The Ontario government has recently declared that it will force all schools in the province to have Gay-Straight Alliances. There are many issues with this.
First of all, there is no evidence that Gay-Straight Alliances are even beneficial to student populations, particularly to those who struggle with same-sex attraction.
Secondly, the Toronto School Board's own report which was a general census that had questions pertaining to bullying indicated that bullying because of same-sex attraction was barely a blip on their radar. According to the chart found on pages 4 and 5, the three main causes of bullying had mainly to do with body image (38% and 27%), followed by grades or marks (17% and 12%), and cultural/racial backgrounds (11% and 14%). Despite this information, the majority of students affected by bullying have been decidedly abandoned by the Ontario government because it just isn't popular enough to help them.
Thirdly, aren't Gay-Straight Alliances supposed to be voluntary student-run groups? Is it really right to force the foundation of and participation by students in a group of a particular cause? Does the government have such a right? It is a very totalitarian action for a government to dictate how its citizens are allowed to interact with each other.
So in conclusion, Gay-Straight Alliances are ineffective against preventing bullying. A major reason they are so ineffective is because they exclude the majority of students who are bullied. The Ontario government has majorly overreached its authority by forcing all schools to have a student group about a specific cause. As such, I recommend that all elected officials who have supported this measure should be voted out in the next election as well as all appointed officials should be swiftly fired.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
A Way to Share
I know that I have written about communication many times before. It is something that is very important to me and something which I continue to study and apply. In particular, this topic pertains to things we share which includes, but is not limited to teaching, sharing ideas and sharing the Gospel.
It is my personal belief that we should follow the natural law as Jesus and the Apostles illustrate it for us. Some of these examples can be found in the following passages:
"But because I have spoken these things to you, sorrow hath filled your heart. But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. And when he is come, he will convince the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgement. Of sin: because they believed not in me. And of justice: because I go to the Father; and you shall see me no longer. And of judgment: because the prince of this world is already judged. I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you." (John 16: 6-13)
"And I, brethren, could not speak to you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal. As unto little ones in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not meat; for you were not able as yet. But neither indeed are you now able; for you are yet carnal." (1 Corinthians 3:1-2)
"Wherefore laying away all malice, and all guile, and dissimulations, and envies, and all detractions, As newborn babes, desire the rational milk without guile, that thereby you may grow unto salvation: If so be you have tasted that the Lord is sweet." (1 Peter 2:1-3)
So we should communicate basic elements and common ground first. Do not mistake me as advocating that we condescend to one another. I simply mean that depending on the subject matter it would be best if one spoke simply and clearly. There is no need for technical terms and big words. We must resist the carnal pride within us and resist putting on a performance to shows others just how much we know. There is a time and a place for such illustrations and until such a time why risk what you are trying to communicate being lost because you would rather needlessly offend, overwhelm or confuse your listener. For example, if you were trying to share the Gospel with a Muslim you could wreck the whole thing by insisting first that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. It would be much more fruitful to start with what the Muslim already knows - that Jesus Christ is a prophet and that we Muslims, Christians and Jews share common ground through our lineage of Abraham.
It is a natural law you know because it is something observable of all human beings. We begin always with the basics and grow from there. Often, however, in our own self-centred humanity we abandon even the natural law in order to fulfil some need - often that of pride.
It is my personal belief that we should follow the natural law as Jesus and the Apostles illustrate it for us. Some of these examples can be found in the following passages:
"But because I have spoken these things to you, sorrow hath filled your heart. But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. And when he is come, he will convince the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgement. Of sin: because they believed not in me. And of justice: because I go to the Father; and you shall see me no longer. And of judgment: because the prince of this world is already judged. I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you." (John 16: 6-13)
"And I, brethren, could not speak to you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal. As unto little ones in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not meat; for you were not able as yet. But neither indeed are you now able; for you are yet carnal." (1 Corinthians 3:1-2)
"Wherefore laying away all malice, and all guile, and dissimulations, and envies, and all detractions, As newborn babes, desire the rational milk without guile, that thereby you may grow unto salvation: If so be you have tasted that the Lord is sweet." (1 Peter 2:1-3)
So we should communicate basic elements and common ground first. Do not mistake me as advocating that we condescend to one another. I simply mean that depending on the subject matter it would be best if one spoke simply and clearly. There is no need for technical terms and big words. We must resist the carnal pride within us and resist putting on a performance to shows others just how much we know. There is a time and a place for such illustrations and until such a time why risk what you are trying to communicate being lost because you would rather needlessly offend, overwhelm or confuse your listener. For example, if you were trying to share the Gospel with a Muslim you could wreck the whole thing by insisting first that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. It would be much more fruitful to start with what the Muslim already knows - that Jesus Christ is a prophet and that we Muslims, Christians and Jews share common ground through our lineage of Abraham.
It is a natural law you know because it is something observable of all human beings. We begin always with the basics and grow from there. Often, however, in our own self-centred humanity we abandon even the natural law in order to fulfil some need - often that of pride.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Catholic, and Libertarian
If you are expecting quotes from the Bible and Church teaching with the aim of persuasion or to guilt you into applying a philosophy of libertarianism, you will not find that here. This is simply an explanation of why as a Catholic, the political philosophy I have chosen to apply is that of libertarianism.
