I'd like to think it's theists that are hypocrites. I declare myself again, I am an agnostic--not an Atheist without balls, but an Agnostic-Agnostic. I am skeptic.
So when Theists say Atheists think they are superior in claiming they know all, Theists themselves are also very know-it all. In fact, Theists are perhaps even worse. While Atheists may be cocky intellectual supremacists, ruling out the possibility of supernaturalism with their knowledge and proof, Theists are also caught in a blunder and they are exposed as hypocritical supremacists, because they believe in a supernatural being, because they are unwilling to accept that certain things are beyond their grasp.
Whatever, I wish I had better words for that, because I believe it is a rather beautiful train of thought. Theists' own BS Backfiring is always fun to watch.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
Reading LA Weekly's LA PEOPLE feature
I got to reading about Julia Sweeney. She used to be a Catholic, and bought a house specifically for its view and for its proximity to a church so she could hear church bells. But then she became Atheist.
It's sad that my mom doesn't know I don't believe in her religion. I've always pointed out how lucky my siblings and I were that my mother didn't instill her Religion in us. She's a rather devout worshipper. She observes and respects many of the traditional Chinese holidays, and she goes by the lunar calendar for her Religion. I've always looked at it that my parents didn't make us worship on purpose. They didn't transmit this culture so we would be free to choose. But now, I don't think that is so much true. I think my mom thinks we believe in her deities. As a child, she's always mentioned the deities as a way to teach us lessons, but there was never any worshipping with purpose. No Religious intention was imposed in using Religion as a moral guidance. I think that is why I stress ethics and morality, yet am totally antagonistic toward Religion.
I would be scared to tell my mom, I don't believe in her gods. I would be afraid to say something blasphemous in front of her, because I know she takes her Religion seriously. I would really like to ask my dad his beliefs. If he is an Atheist. I think he is. He could be superstitious, I guess, but who isn't? And most of the time, I think he is only listening to what my mother tells him to do anyway. On another note though, I guess he is most definitely very traditional... Just not religious.
It's sad that my mom doesn't know I don't believe in her religion. I've always pointed out how lucky my siblings and I were that my mother didn't instill her Religion in us. She's a rather devout worshipper. She observes and respects many of the traditional Chinese holidays, and she goes by the lunar calendar for her Religion. I've always looked at it that my parents didn't make us worship on purpose. They didn't transmit this culture so we would be free to choose. But now, I don't think that is so much true. I think my mom thinks we believe in her deities. As a child, she's always mentioned the deities as a way to teach us lessons, but there was never any worshipping with purpose. No Religious intention was imposed in using Religion as a moral guidance. I think that is why I stress ethics and morality, yet am totally antagonistic toward Religion.
I would be scared to tell my mom, I don't believe in her gods. I would be afraid to say something blasphemous in front of her, because I know she takes her Religion seriously. I would really like to ask my dad his beliefs. If he is an Atheist. I think he is. He could be superstitious, I guess, but who isn't? And most of the time, I think he is only listening to what my mother tells him to do anyway. On another note though, I guess he is most definitely very traditional... Just not religious.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
It's exciting!
Got back, checked my e-mail. WeHoNews headline excitedly proclaims CA Supreme Court makes decision on same-sex marriage. It was really funny. It was only a headline; it didn't reveal victory or defeat, but it was almost as if the headline was very excited. It couldn't wait for me to click it so it could be first to tell me that gay people finally get to marry! It's a wonderful day for Social Justice.
Here's what Justice Marvin Baxster, one of the dissenters, said, as taken off the LA Times: "The court majority 'does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice.' I think about it, it's such a breakthrough day. But it's funny how marriage, something so culturally-made, so unnatural (in the sense that it doesn't happen in Mother Nature), gets to have so much meaning. "Age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it." I think that's a very crappy way of calling Marriage. The marriage in question and in controversy now, is the Legal definition. Not the definition "as virtually all societies have understood it." Because a lot of people have supported the social ideal of allowing everyone to get married. It's just that the books have not. So I disagree with Baxter.
And sometimes--I'm going on record for saying this: I am a mental hypocrite--It's the funniest idea that the concept of Marriage has become so revered. (Not in Hollywood though, in Hollywood, Divorce has become the sacred phenomena) What if gay people got married but called it something else. Like Garried. or Harried. or Sarried. That's a novel idea, ain't it? But it's that society has gotten so stuck on this rigid definition of Marriage, that anything that isn't called properly called Marriage, just isn't Marriage. Most of the time, things that have an own unique nature are called a specific name. We are all people, but there are Men and Women. There are children and adults. There are infants and newborns. There are fetuses and embryos. Same difference? All human? Matrimony is the broad term. One is marriage, other is called something else--equal counterparts. Catch my drift?
But conversely, coming back down to the Real World, where Reality is rigid, and Philosophy is imagined and formless, social justice will demand that same-sex couple have Marriage under that name--Marriage.
But anyways, my existential dilemma in the third paragraph, SANCTIONING with FULL RIGHTS same-sex marriage and giving it its own name, could never have happened anyway, because the idea of a same-sex couple as a long-term, monogamous couple is absolutely unfathomable to some people who make decisions in Politics, and also they would never have allowed any other form of "Marriage" by any other name to occur between a man/man and woman/woman. Geesh. So since they don't want gay couples to remain permanently, monogamously together, does that mean that they want gay couples to be promiscuous and couple with more than one partner. Be polygamous? This is the type of ignorant thinking--just because we don't sanction it, it'll be okay--that led to AIDS spreading. This is the kind of thinking that could also apply to drugs. Just because we outlaw it, nobody will have access, nobody will do it...Right? Politicians, I fully trusted your collective brains when I voted for you. When I pay taxes to support you. And you enact policy with the naivete of a three year old?
FOR THE RECORD, I am excited for same-sex couples. And I have nothing wrong with calling gay marriage by the name Marriage. I was just noting the thought that society as a whole has gotten so clingily attached to an unnatural cultural notion, so much so that it becomes and Institution. Kind of like Religion if you think about it.
Call that creator God--not by anything else.
Call monogamous long-term relationships Marriage--not by anything else.
Here's what Justice Marvin Baxster, one of the dissenters, said, as taken off the LA Times: "The court majority 'does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice.' I think about it, it's such a breakthrough day. But it's funny how marriage, something so culturally-made, so unnatural (in the sense that it doesn't happen in Mother Nature), gets to have so much meaning. "Age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it." I think that's a very crappy way of calling Marriage. The marriage in question and in controversy now, is the Legal definition. Not the definition "as virtually all societies have understood it." Because a lot of people have supported the social ideal of allowing everyone to get married. It's just that the books have not. So I disagree with Baxter.
And sometimes--I'm going on record for saying this: I am a mental hypocrite--It's the funniest idea that the concept of Marriage has become so revered. (Not in Hollywood though, in Hollywood, Divorce has become the sacred phenomena) What if gay people got married but called it something else. Like Garried. or Harried. or Sarried. That's a novel idea, ain't it? But it's that society has gotten so stuck on this rigid definition of Marriage, that anything that isn't called properly called Marriage, just isn't Marriage. Most of the time, things that have an own unique nature are called a specific name. We are all people, but there are Men and Women. There are children and adults. There are infants and newborns. There are fetuses and embryos. Same difference? All human? Matrimony is the broad term. One is marriage, other is called something else--equal counterparts. Catch my drift?
But conversely, coming back down to the Real World, where Reality is rigid, and Philosophy is imagined and formless, social justice will demand that same-sex couple have Marriage under that name--Marriage.
But anyways, my existential dilemma in the third paragraph, SANCTIONING with FULL RIGHTS same-sex marriage and giving it its own name, could never have happened anyway, because the idea of a same-sex couple as a long-term, monogamous couple is absolutely unfathomable to some people who make decisions in Politics, and also they would never have allowed any other form of "Marriage" by any other name to occur between a man/man and woman/woman. Geesh. So since they don't want gay couples to remain permanently, monogamously together, does that mean that they want gay couples to be promiscuous and couple with more than one partner. Be polygamous? This is the type of ignorant thinking--just because we don't sanction it, it'll be okay--that led to AIDS spreading. This is the kind of thinking that could also apply to drugs. Just because we outlaw it, nobody will have access, nobody will do it...Right? Politicians, I fully trusted your collective brains when I voted for you. When I pay taxes to support you. And you enact policy with the naivete of a three year old?
FOR THE RECORD, I am excited for same-sex couples. And I have nothing wrong with calling gay marriage by the name Marriage. I was just noting the thought that society as a whole has gotten so clingily attached to an unnatural cultural notion, so much so that it becomes and Institution. Kind of like Religion if you think about it.
Call that creator God--not by anything else.
