people who care only about profit, and not about their impact on other people.
Get the scientists out in the private sector where their ideas have to stand on their own and not be propped up by the government, thus forcing them to contrive science to keep the money flowing in. I can go on, but by now you should have an understanding of what I'm about.
You say scientists are propped up by the government? So are businesses. The private sector is not some idealistic, pristine environment. It's a jungle out there, and our government is supposed to do those things that private enterprise can't or won't, like keep people from harming EVERYONE'S environment for their own profit.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Some questions . . .
First, the Republicans want the government to intervene (by preventing an abortion) when a woman wants to abort a pregnancy under "normal" circumstances, but they don't want it to intervene by providing an abortion when she's been raped.
Then the Republicans want government to intervene if you are a man who loves a man or a woman who lives with a woman, but don't say anything when a man beats his wife, or if their candidate is a serial philanderer.
Now, the Republicans want the government to intervene if you lose your job: they want you to pass a drug test before you can collect your unemployment payments.
What drugs will they test for? What happens if they get a false positive? What recourse do you have? Who's going to pay for all the testing and notifying and verifying? I thought the Republicans were for less government.
They want to interfere with someone who just lost their job, but they aren't willing to increase taxes on rich people nor allow regular middle-class people to keep their stimulus tax credit.
From whence does such doctrine arise?
Then the Republicans want government to intervene if you are a man who loves a man or a woman who lives with a woman, but don't say anything when a man beats his wife, or if their candidate is a serial philanderer.
Now, the Republicans want the government to intervene if you lose your job: they want you to pass a drug test before you can collect your unemployment payments.
What drugs will they test for? What happens if they get a false positive? What recourse do you have? Who's going to pay for all the testing and notifying and verifying? I thought the Republicans were for less government.
They want to interfere with someone who just lost their job, but they aren't willing to increase taxes on rich people nor allow regular middle-class people to keep their stimulus tax credit.
From whence does such doctrine arise?
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Sharing a post from another blog
"You false patriots who bring assault rifles to political rallies, you hack politicians and media personalities who lied through your stinking teeth about "death panels" and "Obama is coming for your guns" and "He isn't a citizen" and "He's a secret Muslim" and "Sharia Law is coming to America," you who spread this bastard gospel and you who swallowed it whole, I am talking to you, because this was your doing just as surely as it was the doing of the deranged damned soul who pulled the trigger. The poison you injected into our culture is deeply culpable for this carnage.
You who worship Jesus at the top of your lungs (in defiance of Christ's own teachings on the matter of worship, by the way) helped put several churchgoers into their graves and into the hospital. You who shriek about the sanctity of marriage helped cut down a man who was about to be married. You who crow with ceaseless abandon about military service and the nobility of our fighting forces helped to critically wound the wife of a Naval aviator who fought for you in a war. You who hold September 11 as your sword and shield helped put a little girl born on that day into the ground . . .
"I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus - living fossils - so we will never forget what these people stood for."
- Rush Limbaugh, Denver Post, 12-29-95
"Get rid of the guy. Impeach him, censure him, assassinate him."
- Rep. James Hansen (R-UT), talking about President Clinton
"We're going to keep building the party until we're hunting Democrats with dogs."
- Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), Mother Jones, 08-95
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."
- Ann Coulter, New York Observer, 08-26-02
"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."
- Ann Coulter, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, 02-26-02
"Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past - I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble - recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an 'enemy of the people.' The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, 'clan liability.' In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished 'to the ninth degree': that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed."
- John Derbyshire, National Review, 02-15-01
"Two things made this country great: White men & Christianity. The degree these two have diminished is in direct proportion to the corruption and fall of the nation. Every problem that has arisen (sic) can be directly traced back to our departure from God's Law and the disenfranchisement of White men."