First of all, libertarianism is not relativism. It is not a philosophy of doing whatever you please consequences be damned. It is best understood as the concept of liberty with responsibility. For example, if you choose to murder your own child in the womb it is an action and consequence you alone will bear. You cannot force those who object to pay for or participate in the murder of your child. Those who object to such a heinous crime are permitted to speak out against it and attempt to persuade you otherwise. However, such persons are forbidden to manipulate, abuse, threaten violence or use violence against you.
So you see, libertarianism is neither modernistic nor relativistic. There is right and wrong, and if you choose to do wrong you will bear the full blunt of consequences and responsibility for electing to do wrong. No one is obligated to bail you out. If you screw up, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Now, I am not saying there is no mercy. I am not saying that we should abandon the poor and disenfranchised. These absolutely should be helped. However, one should not be forced to help. It is never right to steal from one to give to the other. If you commit evil to get rid of evil, you still have evil. There is still a grave injustice having been committed. Evil cannot be overcome by evil, but by good. (Romans 12:17, 21)
As I have said in a previous post, it is my belief that Christians have become misguided and lazy. We no longer carry out the duty given to us by Almighty God, rather we outsource our responsibilities to the government. In essence, the government has become our church. We no longer care for orphans and widows. Instead, we allow the government to take our hard earned money and it decides on its own how that money will be spent. This is not charity nor is it the fulfilment of charity. We have simply become lazy.
Likewise, some members of the Church have become convinced that simply outlawing abortion will magically make everything better. These same also believe that maintaining the government's definition of marriage as between one man and one woman some how makes it so. I'm an educate, not legislate type of person. You see, you cannot legislate morality. Now, that doesn't mean such laws are not good - they are. We often ignore the reality that sin can and will manipulate something good such as a just law into something bad. St. Paul said it best in his letter to the Romans:
"For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members, to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are loosed from the law of death, wherein we were detained; so that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? God forbid. But I do not know sin, but by the law; for I had not known concupiscence, if the law did not say: Thou shalt not covet. But sin taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. And I lived some time without the law. But when the commandment came, sin revived, And I died. And the commandment that was ordained to life, the same was found to be unto death to me. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, seduced me, and by it killed me.Wherefore the law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was that then which is good, made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it may appear sin, by that which is good, wrought death in me; that sin, by the commandment, might become sinful above measure. For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I work, I understand not. For I do not that good which I will; but the evil which I hate, that I do." (Romans 7:5-15)
So for example, it would be a mistake for certain countries which have legalised contraception to make it illegal again; at least as it is now. You can remove the ability to prevent life, but that desire to prevent life is still present. It is the desire to prevent and relegate life to something of convenience which makes contraceptive methods an intrinsic evil, not the materials that come together to create these methods. So until you address the underlining issues, outlawing contraception could prove to be quite fruitless. It is like what is said of the Pharisees who were particularly legalistic Jews, "And the Lord said: Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips glorify me, but their heart is far from me, and they have feared me with the commandment and doctrines of men." (Isaiah 29:13) And it was also said of these same,
First of all, libertarianism is not relativism. It is not a philosophy of doing whatever you please consequences be damned. It is best understood as the concept of liberty with responsibility. For example, if you choose to murder your own child in the womb it is an action and consequence you alone will bear. You cannot force those who object to pay for or participate in the murder of your child. Those who object to such a heinous crime are permitted to speak out against it and attempt to persuade you otherwise. However, such persons are forbidden to manipulate, abuse, threaten violence or use violence against you.
So you see, libertarianism is neither modernistic nor relativistic. There is right and wrong, and if you choose to do wrong you will bear the full blunt of consequences and responsibility for electing to do wrong. No one is obligated to bail you out. If you screw up, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Now, I am not saying there is no mercy. I am not saying that we should abandon the poor and disenfranchised. These absolutely should be helped. However, one should not be forced to help. It is never right to steal from one to give to the other. If you commit evil to get rid of evil, you still have evil. There is still a grave injustice having been committed. Evil cannot be overcome by evil, but by good. (Romans 12:17, 21)
As I have said in a previous post, it is my belief that Christians have become misguided and lazy. We no longer carry out the duty given to us by Almighty God, rather we outsource our responsibilities to the government. In essence, the government has become our church. We no longer care for orphans and widows. Instead, we allow the government to take our hard earned money and it decides on its own how that money will be spent. This is not charity nor is it the fulfilment of charity. We have simply become lazy.