Call monogamous long-term relationships Marriage--not by anything else.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Idealist: Things that should not happen This Day & Age
The Chinese earthquake that killed 100,000 souls in mere minutes really shook the foundations of my insular view that most people live in conditions as safe as I. A natural disaster should not have the power to kill cities of people. Why are the buildings so unsafe? Why are they so vulnerable? What is wrong with people to essentially allow this kind of stuff to happen by protracting social injustice throughout societies? Why do third-world countries exist? I would not consider foraging village societies to be third-world countries, because they have been untouched by time. They have preserved a particular way of living for generations. But the social injustice I am so irked about is that of countries that have attempted to develop, but have failed so miserably, because they have not the resources to complete their sad tries at modernizing. Like China. It is industrialized, but in the sense that everyone is exploited. So I wouldn't come close to saying industrialization has done good for China, because, look at their toxic atmosphere; people get paid squat for doing the industrial work; people still live in crappy conditions. I mean. What is this?
Another thing I don't believe should happen this day and age is Religious conversion. Why would somebody unaffiliated with Religion all of a sudden turn to it? It's not like it's coerced. We have a pretty secular government. And even when legislation is religiously-driven, they're not sponsored by the Church. So there really is no external pressure to convert. If it's internal pressure, then I really believe that the government ought to introduce some material on Evolution to be required learning for all students. And also, I am hating the increasing visibility of religious influence in the Democratic party. You know it's just for votes. I would not believe for a minute somebody as strong a politician as Hillary Clinton believes in God. If she does, my Gosh, please enlighten yourself. Broaden your mind and take a break from reading Law and policy crap.
These are signs that we are not really as advanced as we think we are in society. Where is the humanity? Where is the humanism? Where is the Curiosity? Curiosity is something I believe occurs in the absence of belief in God. When you don't do something and think, "Oh, I was 'meant' to do this. God had it all planned out." Curiosity is when we explore as if We are in charge of our future. And that is something very idealistic. It's a sense that I believe all Liberals have, that we Can make a change. That our minds have the power to come up with solutions that no God intended. We are innovative. Our genus homo are toolmakers. We have cognitive ability. We are smart and flexible in challenging social and ecological environments.
This also prompted me to think of the link between Realism and Idealism. They are inextricably linked. Idealism is a byproduct of Realism. Idealists see the reality and want to find solutions to change it; to fix it. We see social injustice and want to act on it. On the other hand, Conservatives like to run away from reality and drone out the agonized laments of the oppressed in their wealth and contentedness.
Hearing stories of Garment Industry workers makes me want to help out. Makes me want to say, "Stop. This isn't right." Capitalists versus Socialists. I get it, Nobody wants socialism. People should get what they deserve. Total Egalitarianism is not good. But on the other hand, opposing socialism does not mean that one should engage in such acts that extremely oppose total egalitarianism. Meaning, just because the hired employee should not earn as much money as the business owner, it does not mean that there should be such a discrepancy that the business owner rakes in millions, while the employee makes $30 for a 10-hour day. That is Reality. It condescendingly slaps you in the face and doesn't say Sorry. The force of the hit is so powerful that it makes you numb to the horrible Truths of Reality. And you're so knocked out, so unable to act, that you sit back and deny. You allow Injustice to run rampant.
It's so hard. It's so very hard. You can't exactly boycott design houses that contract sweat shops. But then it is only through sweatshops that living is affordable. You don't get that $10 shirt for $10, unless the person who sewed it made $.10 on it. If the person made $5.00 on it, you would probably be paying $50 for the same shirt. And then again, these workers need the sweat shop job so bad that they would get pissed if you boycotted. Boycott leads to the fashion house cutting down on jobs. And then that effect is felt to a higher degree in the Industry, where garment laborers lose their jobs. How does this end?
Another thing I don't believe should happen this day and age is Religious conversion. Why would somebody unaffiliated with Religion all of a sudden turn to it? It's not like it's coerced. We have a pretty secular government. And even when legislation is religiously-driven, they're not sponsored by the Church. So there really is no external pressure to convert. If it's internal pressure, then I really believe that the government ought to introduce some material on Evolution to be required learning for all students. And also, I am hating the increasing visibility of religious influence in the Democratic party. You know it's just for votes. I would not believe for a minute somebody as strong a politician as Hillary Clinton believes in God. If she does, my Gosh, please enlighten yourself. Broaden your mind and take a break from reading Law and policy crap.
These are signs that we are not really as advanced as we think we are in society. Where is the humanity? Where is the humanism? Where is the Curiosity? Curiosity is something I believe occurs in the absence of belief in God. When you don't do something and think, "Oh, I was 'meant' to do this. God had it all planned out." Curiosity is when we explore as if We are in charge of our future. And that is something very idealistic. It's a sense that I believe all Liberals have, that we Can make a change. That our minds have the power to come up with solutions that no God intended. We are innovative. Our genus homo are toolmakers. We have cognitive ability. We are smart and flexible in challenging social and ecological environments.
This also prompted me to think of the link between Realism and Idealism. They are inextricably linked. Idealism is a byproduct of Realism. Idealists see the reality and want to find solutions to change it; to fix it. We see social injustice and want to act on it. On the other hand, Conservatives like to run away from reality and drone out the agonized laments of the oppressed in their wealth and contentedness.
Hearing stories of Garment Industry workers makes me want to help out. Makes me want to say, "Stop. This isn't right." Capitalists versus Socialists. I get it, Nobody wants socialism. People should get what they deserve. Total Egalitarianism is not good. But on the other hand, opposing socialism does not mean that one should engage in such acts that extremely oppose total egalitarianism. Meaning, just because the hired employee should not earn as much money as the business owner, it does not mean that there should be such a discrepancy that the business owner rakes in millions, while the employee makes $30 for a 10-hour day. That is Reality. It condescendingly slaps you in the face and doesn't say Sorry. The force of the hit is so powerful that it makes you numb to the horrible Truths of Reality. And you're so knocked out, so unable to act, that you sit back and deny. You allow Injustice to run rampant.
It's so hard. It's so very hard. You can't exactly boycott design houses that contract sweat shops. But then it is only through sweatshops that living is affordable. You don't get that $10 shirt for $10, unless the person who sewed it made $.10 on it. If the person made $5.00 on it, you would probably be paying $50 for the same shirt. And then again, these workers need the sweat shop job so bad that they would get pissed if you boycotted. Boycott leads to the fashion house cutting down on jobs. And then that effect is felt to a higher degree in the Industry, where garment laborers lose their jobs. How does this end?
Monday, May 12, 2008
Identity
I guess I've been reading some stuff about cultural identity for my labor unions seminar. Something about first generation Americans having identity crises. I've never realized that I had one myself, until I began reflecting on it just recently.
I'm thinking back at my old friends. How stupid was I to hang out with these vicious girls? I guess they were not mean to me, but they were in general very nasty little girls. I never found myself agreeing with them on anything. They made fun of people, were very bullyish in conversation. It was funny, I guess, for me as a bystander. They called someone Wombat for three years. I think about it, and I was so dumb. They pressured me, telling me some pretty insulting things, that at the time, I thought were okay, so I brushed it off. They would make fun of "Chinamen" and said, "Wendy's not Asian, she's Mexican inside."
Gosh, I was such an idiot for having hung out with those mean girls for as long as I did. She told me I was her best friend. I wouldn't see why. I never felt like she was my best friend. Nominally, she was, because I was her's. But I never connected with them on the level I connect with my BFF. There was no extant pressure for me to fit in, but I felt it obligatory that I made the effort to somehow be like them. I remember for a while, they all wore Addidas sneakers. Not the running shoes. But I never asked my mom specifically for that style of shoes, because they were rather expensive. I don't like to spend any more than $20 on shoes. I don't think it's worth it. Anyways, I never asked for them. But at an outlet once, we went to Addidas. I got running shoes. Shoot, I wore those to school as if they were the casual styles. And I was thinking about that today, and I am so ashamed at how I gave into this preposterous peer pressure. It made me laugh, except I couldn't laugh out loud, because I was on Bruin Walk by myself. I think I was smiling though, and people must have thought I was a creeper.
But getting down to business, I wanted to write out what I really feel inside, in terms of my cultural identity. I have always known I was Chinese. Without doubt. That is what I am--my blood, my psyche, my lifestyle, it's all Chinese. But as a young girl, I have always led a sort of double life. One in which I am myself, when I'm with my family, and one at school, when I'm with friends. My family is where I learned my culture, so with them is also where I practice my culture. But at school, I have always felt a pressure to be American. I've definitely been a target of racism, when young ignorant children taunt "ching chong." I used to think it was funny. I used to brush it off. "Oh that's not me. I speak good English." So in order to detach myself from that negative racism, I denied myself at school. I think this had most affected me in middle school. I made non-Asian friends and refused to speak Chinese at school--actually that began in elementary school. I also wouldn't let anybody go to my house. I didn't want them to see the beautiful Chinese paintings and artifacts that my dad collects. It's so sad that in that period of my life, I didn't want to admit my culture at all.
