A hot topic today is the question, " should state and federal governmentss allow homosexuals the same marrige rights as heterosexuals. I think we need to simply eliminate the question.
It should be clear to everyone by now that the only reason to deny gay couples equal citizenship, is that their sexual orientation seems to clash with the religious beliefs held by many. So how do we handle that without the state meddling in church dogma, where they have no buisness?
I have been divorced twice. (nobody's perfect) Neither time did the judge ask if either of us had violated some religious doctrine. Nor was devine judgement an issue.
There were only two questions to be considered. Were we certain we wanted to disolve the marrige, and had we decided how to divide the joint possesions.
The state considers marrige a partnership like any other, except that it's a civil partnership rather than a commercial one. So here's the new paradigm that we need to move into:
We need to view these partnerships the same way the state does, as a civil partnership. And use that term to describe it. Partnership.
After all, no church can legally marry you unil you obtain a license from that state. All that is required is a certificate of marrige signed by the participants and two witnesses and an official. This can be a minister, a judge, a ship's captain, or a Dudist Priest, like myself. (yes, I do that.)
"Do you__________ take __________ as your legal partner, as recognized by the state of_________
"I do" Congratulations. By the power vested in me by the State of ___________, I pronounce you Legal Civil Partners.
Being licensed by the state, you may also choose to be married in a religious ceremony. Churches have various requirements concerning that. And that's fine. Churches are allowed to discriminate against any group or indiviual they choose. The state has no business there.
Likewise, the church would have no business holding the state to their requirements. And, since we know there is no good reason outside of religion to deny equal citizenship to all, in fact the constitution forbids it, (No state shall.... deny to any person within it's jurisdiction equal protection of the laws) by simply removing the term "marrige" from the secular lexicon, we remove the religious connection.
Look, if we started calling breakfast "communion", religious folks are going to get upset and demand that since it is communion, we need to respect the religious rules concerning it. And they'd be right, in a way, even if we argue that we're not eating for religious reasons.
So let's call breakfast, breakfast. And let's call partnerships partnerships.
Communion and marrige have no place in state recognized secular society.
Peace,
George
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Sunday, March 17, 2013
The Fact of the Matter
I've noticed a lot of people lately who are ranting about the "truth". And some who are upset because some of us don't "believe" in the "truth". And the truth they speak of is of a wide range from GMO corn to politics.
I submit the following based on obsevation. We tend to confuse truth with fact. "What's the dif?" you ask. Glad you asked.
"Truth" is always based on a belief. "Belief" is accepting as fact, something for which there is no empirical evidence. Here's an example:
Let's say you find yourself in court. You are charged with armed robbery and murdering the clerk in a small strip mall store. Fact: You did not do it. You do however match the description given by Mrs. Armstrong, the only living witness, who saw the guilty party leave the store and throw the weapon down the storm sewer.
After taking an oath to tell the truth, and being advised of the penalty for purgery, Mrs. Armstrong takes the witness stand and tells the story of how, as she waited in the car for Mr. Armstrong to get his haircut, she saw a person fitting your desciption leave the store in a hurry, throw what appeared to be a small caliber revolver into the storm drain, and disappear down an alley. When asked by the prosicuter if that person is in the courtroom, she points her finger at you and says you're the one she saw.
Suddenly, a police officer enters the courtroom and hurries to your attorney. He whispers to your attorney, waving a large manilla envelope.
"Your Honor! We have new evidence!" The judge motions to the officer to approace the bench. Your attorney informs you that they finally recovered the weapon and got fingerprints which lead to the arrest of Mortimer Badapple, a guy with a criminal past. Upon opening the envelope, the judge finds an 8X10 photo of Mortimer Badapple. He could be your twin! Charges are dropped and you're released.
Question: Did Mrs. Armstrong tell the truth?
Answer: Yes.
While is was not you that she saw, she "believed" it was you . Her testamony was true, based on that belief. She did not lie.
With Mrs. Armstrong's testamony in mind, let's be careful in our conversation to seperate truth from fact. The two words are not synonyms.
That's a fact.
Peace,
George.