Likewise, some members of the Church have become convinced that simply outlawing abortion will magically make everything better. These same also believe that maintaining the government's definition of marriage as between one man and one woman some how makes it so. I'm an educate, not legislate type of person. You see, you cannot legislate morality. Now, that doesn't mean such laws are not good - they are. We often ignore the reality that sin can and will manipulate something good such as a just law into something bad. St. Paul said it best in his letter to the Romans:
"For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members, to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are loosed from the law of death, wherein we were detained; so that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? God forbid. But I do not know sin, but by the law; for I had not known concupiscence, if the law did not say: Thou shalt not covet. But sin taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. And I lived some time without the law. But when the commandment came, sin revived, And I died. And the commandment that was ordained to life, the same was found to be unto death to me. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, seduced me, and by it killed me.Wherefore the law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was that then which is good, made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it may appear sin, by that which is good, wrought death in me; that sin, by the commandment, might become sinful above measure. For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I work, I understand not. For I do not that good which I will; but the evil which I hate, that I do." (Romans 7:5-15)
So for example, it would be a mistake for certain countries which have legalised contraception to make it illegal again; at least as it is now. You can remove the ability to prevent life, but that desire to prevent life is still present. It is the desire to prevent and relegate life to something of convenience which makes contraceptive methods an intrinsic evil, not the materials that come together to create these methods. So until you address the underlining issues, outlawing contraception could prove to be quite fruitless. It is like what is said of the Pharisees who were particularly legalistic Jews, "And the Lord said: Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips glorify me, but their heart is far from me, and they have feared me with the commandment and doctrines of men." (Isaiah 29:13) And it was also said of these same,
"Then came to him from Jerusalem scribes and Pharisees, saying: Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the ancients? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for your tradition? For God said: Honour thy father and mother: And: He that shall curse father or mother, let him die the death. But you say: Whosoever shall say to father or mother, The gift whatsoever proceedeth from me, shall profit thee. And he shall not honour his father or his mother: and you have made void the commandment of God for your tradition. Hypocrites, well hath Isaias prophesied of you, saying: This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me. And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men. And having called together the multitudes unto him, he said to them: Hear ye and understand. Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." (Matthew 15:1-11)
So the solution is not to grow the reach of government by the misguided actions of enacting laws of morality. Rather, it is simply that we as Christians need to be responsible and carry out our duty. What duty you ask?
"And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." (Matthew 28:18-20)
"And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." (Matthew 28:18-20)
So it is, that if we Christians carry out the, "Great Commission," as it is called which would convert hearts and minds, then and only then, will we once again see public morality restored in our society. There would be no temptation to use force against our fellow man so that they might outwardly appear moral, rather they within would be genuinely converted and that would be seen outwardly as well. We should desire genuine morality, not vainglory.
Likewise with the whole deal of same-sex "marriage." Hope you noticed my wording earlier when I said, "These same also believe that maintaining the government's definition of marriage as between one man and one woman some how makes it so." Christians are two-faced when they declare government cannot define marriage out of one side of their mouth and then out of the other side insist that government define marriage as between one man and one marriage. If you've read some of my other blog posts you are already aware that I do not believe government can define marriage whatsoever and therefore it follows that all laws regarding marriage should be abolished. I do not mean that each and every aberration one could think of should be legalised - not at all! Rather, when one should open a book of law there should be no mention of marriage or any of the sort. The public courts should be silent as to everything pertaining to marriage. Instead, we in Christ should get off our comfortable bottoms and start evangelising the nations starting with our own.
I hope this has been a worthy explanation as to how I can be Catholic, and also apply the libertarian philosophy.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Mulcair, Charest, and the Quebec Student Protests
[UPDATE: Usually the human rights commissions are utter garbage, but in this case they have actually stood for human rights instead of just what's popular and trendy by epically slamming Bill 78.]
Quebec student are currently protesting hikes in tuition fees. These fee hikes were only supposed to be temporary and should have ended years ago. The people of Quebec agreed to the temporary fee hikes it was believed the revenues would be used to repair the infrastructure of the schools. Unfortunately, hundreds of millions of dollars raised went instead to line the pockets of school administrators. You likely noticed the same thing happened with the auto industry and Wall Street bailouts in the United States where taxpayers funds were used to line the pockets of the executives instead. So you see the students of Quebec are not protesting because they are spoiled, rather they are tired of the charades and want the government to stop trying to squeeze them of every penny they have.
Did the government - headed by Charest- admit to wrongdoing and finally end the temporary fee hikes? No, in fact quite the opposite is true. Last week, Charest signed into law Bill 78 which makes any gathering of 50 people or more effectively illegal. Indeed it is Charest, not the French-Canadian students, who has become spoiled rotten. So rotten that in a move reminiscent of fascism, Charest has eliminated the basic human right to protest. If a government across the pond was so restrictive and authorised the police to crack some skulls there would no doubt be international outcry and condemnation. Instead, since we Westerners are oh so very civilised (sarcasm), our rulers are freely permitted to beat us into a pulp if they so please.
Speaking of which, I find it very interesting that the new NDP leader Thomas Mulcair sees nothing wrong with showing utter contempt for the governments of British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan of which the major industry is oil, and blasting oil for the apparent downfall in in the manufacturing sector that is so vital to Quebec. Since as you know a minor recession, outdated technology along with defunct and shrinking markets could not possibly have anything to do with the current manufacturing core going extinct. No, not at all! It's all the fault of the evil oil companies! (more sarcasm) However, has Mulcair shown an ounce of disapproval towards Charest for his treatment of the same Quebecois which Mulcair claims to pledge his allegiance to? Not even one iota of care has been given.
So in conclusion, I think the Quebec students should be demanding that their government get out of education all together. It is clear that the government doesn't actually care about the people they purport to serve any longer. It's time for Charest to go away.