In high school, I got rid of those "friends," and I am really loving that I did. They moved away, but eventually came back. I'm just glad I never got to hanging out with them again. I stuck to my new friends. My group of friends in high school were nice, funny and smart people. It was a beautiful friendship. And I feel like I can share with them, without getting asked ridiculously ignorant questions--which is what I felt was scaring me from coming to grips with my identity, not only with my family, but with my friends and everyone.
Also, I don't feel so much that there is a clash between cultures in my case, between Chinese and American. I always felt I had two separate disjoint identities. They never crossed or clashed. One stayed at home, and one stayed at school.
And a side note. I'm scared to tell my mom I don't believe in her religion. My parents never put pressure on us to learn anything about their (actually, my mom's) religion. But, I think that having grown up around it, my mom assumes that we believe in Kwan Yin just as she does. But I don't. And when she tells me to burn incense, and I say "Aww, no..." She kind of gets mad at me, like "Do you want the Heavens to beat your a$$?" And I'm like, how can I tell you this. I'm agnostic.
I really like the saying that an Agnostic is an Atheist with no balls. But I really don't think that the two concepts are necessarily related. Agnostics are more skeptic, because we understand the slightness of the chance that there is any knowledgeable force presiding over the Universe, we know there is no Theologian's God. But Atheists on the other hand, believe they know for sure that nothing is out there. By claiming there's NOTHING, then they are essentially saying they have all the knowledge of the Universe, and can come to such a conclusion. Therefore, I would say that I am agnostic. I'm not sure if I would ever be that confident with my mind to become an atheist. I don't believe that is a solvable problem for man.
I'm thinking back at my old friends. How stupid was I to hang out with these vicious girls? I guess they were not mean to me, but they were in general very nasty little girls. I never found myself agreeing with them on anything. They made fun of people, were very bullyish in conversation. It was funny, I guess, for me as a bystander. They called someone Wombat for three years. I think about it, and I was so dumb. They pressured me, telling me some pretty insulting things, that at the time, I thought were okay, so I brushed it off. They would make fun of "Chinamen" and said, "Wendy's not Asian, she's Mexican inside."
Gosh, I was such an idiot for having hung out with those mean girls for as long as I did. She told me I was her best friend. I wouldn't see why. I never felt like she was my best friend. Nominally, she was, because I was her's. But I never connected with them on the level I connect with my BFF. There was no extant pressure for me to fit in, but I felt it obligatory that I made the effort to somehow be like them. I remember for a while, they all wore Addidas sneakers. Not the running shoes. But I never asked my mom specifically for that style of shoes, because they were rather expensive. I don't like to spend any more than $20 on shoes. I don't think it's worth it. Anyways, I never asked for them. But at an outlet once, we went to Addidas. I got running shoes. Shoot, I wore those to school as if they were the casual styles. And I was thinking about that today, and I am so ashamed at how I gave into this preposterous peer pressure. It made me laugh, except I couldn't laugh out loud, because I was on Bruin Walk by myself. I think I was smiling though, and people must have thought I was a creeper.
But getting down to business, I wanted to write out what I really feel inside, in terms of my cultural identity. I have always known I was Chinese. Without doubt. That is what I am--my blood, my psyche, my lifestyle, it's all Chinese. But as a young girl, I have always led a sort of double life. One in which I am myself, when I'm with my family, and one at school, when I'm with friends. My family is where I learned my culture, so with them is also where I practice my culture. But at school, I have always felt a pressure to be American. I've definitely been a target of racism, when young ignorant children taunt "ching chong." I used to think it was funny. I used to brush it off. "Oh that's not me. I speak good English." So in order to detach myself from that negative racism, I denied myself at school. I think this had most affected me in middle school. I made non-Asian friends and refused to speak Chinese at school--actually that began in elementary school. I also wouldn't let anybody go to my house. I didn't want them to see the beautiful Chinese paintings and artifacts that my dad collects. It's so sad that in that period of my life, I didn't want to admit my culture at all.
In high school, I got rid of those "friends," and I am really loving that I did. They moved away, but eventually came back. I'm just glad I never got to hanging out with them again. I stuck to my new friends. My group of friends in high school were nice, funny and smart people. It was a beautiful friendship. And I feel like I can share with them, without getting asked ridiculously ignorant questions--which is what I felt was scaring me from coming to grips with my identity, not only with my family, but with my friends and everyone.
Also, I don't feel so much that there is a clash between cultures in my case, between Chinese and American. I always felt I had two separate disjoint identities. They never crossed or clashed. One stayed at home, and one stayed at school.
And a side note. I'm scared to tell my mom I don't believe in her religion. My parents never put pressure on us to learn anything about their (actually, my mom's) religion. But, I think that having grown up around it, my mom assumes that we believe in Kwan Yin just as she does. But I don't. And when she tells me to burn incense, and I say "Aww, no..." She kind of gets mad at me, like "Do you want the Heavens to beat your a$$?" And I'm like, how can I tell you this. I'm agnostic.
I really like the saying that an Agnostic is an Atheist with no balls. But I really don't think that the two concepts are necessarily related. Agnostics are more skeptic, because we understand the slightness of the chance that there is any knowledgeable force presiding over the Universe, we know there is no Theologian's God. But Atheists on the other hand, believe they know for sure that nothing is out there. By claiming there's NOTHING, then they are essentially saying they have all the knowledge of the Universe, and can come to such a conclusion. Therefore, I would say that I am agnostic. I'm not sure if I would ever be that confident with my mind to become an atheist. I don't believe that is a solvable problem for man.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
haahahhaha
Holly!! You're actually reading this? I would have thought you'd stop after that first time.
Well, I'm rather torn on the "Religion creeping into social norms" (I choose to use the word creeping).
I want to clear the air a bit. I at first made this blog to write down ideas, and not have to waste computer space, but I'm realizing that it projects an image of me that perhaps I don't want to be projected. I put a lot more energy into thinking stuff than I ever write down. This blog is so crude, and it definitely does not reflect me and my set of ideas. The things I write down are whatever I'm thinking at the moment. But behind this thought lies a plethora of auxiliary thoughts. When I think about the contradictions in my mind, I almost fall into an existential crisis just thinking about the possibilities and the different ways of seeing things. So the things I choose to "keyboardly"-express are never close to encompassing all my feelings and ideas on so-and-so subject.
But anyways, back the Religion/social norm thing. It's just the idea that irks me. That so many people believe in this one Thing. It's so oppressive and, dare I say, omnipotent/present in society--the entire mankind! I guess that though God doesn't really exist, he practically does because so many people have been led to think in their minds that he does. The cult leader who first started to preach that a superbeing exists achieved his goal--he made a God exist for a large portion of the world. It's a mobocracy. I'm kind of drifting off--back to the main point. Some part of me sees "One nation under God" as a historically-significant part of the Pledge of Allegiance. But most of me screams at the idea that blatant Religion was injected into what was supposed to be secular governance. I know, it is so awkward when I sneeze or when anybody else sneezes, but there's no "Bless You." I'm not condemning the phrase, but I just refuse to be active in the spreading and protracting this social "norm." I see the historical significance of how these things have become "norms," (but since when is the Flying Spaghetti Monster normal) but at the same time, when do we come in to change history.
This thing with change/status quo is so mind-boggling. It's like the theory of natural selection. Evolution tends toward sameness and monotony. I previously blogged about keeping the element of "excitement" in society by maintaining this full-of-conflict cultural status quo. Like gang culture (sans violence) Religion (sans God)... I admire those Jewish who preserve the cultural traditions, but not the religious dogma.
I don't know if I was joking, but what if the world was all love, everyone looked the same, talked the same, and held the same beliefs (which would guarantee harmony)--would that be boring and unexciting? Or really cool!? I read an article about New Atheism in Wired--definitely hate it. It's a group of people actively seeking "converts." Atheism becoming a Religion. But somewhere in that article, the writer talks about New Atheists asserting their beliefs, which may get irritating to the rest of God's world. At a dinner table, somebody blurted out "I'm an Atheist," and some God-fearer said, "Oh you seem like the type." I'm proud of that blurter. He wasn't trying to convert. When Atheists speak, it's mostly their trying to appeal, not impose, by sharing their side of the story. They try to enlighten and spread Reason.
And so, in not saying "Bless you," it's not because I don't care, it's because I don't want to spread this. Bye no longer has religious connotation, but in "Bless you," it still lingers. That's my objection.
Another thought. God is a manmade ideal. As far as my observations and academic studies of and in nature are concerned, no other living thing--not only animals, but also plants, worship a higher being. It is so ironic that though we are the highest developed, most sophisticated and complex organism in our know Universe (though I am compelled to believe in other Life, if the Universe is indeed infinite--yet, which doesn't make sense according to the Big Bang--how is the Universe contracting? It's got no bounds to pull in! I really need to study some astrophysics), many members of our race believes in something so nonsensical, and holds the ideas so firmly.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it! Sigh. Time lost for math. Blogging grabbed and interrupted my homework and didn't let go until 1:06 AM.