I submit the following based on obsevation. We tend to confuse truth with fact. "What's the dif?" you ask. Glad you asked.
"Truth" is always based on a belief. "Belief" is accepting as fact, something for which there is no empirical evidence. Here's an example:
Let's say you find yourself in court. You are charged with armed robbery and murdering the clerk in a small strip mall store. Fact: You did not do it. You do however match the description given by Mrs. Armstrong, the only living witness, who saw the guilty party leave the store and throw the weapon down the storm sewer.
After taking an oath to tell the truth, and being advised of the penalty for purgery, Mrs. Armstrong takes the witness stand and tells the story of how, as she waited in the car for Mr. Armstrong to get his haircut, she saw a person fitting your desciption leave the store in a hurry, throw what appeared to be a small caliber revolver into the storm drain, and disappear down an alley. When asked by the prosicuter if that person is in the courtroom, she points her finger at you and says you're the one she saw.
Suddenly, a police officer enters the courtroom and hurries to your attorney. He whispers to your attorney, waving a large manilla envelope.
"Your Honor! We have new evidence!" The judge motions to the officer to approace the bench. Your attorney informs you that they finally recovered the weapon and got fingerprints which lead to the arrest of Mortimer Badapple, a guy with a criminal past. Upon opening the envelope, the judge finds an 8X10 photo of Mortimer Badapple. He could be your twin! Charges are dropped and you're released.
Question: Did Mrs. Armstrong tell the truth?
Answer: Yes.
While is was not you that she saw, she "believed" it was you . Her testamony was true, based on that belief. She did not lie.
With Mrs. Armstrong's testamony in mind, let's be careful in our conversation to seperate truth from fact. The two words are not synonyms.
That's a fact.
Peace,
George.
Friday, March 8, 2013
My Almighty Toaster
I want to preface this post with the following:
I am not a believer. An atheist if you please, although that term really only describes what I am not. Further, I was, at one time, an evangelical Christian. I was a member of a church that emphasized Bible study. I attended both Sunday services, the mid-week service, the Thusday evening Bible study, and was on the evangelical committee. I owned a Schofield Study Bible, Strongs Concordenance, Greek interlinear, and other study books. I have not only read, but studied the Bible from cover to cover. I was asked to serve as a Deacon. I lead youth talks and lead a Bible class for pre-schoolers. I spoke from the pulpit. I am not an ignorant atheist. I find I know far more about the Bible than 99% of the Christian people I meet. (But that's a whole other post)
I posted a picture on my Facebook wall the other day. I had been reading some disturbing articles and frankly, posted way more atheistic stuff than normal. I was kind of on a rant. I usually try to post things that are intended to be educational or thought provoking, without jabbing religious folks for the sake of jabbing.
This particular picture was a drawing, cartoonish, of a cross with a child nailed to it in Christ-like fashion. Beside the drawing was a quote from Tracie Harris of the Atheist Experience. It read:
"You either have a god who sends child rapists to rape children, or you have a god who simply watches and says, 'When you're done, I'll punish you.'
"If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That's the difference between me and your god"
A good friend, and one of my favorite people, commented:
"I have a God that says it's up to us. Watch over the children and punish the rapist, any Rapist."
My final comment was, "That's like saying, 'I have a toaster that says it's up to you, watch over the children etc."
It really is the same. My Toaster actually has all of the qualities of that god. I can say, "My toaster has a plan for me. If I trust, my Toaster will provide. I can pray to my toaster, and when the desired result happens, rejoice and praise it. If I do not get the desired result, it was not my Toasters will. But I can be assured that my Toaster will never give me more than I can bear. Plus I can put a slice of ordiary bread in my Toaster and right before my eyes it will become delicious, warm, golden, toast.
If you are a believer and you've made it this far, you now are begining to know what it's like to be an a-theist. Someone is going on about some ridiculous crap about a miraculous (Toaster/God).
You may say, "Your Toaster in man made". Do I have to say it?
I don't know how many toasters man has created, but since the Sumarians developed a written language, something like 6000 years ago, man has documented 2870 Deities. Many are still familiar. Thor, Odin, Zues, Neptune, Oris, Aphrodite, Rah. All were once great and powerful gods.