- State Rep. Don Davis (R-NC), emailed to every member of the North Carolina House and Senate, reported by the Fayetteville Observer, 08-22-01"
http://www.truth-out.org/the-wrath-fools-an-open-letter-to-far-right66686
This blogger, in an open letter to the far right, lays out my emotions for me. I may at moments feel we should not lay too much blame at the feet of people who say violent things because it's the people who carry out the violence who are ultimately to blame. But I certainly feel that there is WAY too much violent language in our society. Too much real violence. Too many young people denied a life because a gang threatened them with violence if they didn't themselves become violent. Too many like Abraham, Martin and John (and Bobby) have already been killed, although Ann Coulter overlooks this. Too many have gone off to war and not returned because a man who stole an election sent them off to fight an unjustifiable war. Too many get beat up in school because they're pudgy or skinny, or just a little different in some other way. Too many use language that demeans them because they've never been taught that words can be used to heal as well as to hurt. Too many hurt inside.
This blog encourages me to feel angry. But no more the actual quotes from those targeted by the writer. And I know that the best anger is the anger that impels a person to act with determination, but also with creativity and love. When Jesus overturned the money-changers' tables, he was angry. He used it to expose the exploitation carried out by those money-changers, and to call for REAL piety, not a sham of piety.
You who worship Jesus at the top of your lungs (in defiance of Christ's own teachings on the matter of worship, by the way) helped put several churchgoers into their graves and into the hospital. You who shriek about the sanctity of marriage helped cut down a man who was about to be married. You who crow with ceaseless abandon about military service and the nobility of our fighting forces helped to critically wound the wife of a Naval aviator who fought for you in a war. You who hold September 11 as your sword and shield helped put a little girl born on that day into the ground . . .
"I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus - living fossils - so we will never forget what these people stood for."
- Rush Limbaugh, Denver Post, 12-29-95
"Get rid of the guy. Impeach him, censure him, assassinate him."
- Rep. James Hansen (R-UT), talking about President Clinton
"We're going to keep building the party until we're hunting Democrats with dogs."
- Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), Mother Jones, 08-95
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."
- Ann Coulter, New York Observer, 08-26-02
"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."
- Ann Coulter, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, 02-26-02
"Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past - I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble - recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an 'enemy of the people.' The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, 'clan liability.' In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished 'to the ninth degree': that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed."
- John Derbyshire, National Review, 02-15-01
"Two things made this country great: White men & Christianity. The degree these two have diminished is in direct proportion to the corruption and fall of the nation. Every problem that has arisen (sic) can be directly traced back to our departure from God's Law and the disenfranchisement of White men."
- State Rep. Don Davis (R-NC), emailed to every member of the North Carolina House and Senate, reported by the Fayetteville Observer, 08-22-01"
http://www.truth-out.org/the-wrath-fools-an-open-letter-to-far-right66686
This blogger, in an open letter to the far right, lays out my emotions for me. I may at moments feel we should not lay too much blame at the feet of people who say violent things because it's the people who carry out the violence who are ultimately to blame. But I certainly feel that there is WAY too much violent language in our society. Too much real violence. Too many young people denied a life because a gang threatened them with violence if they didn't themselves become violent. Too many like Abraham, Martin and John (and Bobby) have already been killed, although Ann Coulter overlooks this. Too many have gone off to war and not returned because a man who stole an election sent them off to fight an unjustifiable war. Too many get beat up in school because they're pudgy or skinny, or just a little different in some other way. Too many use language that demeans them because they've never been taught that words can be used to heal as well as to hurt. Too many hurt inside.
This blog encourages me to feel angry. But no more the actual quotes from those targeted by the writer. And I know that the best anger is the anger that impels a person to act with determination, but also with creativity and love. When Jesus overturned the money-changers' tables, he was angry. He used it to expose the exploitation carried out by those money-changers, and to call for REAL piety, not a sham of piety.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Happy Holidays!
Once again, I am of two minds:
On the one hand, I feel that the Christmas holiday is messed up. It co-opts the old pagan Solstice celebration, and it's likely that the date it's celebrated has nothing whatsoever to do with when Jesus of Nazareth was born. It has come to be a time of extravagance, of which I'm quite certain he would disapprove. People are wondering what they can get for Christmas, and worrying about what material things they can give, instead of being truly supportive of one another. It's so much about material things, instead of the lasting things that can be shared by humans.