Well, I'm rather torn on the "Religion creeping into social norms" (I choose to use the word creeping).
I want to clear the air a bit. I at first made this blog to write down ideas, and not have to waste computer space, but I'm realizing that it projects an image of me that perhaps I don't want to be projected. I put a lot more energy into thinking stuff than I ever write down. This blog is so crude, and it definitely does not reflect me and my set of ideas. The things I write down are whatever I'm thinking at the moment. But behind this thought lies a plethora of auxiliary thoughts. When I think about the contradictions in my mind, I almost fall into an existential crisis just thinking about the possibilities and the different ways of seeing things. So the things I choose to "keyboardly"-express are never close to encompassing all my feelings and ideas on so-and-so subject.
But anyways, back the Religion/social norm thing. It's just the idea that irks me. That so many people believe in this one Thing. It's so oppressive and, dare I say, omnipotent/present in society--the entire mankind! I guess that though God doesn't really exist, he practically does because so many people have been led to think in their minds that he does. The cult leader who first started to preach that a superbeing exists achieved his goal--he made a God exist for a large portion of the world. It's a mobocracy. I'm kind of drifting off--back to the main point. Some part of me sees "One nation under God" as a historically-significant part of the Pledge of Allegiance. But most of me screams at the idea that blatant Religion was injected into what was supposed to be secular governance. I know, it is so awkward when I sneeze or when anybody else sneezes, but there's no "Bless You." I'm not condemning the phrase, but I just refuse to be active in the spreading and protracting this social "norm." I see the historical significance of how these things have become "norms," (but since when is the Flying Spaghetti Monster normal) but at the same time, when do we come in to change history.
This thing with change/status quo is so mind-boggling. It's like the theory of natural selection. Evolution tends toward sameness and monotony. I previously blogged about keeping the element of "excitement" in society by maintaining this full-of-conflict cultural status quo. Like gang culture (sans violence) Religion (sans God)... I admire those Jewish who preserve the cultural traditions, but not the religious dogma.
I don't know if I was joking, but what if the world was all love, everyone looked the same, talked the same, and held the same beliefs (which would guarantee harmony)--would that be boring and unexciting? Or really cool!? I read an article about New Atheism in Wired--definitely hate it. It's a group of people actively seeking "converts." Atheism becoming a Religion. But somewhere in that article, the writer talks about New Atheists asserting their beliefs, which may get irritating to the rest of God's world. At a dinner table, somebody blurted out "I'm an Atheist," and some God-fearer said, "Oh you seem like the type." I'm proud of that blurter. He wasn't trying to convert. When Atheists speak, it's mostly their trying to appeal, not impose, by sharing their side of the story. They try to enlighten and spread Reason.
And so, in not saying "Bless you," it's not because I don't care, it's because I don't want to spread this. Bye no longer has religious connotation, but in "Bless you," it still lingers. That's my objection.
Another thought. God is a manmade ideal. As far as my observations and academic studies of and in nature are concerned, no other living thing--not only animals, but also plants, worship a higher being. It is so ironic that though we are the highest developed, most sophisticated and complex organism in our know Universe (though I am compelled to believe in other Life, if the Universe is indeed infinite--yet, which doesn't make sense according to the Big Bang--how is the Universe contracting? It's got no bounds to pull in! I really need to study some astrophysics), many members of our race believes in something so nonsensical, and holds the ideas so firmly.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it! Sigh. Time lost for math. Blogging grabbed and interrupted my homework and didn't let go until 1:06 AM.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
One more about religion
I pretty much always end up writing about the same thing. But this is what gets my motor mouth running. Religion once more.
The only people who need Religion are those who can't flexibly deal with what they're dealt with. Most people who "turn to Religion" are those who face hard times. It makes sense, because when your life is going good, nobody wants to Stop, take a moment and "Thank God." Let the good times roll, right?
But when the good times stop rolling, like if you fall into alcoholism or your wife gets involved in a hit-and-run (ahem, Dubya), then you become a Born Again. Obviously my aforementioned-example-person wasn't able to deal with his problems, and felt like if he prayed enough, someThing would intervene in his life to rectify the situation. But in actuality, God doesn't make things better. It's the person thinking that somebody Powerful and Almighty "has his back," and therefore leads a better life and lives as though he owes God a Thank You gift with good behavior. What a crappy gift; give me something more expensive, will ya?
It bothers me that most theists believe that their God/Allah/Yahweh, whatever, watches over the Universe. I am in the Universe, but I don't believe. But whatever, because those people think God is still watching over me. I don't say "Bless you," when people sneeze. But people say "Bless you" to me when I sneeze. I say "Thank you" out of courtesy. I like that somebody is caring for my soul, but, I would rather sneeze and have my sneeze treated as scientifically as possible. When I sneeze, take cover! Trust--you don't want my germs near you. Don't open your mouth and say "Bless you." I appreciate it, but it really isn't necessary.
I'll stop rather abruptly--I have to go to the restroom!!
The only people who need Religion are those who can't flexibly deal with what they're dealt with. Most people who "turn to Religion" are those who face hard times. It makes sense, because when your life is going good, nobody wants to Stop, take a moment and "Thank God." Let the good times roll, right?
But when the good times stop rolling, like if you fall into alcoholism or your wife gets involved in a hit-and-run (ahem, Dubya), then you become a Born Again. Obviously my aforementioned-example-person wasn't able to deal with his problems, and felt like if he prayed enough, someThing would intervene in his life to rectify the situation. But in actuality, God doesn't make things better. It's the person thinking that somebody Powerful and Almighty "has his back," and therefore leads a better life and lives as though he owes God a Thank You gift with good behavior. What a crappy gift; give me something more expensive, will ya?
It bothers me that most theists believe that their God/Allah/Yahweh, whatever, watches over the Universe. I am in the Universe, but I don't believe. But whatever, because those people think God is still watching over me. I don't say "Bless you," when people sneeze. But people say "Bless you" to me when I sneeze. I say "Thank you" out of courtesy. I like that somebody is caring for my soul, but, I would rather sneeze and have my sneeze treated as scientifically as possible. When I sneeze, take cover! Trust--you don't want my germs near you. Don't open your mouth and say "Bless you." I appreciate it, but it really isn't necessary.
I'll stop rather abruptly--I have to go to the restroom!!
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Shower blogs
I realized that I might want to chronicle my shower thoughts. When I'm bored in the shower, I tend to debate and reason myself. So I should start keeping track of my thoughts.
1. I didn't need Religion to develop my ethics. My morality is an inherent conviction.
2. Comment on "Born agains."
3. Expanding on Richard Dawkins' reasoning that Religion should not be imposed on children. And I'm pissed about my childhood misconceptions, wrought by America's obsession with Christianity.
4. This is completely not related to Religion, but Entertainment media should stick to its roots. Stop trying to monopolize the world.
I don't know why I'm always so obsessed with Religion. But here we go:
I once asked a friend if he followed Christianity more for the faith or more for the morals. I think I offended him. He sees it as one thing. But though he got upset, I think that's still a valid question. Some people think that Christianity will "save" them somehow. Look at the people in jail. They go to the Bible and somehow believe that reading about a man sacrificing his son, or reading about Jesus performing magic tricks will "save them." As if somehow, they didn't commit the crime that got them in there. I believe in rehabilitation, definitely, and I do reserve a very slight amount of respect for Religion for taming the incorrigible sometimes--though I don't know how--but I am so irked that Religion receives such widespread reverence for its ability to bring people comfort and solace. In what alternate reality are we, when fairy tales bring people solace and epiphany?
I really want to talk about Born again Christians. Why does Religion get so much credit for being the reason why somebody changed for the better? Was it really the thought that somebody died "for you" that moved you so much that you decided that you were going to live a more righteous life? Oh please! If Religion didn't work the first time to stop you from whatever you did, that you eventually had to become a Born again--why the fcuk would it work the second time around? Can't you believe that the negativity of the experience that initially induced you to seek religion, was so bad that the action itself led you to make a personal change? That the action was so unpleasant, that you decided, "I never want that to happen anymore!" and therefore, you were enlightened and changed for the better? Remember--trial and error leads to success in life. You tried & you erred, so you learned from your mistakes. It was not Religion that saved your a$$, it was yourself. Stop giving credit to "Finding God" because you are fooling others into seeking your same dumba$$ path.
I never noticed, and I guess I would never have wanted to admit, but Christianity is so dominant in American culture, that I believe I was affected by it at a young age. I am ashamed, but actually more pissed off, that Christianity is so mainstream, that American ideals are based on Religion. A young girl's dream wedding is set at a Church. Happy images of death in Heaven--is America too wuss to deal with the natural reality of death? Death means you die. It doesn't mean you live for eternity in the clouds, dressed in white. Huck & Tom definitely didn't want to sit and play the harp all day, every day, forever.