The earliest gods were sort of like the God of genesis. They explained the unexplainable. The sun moving across this flat table-top-like earth. Lightning. Fire. All these things that were beyond human comprehension. Later, people went "up" to Heaven, or "down" to Hell. This was possible on the table-top flat Earth, with heaven above and Hell below.
Of course now we know that the Earth is a Spherical planet, rotating on a polar axis while orbiting a sun that is hurling through space. If one were to ascend from the surface of the planet one would go "out there, somewhere, depending on the position of the planet etc."
There is no "up" from earth, only "out." So heaven would have to be a reletively small place, in
geo-sincronous orbit with a particular lift off point.
Some gods died with thier followers. Others fell victim to critical thinking. Then came science. Astronomers tracked the movement of the stars. Mariners tested the "edge". Bad news for gods.
But there were a handful that hung on. The major players, with one notable exception, had a trump card that has kept them alive. The "No Death Guarantee." Bam! Whether it's Nervana, Re-incarnation, Paradise, Heaven, you just can't beat not dying.
My Toaster did come with a guarantee, but nothing like that.
The notable exception? Judaism. I will be the first to admit I know little about the Torah, and how it may differ from the "Old Testament" Genesis-Deuteronomy, But I do know the Old Testament Yahweh gave no such guarantee. Death was punishment.
Getting back to my Almighty Toaster, you can plainly see, like it or not, that it has most of the same ridiculous qualities of the average god.
It seems harmless enough, unless my Toaster acquires a following who wants to come into your children's school and teach your kids all about the power and glory of my Toaster and present it to them as a fact, like "The Good News Club". Or deny Gay people the right to eat toast like the rest of us. Or they imprison and torture non-Toaster believers, Or they declare holy war on non-toasterites. Or fly planes into buildings full of Toasterless infidels.
Sadly, because of the lack of a "No Death Guarantee," I suspect that sooner or later my glorious Toaster will end up where all gods belong, and where they can do no harm.
I am not a believer. An atheist if you please, although that term really only describes what I am not. Further, I was, at one time, an evangelical Christian. I was a member of a church that emphasized Bible study. I attended both Sunday services, the mid-week service, the Thusday evening Bible study, and was on the evangelical committee. I owned a Schofield Study Bible, Strongs Concordenance, Greek interlinear, and other study books. I have not only read, but studied the Bible from cover to cover. I was asked to serve as a Deacon. I lead youth talks and lead a Bible class for pre-schoolers. I spoke from the pulpit. I am not an ignorant atheist. I find I know far more about the Bible than 99% of the Christian people I meet. (But that's a whole other post)
I posted a picture on my Facebook wall the other day. I had been reading some disturbing articles and frankly, posted way more atheistic stuff than normal. I was kind of on a rant. I usually try to post things that are intended to be educational or thought provoking, without jabbing religious folks for the sake of jabbing.
This particular picture was a drawing, cartoonish, of a cross with a child nailed to it in Christ-like fashion. Beside the drawing was a quote from Tracie Harris of the Atheist Experience. It read:
"You either have a god who sends child rapists to rape children, or you have a god who simply watches and says, 'When you're done, I'll punish you.'
"If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That's the difference between me and your god"
A good friend, and one of my favorite people, commented:
"I have a God that says it's up to us. Watch over the children and punish the rapist, any Rapist."
My final comment was, "That's like saying, 'I have a toaster that says it's up to you, watch over the children etc."
It really is the same. My Toaster actually has all of the qualities of that god. I can say, "My toaster has a plan for me. If I trust, my Toaster will provide. I can pray to my toaster, and when the desired result happens, rejoice and praise it. If I do not get the desired result, it was not my Toasters will. But I can be assured that my Toaster will never give me more than I can bear. Plus I can put a slice of ordiary bread in my Toaster and right before my eyes it will become delicious, warm, golden, toast.
If you are a believer and you've made it this far, you now are begining to know what it's like to be an a-theist. Someone is going on about some ridiculous crap about a miraculous (Toaster/God).
You may say, "Your Toaster in man made". Do I have to say it?