Quebec student are currently protesting hikes in tuition fees. These fee hikes were only supposed to be temporary and should have ended years ago. The people of Quebec agreed to the temporary fee hikes it was believed the revenues would be used to repair the infrastructure of the schools. Unfortunately, hundreds of millions of dollars raised went instead to line the pockets of school administrators. You likely noticed the same thing happened with the auto industry and Wall Street bailouts in the United States where taxpayers funds were used to line the pockets of the executives instead. So you see the students of Quebec are not protesting because they are spoiled, rather they are tired of the charades and want the government to stop trying to squeeze them of every penny they have.
Did the government - headed by Charest- admit to wrongdoing and finally end the temporary fee hikes? No, in fact quite the opposite is true. Last week, Charest signed into law Bill 78 which makes any gathering of 50 people or more effectively illegal. Indeed it is Charest, not the French-Canadian students, who has become spoiled rotten. So rotten that in a move reminiscent of fascism, Charest has eliminated the basic human right to protest. If a government across the pond was so restrictive and authorised the police to crack some skulls there would no doubt be international outcry and condemnation. Instead, since we Westerners are oh so very civilised (sarcasm), our rulers are freely permitted to beat us into a pulp if they so please.
Speaking of which, I find it very interesting that the new NDP leader Thomas Mulcair sees nothing wrong with showing utter contempt for the governments of British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan of which the major industry is oil, and blasting oil for the apparent downfall in in the manufacturing sector that is so vital to Quebec. Since as you know a minor recession, outdated technology along with defunct and shrinking markets could not possibly have anything to do with the current manufacturing core going extinct. No, not at all! It's all the fault of the evil oil companies! (more sarcasm) However, has Mulcair shown an ounce of disapproval towards Charest for his treatment of the same Quebecois which Mulcair claims to pledge his allegiance to? Not even one iota of care has been given.
So in conclusion, I think the Quebec students should be demanding that their government get out of education all together. It is clear that the government doesn't actually care about the people they purport to serve any longer. It's time for Charest to go away.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
The Arts: Meaning in the Medium
I was going to write this exclusively about film, but this is also true of my first love, that is, theatre. Also this is true of music, of art, photography, and while we're at it - dance. Thus, this applies to all of the arts including that which I have surely missed.
What is good? What about these various things attracts us? Why these things do we pursue? They make us happy. They do this, but they also make us sad. They cause joy and awe to well up within us, but they as well wield an unfathomable power to bring about us a melancholy so much so that we gasp for breath; drowning in our sorrows. They carry a sword so fearsome that we cower in fear and close our eyes whilst begging for mercy. They also make us clench our fists in an agonised anger at grave injustices.
How far have we come? Where are we going? My friend, life is a journey. The arts magnifies this aspect of our existence for us. It sounds out the words along the way. Each jot, each bump, each pebble. Every setting sun, and every morning haze is drawn out and captured in every medium. Each tells a story that rings true to one and all. They guide us, and draw us ever nearer to the core of all being. It is so profound to capture that which is holy even it is not obnoxious and instead is hidden. We see ourselves. We see that which our heart loves.
You see the goal of any artist ought to be the same regardless of the medium that caresses them. The song, the poem, the play - these are all very intimate things. At least, they should be. That is how you should be reassured of whether or not others will profit by your work - if your work has been as an intimate lover to you. It compels you and then it soothes you in a sweetly embraced release. It should alter your very existence for then it will forever change the others.
Pure art, good and true should not be forceful, but gentle. It should call you to it and invite you to learn its ways. You should be a different person when it is through with you. It should show life to you and reflect an image back to you. That image of course, is you. It should beckon you on like a soft whisper or perhaps an enthusiastic crowd. It should challenge you, and and beckon you to charge forth. It should tenderly show you that life just is; it cannot be snuffed out. Life is meant to be lived.
The is the purpose of the arts. This should be your aim as a creator as well as for you to consume and enjoy. Err on the side of caution for the are many frauds and many false diamonds. Many a conman selling snake oil.
"And thy ears shall hear the word of one admonishing thee behind thy back: This is the way, walk ye in it: and go not aside neither to the right hand, nor to the left." (Isaiah 30:21)
What is good? What about these various things attracts us? Why these things do we pursue? They make us happy. They do this, but they also make us sad. They cause joy and awe to well up within us, but they as well wield an unfathomable power to bring about us a melancholy so much so that we gasp for breath; drowning in our sorrows. They carry a sword so fearsome that we cower in fear and close our eyes whilst begging for mercy. They also make us clench our fists in an agonised anger at grave injustices.
How far have we come? Where are we going? My friend, life is a journey. The arts magnifies this aspect of our existence for us. It sounds out the words along the way. Each jot, each bump, each pebble. Every setting sun, and every morning haze is drawn out and captured in every medium. Each tells a story that rings true to one and all. They guide us, and draw us ever nearer to the core of all being. It is so profound to capture that which is holy even it is not obnoxious and instead is hidden. We see ourselves. We see that which our heart loves.
You see the goal of any artist ought to be the same regardless of the medium that caresses them. The song, the poem, the play - these are all very intimate things. At least, they should be. That is how you should be reassured of whether or not others will profit by your work - if your work has been as an intimate lover to you. It compels you and then it soothes you in a sweetly embraced release. It should alter your very existence for then it will forever change the others.