Now, media. I once made a comment on tmz, because they were once again trying to make a big ol' deal about letting a rap star out of jail early. JUST SO THEY CAN HAVE MORE NEWS TO WRITE ABOUT AND SELL THEIR STORIES. I told them to read the facts, because LA jails are way over crowded and the city is immersed in a budget crisis, so of course people won't serve full sentences. I really hate how the entertainment industry tries to stick its J.Lo butt into politics and public affairs. You do your job, leave the rest to the proper people. Stars getting involved in certain projects definitely tips scales towards whatever they're whoring up attention to. Why is America so media obsessed? Entertainment reigns.
I am so tired of writing now. bbl.
1. I didn't need Religion to develop my ethics. My morality is an inherent conviction.
2. Comment on "Born agains."
3. Expanding on Richard Dawkins' reasoning that Religion should not be imposed on children. And I'm pissed about my childhood misconceptions, wrought by America's obsession with Christianity.
4. This is completely not related to Religion, but Entertainment media should stick to its roots. Stop trying to monopolize the world.
I don't know why I'm always so obsessed with Religion. But here we go:
I once asked a friend if he followed Christianity more for the faith or more for the morals. I think I offended him. He sees it as one thing. But though he got upset, I think that's still a valid question. Some people think that Christianity will "save" them somehow. Look at the people in jail. They go to the Bible and somehow believe that reading about a man sacrificing his son, or reading about Jesus performing magic tricks will "save them." As if somehow, they didn't commit the crime that got them in there. I believe in rehabilitation, definitely, and I do reserve a very slight amount of respect for Religion for taming the incorrigible sometimes--though I don't know how--but I am so irked that Religion receives such widespread reverence for its ability to bring people comfort and solace. In what alternate reality are we, when fairy tales bring people solace and epiphany?
I really want to talk about Born again Christians. Why does Religion get so much credit for being the reason why somebody changed for the better? Was it really the thought that somebody died "for you" that moved you so much that you decided that you were going to live a more righteous life? Oh please! If Religion didn't work the first time to stop you from whatever you did, that you eventually had to become a Born again--why the fcuk would it work the second time around? Can't you believe that the negativity of the experience that initially induced you to seek religion, was so bad that the action itself led you to make a personal change? That the action was so unpleasant, that you decided, "I never want that to happen anymore!" and therefore, you were enlightened and changed for the better? Remember--trial and error leads to success in life. You tried & you erred, so you learned from your mistakes. It was not Religion that saved your a$$, it was yourself. Stop giving credit to "Finding God" because you are fooling others into seeking your same dumba$$ path.
I never noticed, and I guess I would never have wanted to admit, but Christianity is so dominant in American culture, that I believe I was affected by it at a young age. I am ashamed, but actually more pissed off, that Christianity is so mainstream, that American ideals are based on Religion. A young girl's dream wedding is set at a Church. Happy images of death in Heaven--is America too wuss to deal with the natural reality of death? Death means you die. It doesn't mean you live for eternity in the clouds, dressed in white. Huck & Tom definitely didn't want to sit and play the harp all day, every day, forever.
Now, media. I once made a comment on tmz, because they were once again trying to make a big ol' deal about letting a rap star out of jail early. JUST SO THEY CAN HAVE MORE NEWS TO WRITE ABOUT AND SELL THEIR STORIES. I told them to read the facts, because LA jails are way over crowded and the city is immersed in a budget crisis, so of course people won't serve full sentences. I really hate how the entertainment industry tries to stick its J.Lo butt into politics and public affairs. You do your job, leave the rest to the proper people. Stars getting involved in certain projects definitely tips scales towards whatever they're whoring up attention to. Why is America so media obsessed? Entertainment reigns.
I am so tired of writing now. bbl.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Shift in Thought from Nietzsche entry
So as I continue reading the Crime Library masterpiece, I learned a bit more about Nietzche.
He noted the difference between those courageous enough to construct their own morality, versus those who were classified as "followers and let others do their thinking for them."
I am really perplexed by this idea of constructing one's own morality. It is quite impossible, and you can never be original or successful in making a morality that is truly your own. One's environment is a constant constant constant constant constant and reliably dependable presence. Unless you're Tom Hanks in that movie. What was it? "Cast Away" or something? And you have to be born on a secluded island and survive on your own, without a mother's love or any other external influence, in order to truly carve your own morality. That's impossible, because without care, one is unable to survive. That established, social conditioning will always be a determinant factor in one's shaping of one's own set of beliefs. I think those cheesy and unoriginal strict Nietzsche adherents, who obviously are not courageous enough to think on their own, adopt Nietzsche's advice and go on a power-trip quest to mold their own non-conformist morality. And the only way your morals can be non-conformist, is if they are totally detached from Christianity--since the majority of people are Christian and God-fearing. So alternately, they go extreme and adopt crime and depravity as their morality. They are so afraid of being associated with the goodness & pureness that Christianity (supposedly) inspires, that they go to the opposite side of the spectrum. That is so childish and immature. Criminals are really dumb & therefore, even if they think they are non-conformist, because the ideal that they are so determined to reject is essentially conformist, their act of being deliberately rebellious to conformity exposes them as still conformists.
I find my own values as not attached to any specific School, but they are derived from cumulative experiences. My encounters with others' beliefs, or lessons I've learned throughout the years, that have inspired in me enlightenment or moments of epiphany. I've collected those ideas and adopted them as my morality, which in turn is always in flux, as I am always undergoing new experiences. And I admit that my beliefs are socially influenced. They are definitely influenced by conformity, but that I am not deliberately conforming or rebelling, I feel that my Thought is open and unbound to restriction.
And I've come up with a policy a while ago, where I couldn't accept people as Academics if they were adherents to the Ultimate Institution of Religion. Here's a new one: Until anybody learns to adopt truly original beliefs, I refuse to respect them, either.
He noted the difference between those courageous enough to construct their own morality, versus those who were classified as "followers and let others do their thinking for them."
I am really perplexed by this idea of constructing one's own morality. It is quite impossible, and you can never be original or successful in making a morality that is truly your own. One's environment is a constant constant constant constant constant and reliably dependable presence. Unless you're Tom Hanks in that movie. What was it? "Cast Away" or something? And you have to be born on a secluded island and survive on your own, without a mother's love or any other external influence, in order to truly carve your own morality. That's impossible, because without care, one is unable to survive. That established, social conditioning will always be a determinant factor in one's shaping of one's own set of beliefs. I think those cheesy and unoriginal strict Nietzsche adherents, who obviously are not courageous enough to think on their own, adopt Nietzsche's advice and go on a power-trip quest to mold their own non-conformist morality. And the only way your morals can be non-conformist, is if they are totally detached from Christianity--since the majority of people are Christian and God-fearing. So alternately, they go extreme and adopt crime and depravity as their morality. They are so afraid of being associated with the goodness & pureness that Christianity (supposedly) inspires, that they go to the opposite side of the spectrum. That is so childish and immature. Criminals are really dumb & therefore, even if they think they are non-conformist, because the ideal that they are so determined to reject is essentially conformist, their act of being deliberately rebellious to conformity exposes them as still conformists.
I find my own values as not attached to any specific School, but they are derived from cumulative experiences. My encounters with others' beliefs, or lessons I've learned throughout the years, that have inspired in me enlightenment or moments of epiphany. I've collected those ideas and adopted them as my morality, which in turn is always in flux, as I am always undergoing new experiences. And I admit that my beliefs are socially influenced. They are definitely influenced by conformity, but that I am not deliberately conforming or rebelling, I feel that my Thought is open and unbound to restriction.
And I've come up with a policy a while ago, where I couldn't accept people as Academics if they were adherents to the Ultimate Institution of Religion. Here's a new one: Until anybody learns to adopt truly original beliefs, I refuse to respect them, either.
Nietzsche & crime?
I was on Crime Library again. I went on one of those obsessive crime-story-addicted rushes after watching Gladiator Days on MSNBC, about the "Show and Tell" murder. As I browsed the library, I opened a few files that piqued my interest, one of which was entitled "Nietzsche inspired Hitler and Other Killers." I know about Nietzsche from Gonzalez; that was my first encounter. And since then, I've only understood Nietzsche as some Godless philosopher. Okay. So that's all I know about him--he's Godless. So when I see the headline "Nietzsche inspired...Killers." What a surprise to find that in a Christian society?