I don't know how many toasters man has created, but since the Sumarians developed a written language, something like 6000 years ago, man has documented 2870 Deities. Many are still familiar. Thor, Odin, Zues, Neptune, Oris, Aphrodite, Rah. All were once great and powerful gods.
The earliest gods were sort of like the God of genesis. They explained the unexplainable. The sun moving across this flat table-top-like earth. Lightning. Fire. All these things that were beyond human comprehension. Later, people went "up" to Heaven, or "down" to Hell. This was possible on the table-top flat Earth, with heaven above and Hell below.
Of course now we know that the Earth is a Spherical planet, rotating on a polar axis while orbiting a sun that is hurling through space. If one were to ascend from the surface of the planet one would go "out there, somewhere, depending on the position of the planet etc."
There is no "up" from earth, only "out." So heaven would have to be a reletively small place, in
geo-sincronous orbit with a particular lift off point.
Some gods died with thier followers. Others fell victim to critical thinking. Then came science. Astronomers tracked the movement of the stars. Mariners tested the "edge". Bad news for gods.
But there were a handful that hung on. The major players, with one notable exception, had a trump card that has kept them alive. The "No Death Guarantee." Bam! Whether it's Nervana, Re-incarnation, Paradise, Heaven, you just can't beat not dying.
My Toaster did come with a guarantee, but nothing like that.
The notable exception? Judaism. I will be the first to admit I know little about the Torah, and how it may differ from the "Old Testament" Genesis-Deuteronomy, But I do know the Old Testament Yahweh gave no such guarantee. Death was punishment.
Getting back to my Almighty Toaster, you can plainly see, like it or not, that it has most of the same ridiculous qualities of the average god.
It seems harmless enough, unless my Toaster acquires a following who wants to come into your children's school and teach your kids all about the power and glory of my Toaster and present it to them as a fact, like "The Good News Club". Or deny Gay people the right to eat toast like the rest of us. Or they imprison and torture non-Toaster believers, Or they declare holy war on non-toasterites. Or fly planes into buildings full of Toasterless infidels.
Sadly, because of the lack of a "No Death Guarantee," I suspect that sooner or later my glorious Toaster will end up where all gods belong, and where they can do no harm.
Monday, June 11, 2012
"What's love got to do with it", or "To all the girls I've loved before"
A woman friend recently confided in me that she had been in love with someone "who didn't love himself" and concluded, "So how could he love me?"
What the heck are we talking about here, anyway?
The ancient Greeks broke "love" down into four catagories.
Agape. This is the sort of unconditional bond between a parent and child.
Phileo, the relational bond between friends.
Storge, the expression of affection, and
Eros, being the fulfillment of sexual desire.
We have expanded that to... I don't know... it's ridiculous. It's like the "F" word. you can use it pretty much anywhere in a sentence, although the meaning is not always clear, but rarely is it used in the original sense. We throw love around in conversation as though we're all thinking of the same definition.
Let's keep it simple shall we? I offer the following:
Love, as commonly used in American English, either refers to that parent child thing above, or, the commitment or agreement which bonds two people. (which is, unfortunatley, usually unspoken)
My friend's statement above would more acuratley be put this way; "The man that I desire to have an intimate relationship with is difficult to be with due to his lack of self esteem."
Gee, when you put that way, is seems much less dramatic.
So keep it simple, can the drama, call it what it is, and keep on smiling.
And know that I love you.(added for dramatic effect)
Peace,
George
What the heck are we talking about here, anyway?
The ancient Greeks broke "love" down into four catagories.
Agape. This is the sort of unconditional bond between a parent and child.
Phileo, the relational bond between friends.
Storge, the expression of affection, and
Eros, being the fulfillment of sexual desire.
We have expanded that to... I don't know... it's ridiculous. It's like the "F" word. you can use it pretty much anywhere in a sentence, although the meaning is not always clear, but rarely is it used in the original sense. We throw love around in conversation as though we're all thinking of the same definition.
Let's keep it simple shall we? I offer the following:
Love, as commonly used in American English, either refers to that parent child thing above, or, the commitment or agreement which bonds two people. (which is, unfortunatley, usually unspoken)
My friend's statement above would more acuratley be put this way; "The man that I desire to have an intimate relationship with is difficult to be with due to his lack of self esteem."
