Saved as "Religion"

Created Dec. 8, 2007

A God-fearing theist cannot reason the presence of a God without using or referring to his religion. “It’s something you can only experience as a Christian.” And therefore you still cannot prove to me “His” existence.

I’ve understood my non-religiosity since that one time that a Jehova’s Witness came to our house, and tried to disseminate pamphlets in the neighborhood. Luckily, my sister answered the door. Otherwise, I would probably have accepted their pamphlet. My sister, instead, opened the door, politely declined and rather proudly stated, “No, it’s okay; we’re Buddhist.” At that moment I realized and finally understood I was not a Christian. Since elementary school, when children asked me whether I was Christian or Catholic, I had no idea what to answer. I assumed that perhaps I was one of the two, and that my mom had just not told me yet which one I was. This, that religion was being discussed in elementary school, is, as Richard Dawkins would say, a disturbing thing.

It’s rather unfair to a child to be around religion at all—unfair to the mind. How is it that parents are allowed to impose their beliefs upon their children? Even before they are old enough to understand, as Dawkins says, they have already been forced into the world of God. But I should like to point out that my ideas are not based on Dawkins’ ideas. I have pondered religion since the seventh grade, when we learned about them in Ms. Ligh’s class.

Richard Dawkins ridicules deism by repeating that it may be “lumped” with theism. He said that they share one thing in common: that a supreme being created the universe. Now, I definitely am not a theist, and I do not believe that there’s really anyone “outside the universe (whatever that means)” judging our actions. We hold account for our own. But, really, if he does not believe that the Universe could have been shaped by some “God” (of course, not in the religious sense), then what could it have been? Does he really believe in Nature as the closest manifestation to a “God”? And does he believe that it is out of the nothingness of nature was spawned Nature itself? Spontaneous generation—it had to have happened sometimes in our understanding of existence. Or are we even existent? Some figment of imagination in some figment of imagination—are we, then, essentially an infinitesimal figment. That is the dumbest thing I’ve ever sad. But perhaps the most brilliant, as well?

I see major faults with feminism. It’s one thing to be proud of being a woman, and not allowing men to dominate, but it’s a-totally-nother thing to demand equivalence to men—I am only speaking of those women who reject chivalry and foolishly think that physically, they are equal to men. Women, physically are not as strong as men. It’s a part of our design. But our minds work capably, if not surpassingly, as well. So I assert that women deserve the same salary as men in the workplace and also special treatment, such as leave of absence for pregnancy, and special conditions when it comes to physical protection. And importantly, chivalry should always be followed. Men should always be respectful to women, and the such.

Stuff I've Saved Under "Journals"

I've been saving some stuff in Microsoft Word under the name "Journals." I don't know if I should let anybody see that. But mostly, I just talk about what I read in the news and what I learn in lectures. Boring--I know. Maybe I'll post what I think of annoying feminists. That is in response to the LA Weekly cover story for Jan. 24.

Today’s LA Weekly cover story—Female Firefighters in LAFD. Now this exactly highlights my points of view on feminists. I do not believe that they have the right to really cry for equality in areas where there is definitely a gender discrepancy. Strength. You cannot deny in any way that females are remotely as strong as men. That is where I think the feminist plank falls flat on its face. In cases such as the LAFD, it is not only that most women are physically incapable of completing the training, because what’s really even more poignant is that you cannot lower the standard of LAFD training. You are training to save lives, for crying out loud; you cannot lower the standards. Quite contrarily you must raise the standards. Raise them and make the community a safer place and better prepared to respond to disaster. You need efficiency, not a 'rule-raised-from-2-to-3-people-just-to-carry-a-ladder-because-women-
can't-handle' type of a standard. That’s preposterous. And really, if you look at it, how many women want to enter the training program. It’s female instinct to get dolled up. And I’m saying that getting dolled up can be coupled with being a strong and intelligent woman. That, as in you can be a woman equally as smart as a man--and most women are smarter. But you cannot deny the fact of physical discrepancies in male and females. The desire is not there in women to want to be firefighters. So what is all this brouhaha. Stop it, City Council. Women don't want to be in the fire department!