But turn it around. How about when God inspires crime? I went through so many headlines, and didn't find anything (in the title, at least) that mentions Religion inciting horror. How misrepresented. What about those cult leaders? I once was speaking with a Christian friend, who was gushing about how he communicates with his God and how his God would never put him into a horrible situation. So I ask, how does he respond to the multiple cult leaders and killers in history that have pointed at God as the instigator Who instructed them to kill? Then my friend recalls the only case he knew of (obviously he's not very familiar with the cult history) and quickly points out, "He was a ________; not a Christian." I forget which denomination he separated himself from, but it was a branch of Christianity. So if it was a branch of Christianity, it means that the cult leader believed in the same glorious God that my friend believed in. So if God put the cult leader in the position to mass-murder, what makes my friend believe that God will have mercy and bestow grace on him? It's a moral binary. I finally understand what Krazy Katz was talking about during that lecture on moral binary in Hollywood.
So back to Nietzsche. I excerpt this quote from that poorly-written Crime Library entry... Yes, they are all poorly-written, elementary-style masterpieces.
Wikipedia also brought up the point that in his lifetime, he was not as popular a writer. I never read Tuesdays with Morrie, I feel maybe I should; but I know the basic foundation of the book. Why show appreciation for significant people postmortem, when you can honor them during life. But whatever, that was a tangent. I appreciate reading philosophy. I like to absorb (and inevitably, filter) ideas that I like and dislike. But I think it is so unoriginal to adopt a so-called philosopher's set of ideas fully. I believe that everyone should be their own philosopher, and have unique philosophies of life. Just as how one should always be looking in oneself for value, whatever one considers value comes from personal experiences. Personal experiences. So no doubt, Nietzsche, or any other widely-adhered philosophers' ideas culminate from their cumulative life experiences. According to Wikipedia (this is not an academic paper, so I am allowed to cite Wikipedia!), Nietzsche had death early on in his life. To some extent, however much "extent," that must have affected his thinking somehow. So I guess what I'm advocating is for people to be more original in their values and beliefs. Your code of ethics should derive from your experiences as a person. (And I wish people had more pleasant experiences--growing up in South LA could either make or break your character, I guess.) No one should submit (and incidentally stifle) their freedom to Think to any Religion Institution or School of Thought. I'm not so much a skeptic though, as I am an advocate for "personalized" philosophy.
Yez. Zo I vaz feeling a bit existential.
But turn it around. How about when God inspires crime? I went through so many headlines, and didn't find anything (in the title, at least) that mentions Religion inciting horror. How misrepresented. What about those cult leaders? I once was speaking with a Christian friend, who was gushing about how he communicates with his God and how his God would never put him into a horrible situation. So I ask, how does he respond to the multiple cult leaders and killers in history that have pointed at God as the instigator Who instructed them to kill? Then my friend recalls the only case he knew of (obviously he's not very familiar with the cult history) and quickly points out, "He was a ________; not a Christian." I forget which denomination he separated himself from, but it was a branch of Christianity. So if it was a branch of Christianity, it means that the cult leader believed in the same glorious God that my friend believed in. So if God put the cult leader in the position to mass-murder, what makes my friend believe that God will have mercy and bestow grace on him? It's a moral binary. I finally understand what Krazy Katz was talking about during that lecture on moral binary in Hollywood.
So back to Nietzsche. I excerpt this quote from that poorly-written Crime Library entry... Yes, they are all poorly-written, elementary-style masterpieces.
" Tulloch was a reader of Nietzsche, and was especially impressed with the idea that, without God, there were no absolute moral values. A powerful individual could decide what was right — including murder — and do it."See the italicized. I am absolutely disgusted with the false link between morality and Religion. Why do people think that they need Religion, that they need some Supreme being, that they need some false and intangible concept to structure their lives? It's a horrendous and erroneous way of thinking. So I quickly read up a bit on Nietzsche--of course through Wikipedia--and I found that the public understanding of his philosophy is widely misperceived and disconnected. His famous quote "God is dead," juxtaposed with his anti-Religion philosophy, leads many to believe that he held an immoral approach to Life, when in fact--at least from how I understood Wikipedia--he believed that one should not turn to Religion to seek values. Rather, one must look within oneself. I couldn't agree more.
Wikipedia also brought up the point that in his lifetime, he was not as popular a writer. I never read Tuesdays with Morrie, I feel maybe I should; but I know the basic foundation of the book. Why show appreciation for significant people postmortem, when you can honor them during life. But whatever, that was a tangent. I appreciate reading philosophy. I like to absorb (and inevitably, filter) ideas that I like and dislike. But I think it is so unoriginal to adopt a so-called philosopher's set of ideas fully. I believe that everyone should be their own philosopher, and have unique philosophies of life. Just as how one should always be looking in oneself for value, whatever one considers value comes from personal experiences. Personal experiences. So no doubt, Nietzsche, or any other widely-adhered philosophers' ideas culminate from their cumulative life experiences. According to Wikipedia (this is not an academic paper, so I am allowed to cite Wikipedia!), Nietzsche had death early on in his life. To some extent, however much "extent," that must have affected his thinking somehow. So I guess what I'm advocating is for people to be more original in their values and beliefs. Your code of ethics should derive from your experiences as a person. (And I wish people had more pleasant experiences--growing up in South LA could either make or break your character, I guess.) No one should submit (and incidentally stifle) their freedom to Think to any Religion Institution or School of Thought. I'm not so much a skeptic though, as I am an advocate for "personalized" philosophy.
Yez. Zo I vaz feeling a bit existential.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Should my irreligion remain an internal practice
I've thought long and hard about this. Especially since I took home Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion. I don't know whether it's okay for me to read other people's thoughts on Religion. I am very interested in their viewpoints, yet at the same time, I like that I've evolved my irreligion by my own thought. It came out of my personal reverence for the mind. And I am wondering if reading others' ideas--especially those of the persuasive kind--would taint my own beliefs.
I didn't finish reading The God Delusion. I would say I read about 20 pages of it? It was very interesting the points he makes. I just don't like the fact that it seemed like he was pushing his audience to believe whatever he believed. I just didn't like how he was trying to persuade his audience. That one article in Wired, about New Atheism got to me. The idea of atheist zealots? That is so... Religious! I honor agnosticism/atheism as an inner enlightenment, a realization that existentialists come to, after thinking about Reality and Life. And when I debate with my religious friends on the topic, my goal is to push them to see Reality. It's not that I'm throwing insults at them and proclaiming, "Son, there is no God." I really truly madly deeply cherish secularism as a wonderful product that follows an extensive thought process. That is why I kind of got a bit irked at Richard Dawkins. However, I still admire this man. Just watch him on The O'Reilly Factor. Smashed Bill O'Reilly up to pieces. And like all others of O'Reilly's liberal guests, made the host himself look like an ignorant, brainwashed fool!
So to read or not to read? I like to learn facts that corroborate my agnosticism. But I really don't like to read about stories of why somebody turned on Religion. I like the fact that they did spurn the Institution, but I don't like hearing it, for I fear it would contaminate my own thought process. What killed me was when I was talking to my friend. I gave him some examples from Dawkin's book, just to see what his God-fearing mind had to say about it. And he insulted me. He said, so that's where you get your ideas. Oh no way, hon'! You did not just say that! My beliefs come from my own head. I don't need anyone to tell me what happened, as Religion does! That totally sparked a fire in me. And put me in this unfortunate dichotomy. Yay, another point of internal contention. I think that sometimes I am cruel to myself in that I do not allow myself to do certain things. Like reading Dawkins for fear that his ideas might become mine. I don't want to adopt any silly Institution's ideas. I like that mine are mine own. I'm just talking existential ideas. I guess. Because I believe in Science. Because it's backed by Real Stuff. Not generations of manipulation and oral traditions. If you know what I mean?
I didn't finish reading The God Delusion. I would say I read about 20 pages of it? It was very interesting the points he makes. I just don't like the fact that it seemed like he was pushing his audience to believe whatever he believed. I just didn't like how he was trying to persuade his audience. That one article in Wired, about New Atheism got to me. The idea of atheist zealots? That is so... Religious! I honor agnosticism/atheism as an inner enlightenment, a realization that existentialists come to, after thinking about Reality and Life. And when I debate with my religious friends on the topic, my goal is to push them to see Reality. It's not that I'm throwing insults at them and proclaiming, "Son, there is no God." I really truly madly deeply cherish secularism as a wonderful product that follows an extensive thought process. That is why I kind of got a bit irked at Richard Dawkins. However, I still admire this man. Just watch him on The O'Reilly Factor. Smashed Bill O'Reilly up to pieces. And like all others of O'Reilly's liberal guests, made the host himself look like an ignorant, brainwashed fool!