On the other hand, what's wrong with celebration? Laws were passed in England and these colonies in the 1600s, forbidding the celebration of Christmas and the use of its pagan trappings, like Christmas trees and decorations and mince pie and pudding, so that it was not generally celebrated in this country until the 1850s. And that was so much "bah, humbug".
So, where does that leave me? Perhaps just back where I began, feeling that there's plenty to be critical of, but also acknowledging that people need to get together to enjoy one another's company, enjoy good food and drink, and perhaps to give gifts to one another. It is good to see a child's smile when they receive a toy that gives them pleasure. Every child deserves some of that. So do grown-ups.
But I won't go so far as to say that Jesus is all this holiday is about. Feeling this way may get me accused of just being politically correct (or worse), but I don't think that's an insult. Political correctness simply takes into account that not EVERYone celebrates Christmas. To say "Happy Holidays" may seem to dilute the greeting, but it takes into account the preferences of an audience that is not singularly Christian, and most people do know someone who celebrates Hanukkah or Kwanzaa, or the winter Solstice, and this is as it should be.
In the same sense that we should not be prohibited from celebrating Christmas, or Kwanzaa, or Hanukkah, or the Solstice, neither should we be REQUIRED to do so. We should celebrate Christmas with joy and gratitude. Hanukkah deserves celebrating, as a commemoration of the end of fighting, and a festival of lights. Kwanzaa, as a celebration of family, community and culture, does, too. So does the solstice, because it is wonderful to know that the days will be getting longer instead of shorter, when winter seems to have closed in around us.
May we all find more of the best of ourselves and each other, at this holiday time, and less of the worst of ourselves, and of others.
Merry Christmas! Happy Hanukkah! Joyous Kwanzaa! Happy Winter Solstice! Happy Holidays!
On the one hand, I feel that the Christmas holiday is messed up. It co-opts the old pagan Solstice celebration, and it's likely that the date it's celebrated has nothing whatsoever to do with when Jesus of Nazareth was born. It has come to be a time of extravagance, of which I'm quite certain he would disapprove. People are wondering what they can get for Christmas, and worrying about what material things they can give, instead of being truly supportive of one another. It's so much about material things, instead of the lasting things that can be shared by humans.
On the other hand, what's wrong with celebration? Laws were passed in England and these colonies in the 1600s, forbidding the celebration of Christmas and the use of its pagan trappings, like Christmas trees and decorations and mince pie and pudding, so that it was not generally celebrated in this country until the 1850s. And that was so much "bah, humbug".
So, where does that leave me? Perhaps just back where I began, feeling that there's plenty to be critical of, but also acknowledging that people need to get together to enjoy one another's company, enjoy good food and drink, and perhaps to give gifts to one another. It is good to see a child's smile when they receive a toy that gives them pleasure. Every child deserves some of that. So do grown-ups.
But I won't go so far as to say that Jesus is all this holiday is about. Feeling this way may get me accused of just being politically correct (or worse), but I don't think that's an insult. Political correctness simply takes into account that not EVERYone celebrates Christmas. To say "Happy Holidays" may seem to dilute the greeting, but it takes into account the preferences of an audience that is not singularly Christian, and most people do know someone who celebrates Hanukkah or Kwanzaa, or the winter Solstice, and this is as it should be.
In the same sense that we should not be prohibited from celebrating Christmas, or Kwanzaa, or Hanukkah, or the Solstice, neither should we be REQUIRED to do so. We should celebrate Christmas with joy and gratitude. Hanukkah deserves celebrating, as a commemoration of the end of fighting, and a festival of lights. Kwanzaa, as a celebration of family, community and culture, does, too. So does the solstice, because it is wonderful to know that the days will be getting longer instead of shorter, when winter seems to have closed in around us.
May we all find more of the best of ourselves and each other, at this holiday time, and less of the worst of ourselves, and of others.
Merry Christmas! Happy Hanukkah! Joyous Kwanzaa! Happy Winter Solstice! Happy Holidays!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)