Gee, when you put that way, is seems much less dramatic.
So keep it simple, can the drama, call it what it is, and keep on smiling.
And know that I love you.(added for dramatic effect)
Peace,
George
Sunday, June 3, 2012
You deserve a break. Or do you?
I have another word issue. Actually, I have a docket nearly full of them. The one that's up today comes from a number of posts I've seen on Facebook. All of them posted by woman. The issues I think are probably sexually inclusive, women are more outspoken about what they're feeling though.
The posts go something like this; "Everyone deserves someone who is kind and honest and loving..."
To which I say, "Wrong".
You might be thinking, "George! That's cold, dude! Don't you think everyone should have a partner who is kind and honest and loving?" Well, yes. Yes I do. That's not the same as saying that everyone "deserves" one.
Look, if I say what I want for my life is a nice quiet house cat, and instead, I aquire one of those little yappy dogs, I'm going to have a little yappy dog. Not that I "deserve" a little yappy dog. But that's what I, for whatever reason, keep in my life. I allowed it. I accept it.
I could spend several years "expecting" Fifi to become a house cat, but it probably won't happen.
But I'm a good guy! I give and I give! I work my butt off to make this a nice home, and I buy the expensive cat food! And still I have a yappy little dog, when clearly I deserve a quiet house cat! What's wrong with the world? WHY AM I CURSED!!!???
You say that sounds ridiculous? I concur. But if you substitute [undesirable] partner for Little yappy dog in the above scenario, you have a really common situation.
If we accept deceit, we can expect deceit. If we accept cruelty, we can expect cruelty.
If we desire commitment, we must accept nothing less. If we desire honesty we must accept nothing less.
I'm not saying you get what you deserve. That's just ugly.
I'm saying let's get rid of the word "deserve", and the concept as well. Now, if we don't deserve, It's a whole new world. For if we deserve nothing, all that's left is to choose what we will have.
I choose happiness. And love. And honesty. I will accept nothing less. How about you?
Peace
George.
P.S
Here'a big, bubbly, conceptual thought: If most of us took this up, as a cause, most of the "jerks" would be faced with this choice; Straighten up, or be a jerk... alone.
Friday, June 1, 2012
What are you swinging at?
My friend Nichole posted the following on her facebook timeline:
"be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some sort of battle"
It's a great thing, to spread kindness. Always. I like to say being kind to others is a gift to yourself.
It's the second part that got me thinking.
Here's the thing that bothers me about that statement.
I would say, "most everyone you meet thinks they are fighting some sort of battle."
"Why would I say that?", you ask.
Physics. I'm no Will Hunting, I admit. I do know this, though. The past is gone. Forever. It's not what we call "real". What is "real"? I would define real as that which we can detect with the sences. Touch, taste, smell, hearing, sight. There's nothing in the past that you can lay hands on.
The future hasn't happened yet. nothing in the future is real yet.
Did you ever see a bunch of people doing tai chi in the park?
When I hear that someone is fighting a battle, unless they are making physical contact with an opponent, I visualize that person swinging at air.
I studied Ishin Ru karate for about 2 1/2 years in the 90's. If you've ever studied martial arts and practiced "kata", or "forms", and literally swung at an immaginary opponent, you know it makes you tired.
If you haven't studied martial arts, try this. Grab a baseball bat, or a hockey stick or something you might use to defend yourself with. (NOT a gun) (duh) Now find an open space. Outdoors is probably best. Make sure there's no one around you. Now swing that thing as though you were fighting for your life.
Whew! wears you out, huh?
The point is, if you are doing battle with the past, or a "what if..." or with a concern for the future, you're swinging at air. And it's taking a physical toll on you.
I hope you aren't swinging at air.
Save all your passion for the real stuff.
Peace,
George
P.S. Checkwith a physician before swinging stuff. Also, let him/her know if above activity causes an erection lasting more than four hours. Thanks.
"be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some sort of battle"
It's a great thing, to spread kindness. Always. I like to say being kind to others is a gift to yourself.