So to read or not to read? I like to learn facts that corroborate my agnosticism. But I really don't like to read about stories of why somebody turned on Religion. I like the fact that they did spurn the Institution, but I don't like hearing it, for I fear it would contaminate my own thought process. What killed me was when I was talking to my friend. I gave him some examples from Dawkin's book, just to see what his God-fearing mind had to say about it. And he insulted me. He said, so that's where you get your ideas. Oh no way, hon'! You did not just say that! My beliefs come from my own head. I don't need anyone to tell me what happened, as Religion does! That totally sparked a fire in me. And put me in this unfortunate dichotomy. Yay, another point of internal contention. I think that sometimes I am cruel to myself in that I do not allow myself to do certain things. Like reading Dawkins for fear that his ideas might become mine. I don't want to adopt any silly Institution's ideas. I like that mine are mine own. I'm just talking existential ideas. I guess. Because I believe in Science. Because it's backed by Real Stuff. Not generations of manipulation and oral traditions. If you know what I mean?
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Therese M. Stewart told the court that "the name 'marriage' matters." But Justice Ming W. Chin chided: "Doesn't that place rhetoric over reality?"
I am so irritated by that stupid chide. "Doesn't that place rhetoric over reality?"
Well, if you, Mr. Chin, think so lowly of rhetoric, what difference does it make if Gay-unions were legally called Gay-marriages? I hate this kind of silly reasoning that religious people have of reasoning. It's not reasoning at all. God exists because the Bible said it does? Geez.
Let's listen to Bill O'Reilly. He had a tough time understanding how the Universe came to be. Incredible, he thought. No way could something come out of nothing. (I have repeated many times in this blog, I do not intend to even try to understand where the Universe comes from, that is beyond me.) But O'Reilly has the freaking nerve to say God created everything. He can believe that. He can believe it because he was taught that since he was young. In other words, he was brainwashed by the Church. He is a cult follower. Duh, that is what Religion is. So can he answer, with reason not Religion, where God came from?
That's what I thought.
p.s.this.is.from.the.la.times.
Well, if you, Mr. Chin, think so lowly of rhetoric, what difference does it make if Gay-unions were legally called Gay-marriages? I hate this kind of silly reasoning that religious people have of reasoning. It's not reasoning at all. God exists because the Bible said it does? Geez.
Let's listen to Bill O'Reilly. He had a tough time understanding how the Universe came to be. Incredible, he thought. No way could something come out of nothing. (I have repeated many times in this blog, I do not intend to even try to understand where the Universe comes from, that is beyond me.) But O'Reilly has the freaking nerve to say God created everything. He can believe that. He can believe it because he was taught that since he was young. In other words, he was brainwashed by the Church. He is a cult follower. Duh, that is what Religion is. So can he answer, with reason not Religion, where God came from?
That's what I thought.
p.s.this.is.from.the.la.times.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Pitfall
I'm watching Bill O' Reilly vs. Richard Dawkins. I cannot believe how stupid and ignorant Bill is. He is so ready and confident in slamming atheism, refusing to believe that the world "just happened," claiming "it had to have come from somewhere." So if he believes that God created himself (apparently), then what is his basis for saying that nature could not have created itself? I don't like to delve into how the world came about. I'm not smart enough to comprehend, nor is anyone else. The matter is beyond us. I appreciate scientists who strive to discover the universe's origins though.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Fuming!!!
The LA Times needs to check itself. Is there something wrong with "US is still overwhelmingly Christian, study finds" as opposed to "More Americans changing religious denominations, study finds"
Uhhh. Yah, ma'am. Why does the LA Times find it necessary, that even though religious affiliation is on the decline, which really is the news, they put that Christianity stays on top as its headline. America has always been Christian. It's not surprising that "US is still overwhelmingly Christian." Stupids. I just can't stand that you did that LA Times. You're feeding the zeal of the zealots. Take example from the Boston Globe.
I am thoroughly disappointed. Even though you are not as professionally-respected as is the New York Times, I always read you, because you are the Los Angeles Times. Another false move...
You're out.
Uhhh. Yah, ma'am. Why does the LA Times find it necessary, that even though religious affiliation is on the decline, which really is the news, they put that Christianity stays on top as its headline. America has always been Christian. It's not surprising that "US is still overwhelmingly Christian." Stupids. I just can't stand that you did that LA Times. You're feeding the zeal of the zealots. Take example from the Boston Globe.
I am thoroughly disappointed. Even though you are not as professionally-respected as is the New York Times, I always read you, because you are the Los Angeles Times. Another false move...
You're out.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Feelin' a bit intelligent
I was showering, and I got to thinking when my friend told me online that he was a social conservative. And then I retorted, "That's the worst kind!"
I felt kind of bad for saying it, because he was like "???" and I am like, Crap--did I offend him?
So now, I feel like I betrayed myself by somewhat apologizing, or even trying to explain myself. Yes, It Is The Worst Kind. Social Conservativism Is The Worst Kind.
In a religiously-free country, our religious freedom is not fully realized until the state learns to be secular. Having its people heed whatever religion they wish, yet imposing decidedly God-fearing laws and morals is not completely free.
Independence--where do we draw the line between freedom and moral responsibility? It is difficult to distinguish. Abortion; but is it with malicious intent? I believe in the freedom of choice. Not only is the drive to reverse Roe v. Wade one that is biblically-inspired, but it is one led by mostly men? Are we a patriarchal society? I would agree that we are. Does that need to change? I agree that it does.
But, Americans--spoiled Americans. We like to have our cake, and eat it too; an in-yo-face eat it too. We don't want to part with Christmas breaks though. That's for sure. We can always use more holidays. What I think is, go on with secular legislations, but also go ahead with celebrating culture.
It's cool.
I felt kind of bad for saying it, because he was like "???" and I am like, Crap--did I offend him?
So now, I feel like I betrayed myself by somewhat apologizing, or even trying to explain myself. Yes, It Is The Worst Kind. Social Conservativism Is The Worst Kind.
In a religiously-free country, our religious freedom is not fully realized until the state learns to be secular. Having its people heed whatever religion they wish, yet imposing decidedly God-fearing laws and morals is not completely free.
Independence--where do we draw the line between freedom and moral responsibility? It is difficult to distinguish. Abortion; but is it with malicious intent? I believe in the freedom of choice. Not only is the drive to reverse Roe v. Wade one that is biblically-inspired, but it is one led by mostly men? Are we a patriarchal society? I would agree that we are. Does that need to change? I agree that it does.
But, Americans--spoiled Americans. We like to have our cake, and eat it too; an in-yo-face eat it too. We don't want to part with Christmas breaks though. That's for sure. We can always use more holidays. What I think is, go on with secular legislations, but also go ahead with celebrating culture.
It's cool.
Monday, February 11, 2008
I am not a fan of ironic quotes
I don't want to point out exactly who. But, someone on my buddy list, says "A pretentious, showy life is an empty life. A plain and simple life is a full life." I don't quite know if those are the exact words. Something like that. Anyway, I have nothing against this person. She's real nice and all. But within her profile are some religious remarks. Christian ones. I just don't like it when religious people call their lives simple and plain. Are you kidding me? Your life is pretentious. You feed into the Ultimate Pretentiousness that is religion. Religion is showy. What of those Cathedrals? What of tithing? It's all $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
But let me tell you, I took a midterm today. It was okay. I fear for the one tomorrow. Chem. I hope I do well. I had much fun over the weekend with my family. I love, I love.
But let me tell you, I took a midterm today. It was okay. I fear for the one tomorrow. Chem. I hope I do well. I had much fun over the weekend with my family. I love, I love.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Much Much Much
Well three things I want to touch on... I list so I won't forget--Polar Bears, "God," and "Across the Universe."
First, "Across the Universe." Serious. What is up with these movies about the '60s and '70s. "Bobby?" These are supposed to be great movies about great eras of political activism and artistic/philosophic/kooky achievements. Why do they suck. "Across the Universe" put itself up on a pedestal by assuming a Beatles theme. I expected much more than was laid before my eyes. It was such a flat story. It was so random and out of place. The pieces did not come together. The singing--I wasn't in love with it. It was okay. Okay. Okay, okay? Those dumb cameos. Bono looked stupid. I hate cameos for cameo's-sake. Bono can't act. He overacted and it was a horrible performance. Salma Hayek looked totally out-of-place and it didn't make sense. That scene was ugly.
Polar Bears. PB for poor babies. The NRDC video on youtube, titled--something about thin ice, I forget. But watch it. It's is powerful and heart-wrenching. The LA Times explains the sight of deathly gaunt polar bears as "bones covered with a sodden white rug." My gosh. It's just tragic to watch a polar bear struggle to get on an ice floe that repeatedly fails on him, that disintegrates at the pressure of his very struggle in trying to grasp hold of safety from the arctic waters. Those who succeed probably want to die from the pain of exhaustion. And those who fail probably do die from exhaustion. Please, why can't we help? This is not just a matter of the polar bears. Why can't we get into Africa and save a country that is ravaged by disease? These are people who want to live, but are unable to save themselves. This is not just a quality of life issue, it's a matter of life issue. For how can you even get to debating the quality when it's not even a matter at hand? We are fighting in Iraq, supposedly for freedom, when we could be in Africa stopping genocides and fighting AIDS, hunger and poverty. Why Iraq, many other countries also suffer from oppressive governments. I'm also sure Africa has some of those. Blood diamonds too.