Pure art, good and true should not be forceful, but gentle. It should call you to it and invite you to learn its ways. You should be a different person when it is through with you. It should show life to you and reflect an image back to you. That image of course, is you. It should beckon you on like a soft whisper or perhaps an enthusiastic crowd. It should challenge you, and and beckon you to charge forth. It should tenderly show you that life just is; it cannot be snuffed out. Life is meant to be lived.
The is the purpose of the arts. This should be your aim as a creator as well as for you to consume and enjoy. Err on the side of caution for the are many frauds and many false diamonds. Many a conman selling snake oil.
"And thy ears shall hear the word of one admonishing thee behind thy back: This is the way, walk ye in it: and go not aside neither to the right hand, nor to the left." (Isaiah 30:21)
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Better Use of the UN
The United Nations should toss out every single rule and regulation except for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It should get rid of the Security Council, UNESCO, UNICEF, IPCC, etc. It should get rid of all sanctions and mandates.
The proper use of the United Nations is simple. It should merely be and only be a place where nations can dialogue. They might dialogue on how to work better together, they might dialogue and work out differences.
All the United Nations should be is a floor of diplomacy. Individual sovereignty should be respected no matter what, and the United Nations should only be a forum for dialogue.
While we're at it, NATO should end as well since the USSR no longer exists.
The proper use of the United Nations is simple. It should merely be and only be a place where nations can dialogue. They might dialogue on how to work better together, they might dialogue and work out differences.
All the United Nations should be is a floor of diplomacy. Individual sovereignty should be respected no matter what, and the United Nations should only be a forum for dialogue.
While we're at it, NATO should end as well since the USSR no longer exists.
Al Qaeda Hates Islam
It's true. Despite what you may have been told, Al Qaeda doesn't follow the teachings of Muhammed as laid out in the Qur'an. I'm not saying that Islam is 100% beyond a doubt a religion of peace, although nearly a billion Muslims the world over have managed to live out their faith in relative peace. What I am saying, however, is that if they really kept to those teachings then Al Qaeda simply would not exist.
Al Qaeda is not an Islamic organization despite the fact that it's members consist wholly of Muslims. Instead, it is a political organization which operates according to Jihad. Most people are not aware, but Jihad pre-dates Islam by some 1500 years. It's a political philosophy which is simply to achieve it's goals, often simply revenge, through the means of violence and terrorism. Jihad is a word which means 'holy war' in Arabic. Believe it or not, the Arabic language existed before the Qur'an as well. It's etymology, particularly the connotation of, "holy," is likely not the same sense that most people ascribe to it, such as it's understanding in Christianity. I hypothesize that it is more than likely similar in the sense of purification or purging. One for example, could purge the anger of their child being killed by an American made bomb by doing violence or exacting revenge on those who first did this violence. They would perhaps become whole again, afterwards.
While we're on the topic, Sharia law is also abhorrent to Islam. It is normally understood as a special code of law to be enforced on all, on a national and perhaps global scale. However, it was only intended to guide Muslims similarly to the way the 10 Commandments guides Christians and Jews.
Also, the head covering, or hijab, is actually not mandated by Islam. Hijab, means modesty in Arabic, and is supposed to be determined at the woman's discretion. However, the Islamic peoples are often tribal peoples, and they have their traditional dress and ways to what the do. This is why the head covering varies from tribe to tribe. Women in the Muslim Brotherhood for example, wore their hair long and/or styled, uncovered, until about 1994. The traditional dress of Saudi men and women is just that, traditional dress. It may interest you to know that Osama Bin Laden ceased to wear the traditional dress for Saudi men some time in the 1980's. Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is another example of something not supported in Islam, but is a tribal tradition that is practised in a particular section of Northern Africa only.
"If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles... if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle." ~ Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"
We need to stop being so ignorant of Middle Eastern and North African culture and with thinking that everything over there has to do with Islam. That is very, very wrong!
Al Qaeda is not an Islamic organization despite the fact that it's members consist wholly of Muslims. Instead, it is a political organization which operates according to Jihad. Most people are not aware, but Jihad pre-dates Islam by some 1500 years. It's a political philosophy which is simply to achieve it's goals, often simply revenge, through the means of violence and terrorism. Jihad is a word which means 'holy war' in Arabic. Believe it or not, the Arabic language existed before the Qur'an as well. It's etymology, particularly the connotation of, "holy," is likely not the same sense that most people ascribe to it, such as it's understanding in Christianity. I hypothesize that it is more than likely similar in the sense of purification or purging. One for example, could purge the anger of their child being killed by an American made bomb by doing violence or exacting revenge on those who first did this violence. They would perhaps become whole again, afterwards.
While we're on the topic, Sharia law is also abhorrent to Islam. It is normally understood as a special code of law to be enforced on all, on a national and perhaps global scale. However, it was only intended to guide Muslims similarly to the way the 10 Commandments guides Christians and Jews.
Also, the head covering, or hijab, is actually not mandated by Islam. Hijab, means modesty in Arabic, and is supposed to be determined at the woman's discretion. However, the Islamic peoples are often tribal peoples, and they have their traditional dress and ways to what the do. This is why the head covering varies from tribe to tribe. Women in the Muslim Brotherhood for example, wore their hair long and/or styled, uncovered, until about 1994. The traditional dress of Saudi men and women is just that, traditional dress. It may interest you to know that Osama Bin Laden ceased to wear the traditional dress for Saudi men some time in the 1980's. Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is another example of something not supported in Islam, but is a tribal tradition that is practised in a particular section of Northern Africa only.