It's the second part that got me thinking.
Here's the thing that bothers me about that statement.
I would say, "most everyone you meet thinks they are fighting some sort of battle."
"Why would I say that?", you ask.
Physics. I'm no Will Hunting, I admit. I do know this, though. The past is gone. Forever. It's not what we call "real". What is "real"? I would define real as that which we can detect with the sences. Touch, taste, smell, hearing, sight. There's nothing in the past that you can lay hands on.
The future hasn't happened yet. nothing in the future is real yet.
Did you ever see a bunch of people doing tai chi in the park?
When I hear that someone is fighting a battle, unless they are making physical contact with an opponent, I visualize that person swinging at air.
I studied Ishin Ru karate for about 2 1/2 years in the 90's. If you've ever studied martial arts and practiced "kata", or "forms", and literally swung at an immaginary opponent, you know it makes you tired.
If you haven't studied martial arts, try this. Grab a baseball bat, or a hockey stick or something you might use to defend yourself with. (NOT a gun) (duh) Now find an open space. Outdoors is probably best. Make sure there's no one around you. Now swing that thing as though you were fighting for your life.
Whew! wears you out, huh?
The point is, if you are doing battle with the past, or a "what if..." or with a concern for the future, you're swinging at air. And it's taking a physical toll on you.
I hope you aren't swinging at air.
Save all your passion for the real stuff.
Peace,
George
P.S. Checkwith a physician before swinging stuff. Also, let him/her know if above activity causes an erection lasting more than four hours. Thanks.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
...But.....
Okay, I'm sure you've seen their work. The grammer police. Correcting the use of "their, they're, and there" on your posts. I'm not going to touch that. There is another word that needs to be addressed in my opinion.
But.
This is not so much a grammatical problem. Rather, it is a communication problem. We misuse the word. We use "But" instead of "And".
"And" means, "in addition to what I just said...".
ex. "I liked the apple pie and I'm going to have another slice."
"But", on the other hand, means, "what I just said is not true".
ex. "The apple pie looks delicious but tastes terrible."
Simple, right? Here's where we go wrong. Here is the worst possible use of the word "but":
"I love you, but..."
Promise me you will never say that again. So wrong. What's so bad about that? We really hear, or interpret that statement as "I don't love you, so...". Think about it. Whenever anybody says to you, "I love you but...", it always has a bad feeling associated with it. It puts you on the defensive.
Try this now. "I love you. And..." . Now you can't wait to hear what's next. It seems to solidify whatever is coming next.
Here's my challenge for you. Don't use the word "but" for one week.
Find another way to build sentences using "and". ("however" is a poor substitute and using it would really only serve to show a lack of creativity or concern for others) Not just with "I love you", remove it altogether from you're vocabulary. I think you'll notice how much it impacts communication. And communication is how we connect with other people and how we connect with other people is a big part of how we create our world, whether we realize or intend it, or not.
Peace,
George
But.
This is not so much a grammatical problem. Rather, it is a communication problem. We misuse the word. We use "But" instead of "And".
"And" means, "in addition to what I just said...".
ex. "I liked the apple pie and I'm going to have another slice."
"But", on the other hand, means, "what I just said is not true".
ex. "The apple pie looks delicious but tastes terrible."
Simple, right? Here's where we go wrong. Here is the worst possible use of the word "but":
"I love you, but..."
Promise me you will never say that again. So wrong. What's so bad about that? We really hear, or interpret that statement as "I don't love you, so...". Think about it. Whenever anybody says to you, "I love you but...", it always has a bad feeling associated with it. It puts you on the defensive.
Try this now. "I love you. And..." . Now you can't wait to hear what's next. It seems to solidify whatever is coming next.
Here's my challenge for you. Don't use the word "but" for one week.
Find another way to build sentences using "and". ("however" is a poor substitute and using it would really only serve to show a lack of creativity or concern for others) Not just with "I love you", remove it altogether from you're vocabulary. I think you'll notice how much it impacts communication. And communication is how we connect with other people and how we connect with other people is a big part of how we create our world, whether we realize or intend it, or not.
Peace,
George
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)