And on a less severe note. God does not exist, Miss. Go and take Biology with full confidence that what they are teaching is the truth as far as empirical and theoretical data is concerned. God is... I don't even want to classify it as a theory, because that is implying that there was actually some sort of basis that led somebody to believing in a higher, controlling being. Don't allow your mind to be a slave to Religion, please. It's just an institution. Too naive, too believing you are.
First, "Across the Universe." Serious. What is up with these movies about the '60s and '70s. "Bobby?" These are supposed to be great movies about great eras of political activism and artistic/philosophic/kooky achievements. Why do they suck. "Across the Universe" put itself up on a pedestal by assuming a Beatles theme. I expected much more than was laid before my eyes. It was such a flat story. It was so random and out of place. The pieces did not come together. The singing--I wasn't in love with it. It was okay. Okay. Okay, okay? Those dumb cameos. Bono looked stupid. I hate cameos for cameo's-sake. Bono can't act. He overacted and it was a horrible performance. Salma Hayek looked totally out-of-place and it didn't make sense. That scene was ugly.
Polar Bears. PB for poor babies. The NRDC video on youtube, titled--something about thin ice, I forget. But watch it. It's is powerful and heart-wrenching. The LA Times explains the sight of deathly gaunt polar bears as "bones covered with a sodden white rug." My gosh. It's just tragic to watch a polar bear struggle to get on an ice floe that repeatedly fails on him, that disintegrates at the pressure of his very struggle in trying to grasp hold of safety from the arctic waters. Those who succeed probably want to die from the pain of exhaustion. And those who fail probably do die from exhaustion. Please, why can't we help? This is not just a matter of the polar bears. Why can't we get into Africa and save a country that is ravaged by disease? These are people who want to live, but are unable to save themselves. This is not just a quality of life issue, it's a matter of life issue. For how can you even get to debating the quality when it's not even a matter at hand? We are fighting in Iraq, supposedly for freedom, when we could be in Africa stopping genocides and fighting AIDS, hunger and poverty. Why Iraq, many other countries also suffer from oppressive governments. I'm also sure Africa has some of those. Blood diamonds too.
And on a less severe note. God does not exist, Miss. Go and take Biology with full confidence that what they are teaching is the truth as far as empirical and theoretical data is concerned. God is... I don't even want to classify it as a theory, because that is implying that there was actually some sort of basis that led somebody to believing in a higher, controlling being. Don't allow your mind to be a slave to Religion, please. It's just an institution. Too naive, too believing you are.
Friday, January 25, 2008
The Media
I wish this blog had some pictures. But if anything, I would only want to put pictures up that I personally take myself.
But anyways, I think a lot in the shower. I guess because there really is nothing better to do, but think. I don't sing in the shower. And really, when I think, I find myself always in the middle of everything. I'm always torn in my opinions. I'm always giving myself a hard time because I find huge differences in what I do believe and what I want to believe. I'm really caught up in trying to be the person that I want myself to be, and sometimes that conflicts with the values that I have grown up with.
Religion
I was raised to believe in some Buddhist deities that will cause thunder to strike you when you talk back to your parents and chop your hands and feet off when you do weird stuff with your hands and feet. I mean, my mom believes in the sect of Buddhism that reveres supernatural figures. But Buddhism is just a way of life. I respect that. As for the other theistic religions. I don't even really want to comment. I already have made my point known. And New Atheism is just the same. It's really a religion in itself, the fact that it is so zealous. I just don't ever want to think of religion in general. But I like to debate on that stuff. I don't want to commit or comment on religion, as it is such a waste of time. It drains your time, drains your mind. Ughh. It's only fun for debates. [Science rules.]
Politics
I feel ridiculous saying this, but I am a lot more conservative than I want to admit. I want to be that liberal, that in-your-face politician. But I don't have what it takes. I deeply admire the crackpotism that rears of liberal extremists' heads; I mean, they have the best ideas, although they taint those great ideas with extremism. Everything in moderation. Man, they could make peace on Earth. I am so into the idea of do as you please, I won't judge. But let's face it, I am not courageous enough not to judge. And some times I feel like, "Okay, so what if I judge, it's human nature." I do feel like that is in my instinct and that is still what I believe. I mean, I don't judge in a way that is socially unhealthy, but I do have my preconceptions of people based on how they act. Don't "actions speak louder than words," anyway? But then sometimes, I will get really disgusted with myself for having it in me--the inclination to stereotype. Especially because I want to be such a hardcore Democrat. I am much more Democrat than I will ever be Republican--that's for sure. I would never let 'God' sway me; and hopefully, (because I want to be wealthy when I grow up--who doesn't?) I won't let self-interest inculcate some crazy trickly-prickly economic ideas in me either. But I am conservative in the fact that I do judge people by their decisions to smoke, drink, and do drugs. I mean. It sounds crazy, but the essential idea of liberalism is "Live and Let Live," am I right? That means let those druggies, alchies, and ashtrays do their thing. I do mine. But I can't because I can't stand the notion that they are human beings with beautiful minds that choose the path self-destruct. I hate that, which in turn, makes me want to shake them and say, "Stop it, you nitwit!"
So are you getting the sense that I am some crazy schizo?
Media
I watched some of Michael Moore's crazy documentaries. And it is just so obvious that most Americans--your average American, are silly subjects to the Media honchos' empire. It's so obvious. Yet, Michael Moore is a part of the media. And he has to have an agenda of his own. No? So what do you believe? We cannot sit and ignore media the way we can ignore religion. It's not an option. Where can we get pure news. I mean, news isn't something that's just available. Only reporters and editors are in control and have access to fresh news. We just get the filtered version. Sucks.
I'm stupid.
But anyways, I think a lot in the shower. I guess because there really is nothing better to do, but think. I don't sing in the shower. And really, when I think, I find myself always in the middle of everything. I'm always torn in my opinions. I'm always giving myself a hard time because I find huge differences in what I do believe and what I want to believe. I'm really caught up in trying to be the person that I want myself to be, and sometimes that conflicts with the values that I have grown up with.
Religion
I was raised to believe in some Buddhist deities that will cause thunder to strike you when you talk back to your parents and chop your hands and feet off when you do weird stuff with your hands and feet. I mean, my mom believes in the sect of Buddhism that reveres supernatural figures. But Buddhism is just a way of life. I respect that. As for the other theistic religions. I don't even really want to comment. I already have made my point known. And New Atheism is just the same. It's really a religion in itself, the fact that it is so zealous. I just don't ever want to think of religion in general. But I like to debate on that stuff. I don't want to commit or comment on religion, as it is such a waste of time. It drains your time, drains your mind. Ughh. It's only fun for debates. [Science rules.]
Politics
I feel ridiculous saying this, but I am a lot more conservative than I want to admit. I want to be that liberal, that in-your-face politician. But I don't have what it takes. I deeply admire the crackpotism that rears of liberal extremists' heads; I mean, they have the best ideas, although they taint those great ideas with extremism. Everything in moderation. Man, they could make peace on Earth. I am so into the idea of do as you please, I won't judge. But let's face it, I am not courageous enough not to judge. And some times I feel like, "Okay, so what if I judge, it's human nature." I do feel like that is in my instinct and that is still what I believe. I mean, I don't judge in a way that is socially unhealthy, but I do have my preconceptions of people based on how they act. Don't "actions speak louder than words," anyway? But then sometimes, I will get really disgusted with myself for having it in me--the inclination to stereotype. Especially because I want to be such a hardcore Democrat. I am much more Democrat than I will ever be Republican--that's for sure. I would never let 'God' sway me; and hopefully, (because I want to be wealthy when I grow up--who doesn't?) I won't let self-interest inculcate some crazy trickly-prickly economic ideas in me either. But I am conservative in the fact that I do judge people by their decisions to smoke, drink, and do drugs. I mean. It sounds crazy, but the essential idea of liberalism is "Live and Let Live," am I right? That means let those druggies, alchies, and ashtrays do their thing. I do mine. But I can't because I can't stand the notion that they are human beings with beautiful minds that choose the path self-destruct. I hate that, which in turn, makes me want to shake them and say, "Stop it, you nitwit!"
So are you getting the sense that I am some crazy schizo?
Media
I watched some of Michael Moore's crazy documentaries. And it is just so obvious that most Americans--your average American, are silly subjects to the Media honchos' empire. It's so obvious. Yet, Michael Moore is a part of the media. And he has to have an agenda of his own. No? So what do you believe? We cannot sit and ignore media the way we can ignore religion. It's not an option. Where can we get pure news. I mean, news isn't something that's just available. Only reporters and editors are in control and have access to fresh news. We just get the filtered version. Sucks.
I'm stupid.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)