"If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles... if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle." ~ Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"
We need to stop being so ignorant of Middle Eastern and North African culture and with thinking that everything over there has to do with Islam. That is very, very wrong!
Knock Out Homophobe
"Hey Marie, how'd you get that black eye?"
"I went to a wild party over the weekend."
"A wild party? I thought you were going to a conference for work?"
"Yeah, and things got a little wild."
"Oh come on baby girl, tell me what really happened!"
There had been panels and demonstrations all day. As tired as everyone was, this was Florida, and you don't come to Florida and not party when the sun goes down. The conference room at the hotel was turned into a fibre-optic disco. DJ Rix was playing all the latest tunes and wild colours danced upon the walls. People were enjoying themselves. Caterers were walking around with trays loaded with test tubes filled with liquids arrayed in every colour of the spectrum.
"Try the green one, Marie. It's your favourite colour!"
"No thanks, it's hot in here. I think I'll just stick with water for now, but thanks."
"Hey Marie," called out Coby, "Why don't you come jam on the floor with us?"
"Okay!"
Grasping Coby's hand, Marie joined him and the others on the dance floor. A familiar song from the radio began to play, but she couldn't remember what it was called.
"You look good tonight!"
"Thanks"
"I don't think I've ever seen you in a satin dress, Marie. It really does look good on you."
She blushed, and began to lose herself in the rhythm of the music. She never saw it coming.
"You f--king homophobe!"
*KA-POW!*
He smoothly connected with her right temple, knocking her coldly to the ground. Everything blurred for what seemed like an eternity. She was still stunned when she finally noticed Coby standing over her, asking if she was okay. Just behind him, she saw the man who hit her being hauled off. She got up with Coby's help, and despite his protest she followed the other man out into the hall. It was in this well lit hall that she recognised it was Kel who had hit her. He was normally a really sweet and funny guy. When he saw her, he sneered and turned towards her, staggering and almost losing his balance. Coby and Phil got between them.
"Don't do this Marie, walk away. Come on, let's go."
"No, stop it. I'm okay. I just want to find out why."
"You'll find out tomorrow."
"Cause you're a f--cking Nazi, that's why! You hate gay people because your paedophile church tells you to!"
Her eyes momentarily flashed over in red because of such a blasphemy. Such an outright lie!
"What did you just say to me, Kel?"
"You know damn well what I said, you homophobe!"
She took a breath and stepped towards him. Coby glared at her in disapproval. She dismissed him, and looked at Kel with a strained expression.
"First of all, I am not a homophobe. Homophobes have an actual fear, kind of like someone with a fear of heights or of spiders, only homophobes have a fear of homosexuals. I am not afraid of you Kel, we've worked together on so many projects, don't you remember?"
"Yeah well, you still hate homosexuality."
"Well, I hate the word 'homosexuality' because it has so many meanings."
"What do you mean? It's pretty simple. You hate gays."
"No I don't! Look, I like to break it into two parts. There's homosexual attraction, which yes I happen to believe is disordered. But that doesn't really mean anything."
"You f--got"
"And then there is the homosexual lifestyle, which as you know I wholeheartedly oppose. Most especially that bizarre obsession with 'pride.'"
"See, you're a f--king homophobe!"
"No." *sigh* "Look Kel, it probably would make the LGBT lobby pissed if they found out that I oppose the whole concept of 'sexual identity.' When I watch your videos, that you have a homosexual attraction barely ever enters into my mind. You're sweet and funny and talented, but I would never describe you as being gay or homosexual. You're not gay, you're Kel. It's no different than if I was describing Phil, I would say that he's smart, dedicated, and creative, but I would never say, 'Oh and he's also heterosexual.' It's a foreign concept to me!"
Kel motioned to Phil to let him sit down in the hallway against the wall. Marie knelt nearby because Coby still refused to move from between them.
"So what do you want from me Marie? What, want me to say I'm sorry for smacking you? Huh?"
"That's completely up to you. I just want you to know that either way I forgive you, and I that I'd be honoured to some day down the road, to dialogue with you about this. About anything you want."
Kel sniffed and looked away down the hallway. Coby reached for her hand.
"Come on, let's go get something for that eye. You're starting to bruise."
"Okay."
Marie relented, got up, and began walking away.
"Hey, Marie?"
"Yes, Kel?"
"I'm sorry."
"I'm sorry too."
"I went to a wild party over the weekend."
"A wild party? I thought you were going to a conference for work?"
"Yeah, and things got a little wild."
"Oh come on baby girl, tell me what really happened!"
There had been panels and demonstrations all day. As tired as everyone was, this was Florida, and you don't come to Florida and not party when the sun goes down. The conference room at the hotel was turned into a fibre-optic disco. DJ Rix was playing all the latest tunes and wild colours danced upon the walls. People were enjoying themselves. Caterers were walking around with trays loaded with test tubes filled with liquids arrayed in every colour of the spectrum.
"Try the green one, Marie. It's your favourite colour!"
"No thanks, it's hot in here. I think I'll just stick with water for now, but thanks."
"Hey Marie," called out Coby, "Why don't you come jam on the floor with us?"
"Okay!"
Grasping Coby's hand, Marie joined him and the others on the dance floor. A familiar song from the radio began to play, but she couldn't remember what it was called.
"You look good tonight!"
"Thanks"
"I don't think I've ever seen you in a satin dress, Marie. It really does look good on you."
She blushed, and began to lose herself in the rhythm of the music. She never saw it coming.
"You f--king homophobe!"
*KA-POW!*
He smoothly connected with her right temple, knocking her coldly to the ground. Everything blurred for what seemed like an eternity. She was still stunned when she finally noticed Coby standing over her, asking if she was okay. Just behind him, she saw the man who hit her being hauled off. She got up with Coby's help, and despite his protest she followed the other man out into the hall. It was in this well lit hall that she recognised it was Kel who had hit her. He was normally a really sweet and funny guy. When he saw her, he sneered and turned towards her, staggering and almost losing his balance. Coby and Phil got between them.
"Don't do this Marie, walk away. Come on, let's go."
"No, stop it. I'm okay. I just want to find out why."
"You'll find out tomorrow."
"Cause you're a f--cking Nazi, that's why! You hate gay people because your paedophile church tells you to!"
Her eyes momentarily flashed over in red because of such a blasphemy. Such an outright lie!
"What did you just say to me, Kel?"
"You know damn well what I said, you homophobe!"
She took a breath and stepped towards him. Coby glared at her in disapproval. She dismissed him, and looked at Kel with a strained expression.
"First of all, I am not a homophobe. Homophobes have an actual fear, kind of like someone with a fear of heights or of spiders, only homophobes have a fear of homosexuals. I am not afraid of you Kel, we've worked together on so many projects, don't you remember?"
"Yeah well, you still hate homosexuality."
"Well, I hate the word 'homosexuality' because it has so many meanings."
"What do you mean? It's pretty simple. You hate gays."
"No I don't! Look, I like to break it into two parts. There's homosexual attraction, which yes I happen to believe is disordered. But that doesn't really mean anything."
"You f--got"
"And then there is the homosexual lifestyle, which as you know I wholeheartedly oppose. Most especially that bizarre obsession with 'pride.'"
"See, you're a f--king homophobe!"
"No." *sigh* "Look Kel, it probably would make the LGBT lobby pissed if they found out that I oppose the whole concept of 'sexual identity.' When I watch your videos, that you have a homosexual attraction barely ever enters into my mind. You're sweet and funny and talented, but I would never describe you as being gay or homosexual. You're not gay, you're Kel. It's no different than if I was describing Phil, I would say that he's smart, dedicated, and creative, but I would never say, 'Oh and he's also heterosexual.' It's a foreign concept to me!"
Kel motioned to Phil to let him sit down in the hallway against the wall. Marie knelt nearby because Coby still refused to move from between them.
"So what do you want from me Marie? What, want me to say I'm sorry for smacking you? Huh?"
"That's completely up to you. I just want you to know that either way I forgive you, and I that I'd be honoured to some day down the road, to dialogue with you about this. About anything you want."
Kel sniffed and looked away down the hallway. Coby reached for her hand.
"Come on, let's go get something for that eye. You're starting to bruise."
"Okay."
Marie relented, got up, and began walking away.
"Hey, Marie?"
"Yes, Kel?"
"I'm sorry."
"I'm sorry too."
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Why Binyamin Netanyahu Wants to Kill Israelis
Binyamin Netanyahu is the Prime Minister of Israel. He desires to bomb Iran to take out their nuclear facilities. This in essence, is suicidal and in no way different than particular attacks perpetrated by the likes of Al Qaeda.
You have likely heard many times now the threat that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made where he said he wants to wipe Israel of the planet. He did say this. One time. Several years ago. Yet, you hear this threat repeated almost daily in the media. The government of Israel on the other hand, gets a free pass to commit apartheid, terrorism, and threaten the sovereignty and lives of other peoples on a daily basis.
Mr. Netanyahu and the Israeli government has failed to keep the Law and the commandments that the Lord our God originally gave the Jews. If they had kept these, they would not be under-siege, for they would not be engaged in terrorism and apartheid in the first place.
Mr. Netanyahu and the Israeli government has failed to keep the Law and the commandments that the Lord our God originally gave the Jews. If they had kept these, they would not be under-siege, for they would not be engaged in terrorism and apartheid in the first place.
Does the Law not say, "I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me: And shewing mercy unto thousands to them that love me, and keep my commandments?" (Exodus 20:2-6)
Yet, Binyamin Netanyahu has clearly broken the Law by following not the Lord, but other gods instead. In particular, he and many others, Christians and Jews alike, follow the god of Zionism. What is Zionism? Zionism is not nationalism, but is also mentioned in the Law. Exodus 20:17 says, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house: neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his." Tell me, what then is Zionism? In essence it is coveting that which is not yours which in this case is land. What has been the chief goal of the Israeli government since before Israel was even created out of thin air? To take back the land of their forefathers, which a few thought entitled to. No, it had nothing to do with Israel being a gift of God, it had to do purely with genealogies and inheritances. The few Zionists had to manipulate the US, Canada, and other nations to shut their borders to Jews fleeing Nazism just to get the Jews to go to the land we now call Israel! Jews didn't want to worship themselves or some piece of land, they wanted instead to worship the one true God! This, however, was and still is unacceptable to the Zionists.
I invite you to read the Old Testament some time. There are many occasions when the Israelites thought that they were entitled to other lands and other things. What happened? Hundreds if not thousands of Israelites were killed and on many occasions, God even took the land of Israel away from the Israelites.
The Old Testament is fulfilled in the New Testament. Notice that Jesus essentially does not talk about Israel? What does he talk about instead? Heaven. Heaven is the true land of Israel, the real land flowing in milk, honey. A land with pools and streams of living waters! God always intended to deliver his people, that's the whole reason He sent his only begotten Son. "For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting." (John 3:16) We often forget, that this was meant for the Jews also, not just the Gentiles. Israel is not just some land on earth, it is the Kingdom of God in Heaven.
"And I heard a great voice from the throne, saying: Behold the tabernacle of God with men, and he will dwell with them. And they shall be his people; and God himself with them shall be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes: and death shall be no more, nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow shall be any more, for the former things are passed away. And he that sat on the throne, said: Behold, I make all things new. And he said to me: Write, for these words are most faithful and true." (Revelation 21:3-5)
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Musk of Existence
Thought I would switch it up a bit and give creative writing a shot. Make of it what you will.
It is hot and humid. Covered with dirt and the air is pother. It is hard to breathe.
Darkness. The rocky tunnel curves slightly upward. Rough-hewn walls scrape against my flesh. Redness.
The tunnel drags on, weakening its prey evermore. So trapped and alone. Forgotten.
Whiteness. Ahead, a stream of light pierces the the darkness. Larger and wider it grows ever still. A cool breeze drifts through the entrance.
"Reach out! Grab hold of the sides of the crevice and pull yourself out!" The jagged edge gashed my knee. More redness.
Breathe. Slowly ease that breath. "Is this freedom, am I really free?" Wisps of hair are caressed in the wind as the sun's comforting rays shine down.
Behold! A golden sea - a sea of wheat! Walking, hands spread at the side. Dry, rough heads lap against my palms. A mockingbird sings.
A huge old cedar tree of green leaves greets me. Its long arm directs me kindly to a path. The only path.
Walking downward, the distinct hum of rushing water is heard. Throat parched and lips chapped - I thirst.
A gentle creek-bed does emerge . I kneel and pause, but for a moment. Hands cupped, finally refreshed. Finally redeemed.
Suddenly, a deep and menacing growl of thunder is heard above the horizon. Its coming closer.
It is hot and humid. Covered with dirt and the air is pother. It is hard to breathe.
Darkness. The rocky tunnel curves slightly upward. Rough-hewn walls scrape against my flesh. Redness.
The tunnel drags on, weakening its prey evermore. So trapped and alone. Forgotten.
Whiteness. Ahead, a stream of light pierces the the darkness. Larger and wider it grows ever still. A cool breeze drifts through the entrance.
"Reach out! Grab hold of the sides of the crevice and pull yourself out!" The jagged edge gashed my knee. More redness.
Breathe. Slowly ease that breath. "Is this freedom, am I really free?" Wisps of hair are caressed in the wind as the sun's comforting rays shine down.
Behold! A golden sea - a sea of wheat! Walking, hands spread at the side. Dry, rough heads lap against my palms. A mockingbird sings.
A huge old cedar tree of green leaves greets me. Its long arm directs me kindly to a path. The only path.
Walking downward, the distinct hum of rushing water is heard. Throat parched and lips chapped - I thirst.
A gentle creek-bed does emerge . I kneel and pause, but for a moment. Hands cupped, finally refreshed. Finally redeemed.
Suddenly, a deep and menacing growl of thunder is heard above the horizon. Its coming closer.
Bill Maher's Rant About Romney and LDS/Mormon Church Charity Donation
Bill Maher is both a statist and a conformist. He has recently ranted about what constitutes a "charity" as of late. You can see this here: Bill Mayer "Mormon Church Not A Charity"" He is of course welcome to his opinion, even if he increasingly says things which are errant.
First, there are language issues here. Charity and non-profit are usually interchangeable. Charity no longer, at least legally, chiefly understood to mean giving to the poor, although this is typically what one thinks when they here the word, "charity."
According to Dictionary.com, a non-profit is defined as, "not established for the purpose of making a profit; not entered into for money." Often they promote some cause, such as aiding the poor, but also healthcare, education, the promotion of the arts and sciences, the environment, political transparency, et cetera.
You may object as Bill Maher does, to giving to the Mormon church or to the symphony. That's fine, but while you may disagree with the cause that doesn't mean that cause or organisation is any less of a cause in the strict sense of the word. I certainly would not get a charitable tax credit for donation to the Romney or Obama campaign. Instead, I would probably my charitable tax credit from donation to Ron Paul over at Ron Paul 2012.
As a side note, it's always amazing how "pro-choice" folks, such as Bill Maher, aren't that big on choice at all. They're more pro choice so long as you choose what they deem appropriate for you to choose.
Folks, if you don't like some cause, simply do not donate to and promote it. It's simple! Certainly you can sound off about it, but don't start sounding like Bill Maher!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)