Ok, because my last couple posts have been on the serious side, I decided to lighten up my blog a bit with an attempt at humor.
Ever read personal ads? If you have, or do, you'll notice a lot of repetitiveness. You'll see a lot of woman saying the same thing, and a lot of men saying the same thing. The funny thing is about these popular things to say is they are vague. Bellow I'll list them and provide what they really mean.
Warning: NOT intended to be viewed by children. Some of these JOKES are a bit crude.
WHAT WOMEN REALLY MEAN...
They say, "I'm looking for a man who knows how to treat a woman"
They mean, "I'm looking for a man who will buy me things."
They say, "I'm looking for a real man."
They mean, "I'm looking for a man who has a job and will buy me things."
They say, "I'm a proud bbw."
They mean, "I'm a lazy fat woman with no intentions of ever trying to lose any weight."
They say, "I am strong willed and speak my mind"
They mean, "I am opinionated and never shut up."
They say, "I am like no other woman you've met."
They mean, "I have a weird hair cut and act 15 years old."
They say, "I am an independent woman."
They mean, "I work at Wal-Mart and collect child support."
WHAT MEN REALLY MEAN...
They say, "I am driven and focused on achieving my goals in life."
They mean, "I still live with my parents."
They say, "I just want to be friends first and see where it goes from there."
They mean, "I want to see if you are hot first."
They say, "I am financially secure."
They mean, "I think all women only want a man for his money."
They say, "Seeking Mrs. Right."
They mean, "Seeking a woman who swallows."
They say, "I have a good sense of humor."
They mean, "I still laugh at farts."
They say, "Just looking for a friend."
They mean, "I am trying to get into your panties by making it look like I'm not."
They say, "I love BBW's"
They mean, "I'm a boob man."
They say, "I am sensitive, caring, and willing to listen."
They mean, "I will make the perfect gay friend."
Friday, June 18, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Concerning God in Government and Schools.
I am writing this to once and for all state my standing or opinion on the growing issues of God in government, schools, etc. I have been in a friendly discussion/debate with some people online who while they voice their opinions well and with courtesy, I am forced to disagree with and am choosing this outlet as a source for stating my entire opinion and the reasons for it. If you do not agree with me, that is perfectly ok, but please respect my right as a human being to have my own opinions.
CONCERNING THE FOUNDING FATHERS:
A popular argument used by proponents of getting God in schools, government, etc. Is that our country was founded on Christian beliefs. While our "founding fathers" may have been Christian, or claim to have been, this is actually a great distance from the truth of the historical events leading to the creation of the United States of America.
The United States was not founded based on Christian beliefs. It was created through the use of violence, murder, and conquest. When Europeans first landed in the "new world" they were welcomed by the local natives and in fact only survived their first winter because the natives helped them. This very brotherly and loving gesture was answered with blankets infested with small pox. That is where the murder comes in. This is not the actions of Christian men.
Continuing with U.S. history we move forward to the actual creation of the colonies. This was achieved by stealing land through conquest from the natives of this land. The founding fathers waged war with the natives, killing thousands. This is historical fact. This is also is not the actions of Christian men.
Now we come to the founding of the United States. After having adequately gotten rid of the people who were inconveniently here before them, the founding fathers decided it was necessary to separate the colonies from Great Britain and form a country of their own. Thomas Jefferson wrote a long, eloquently worded document condemning King George of Great Britain as a tyrant and oppressor of the people. He wrote in this document that all men are created equal. Meanwhile he owned over 80 African slaves. He raped some of the female slaves that led to many illegitimate children. This hypocrisy aside, the Declaration of Independence, while not an actual legal document, contained many words of wisdom and displayed an ethical standard to be strived for.
These are the founding fathers as they truly were. They were conquerors, murders, pillagers, rapists, and prone to acts of evil. They were not the great, wise, and Christian men we are sometimes taught they were. They founded this country in blood and violence, not Christian or any moral beliefs.
CONSERNING THE 1ST AMENDMENT
Setting aside the murderous habits of the founding fathers we can see that they did have some wisdom and fore sight that is rare among the world today. The pertinent part of the first amendment concerning religion and government is as follows:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion:
- This means that no law can be passed that is based in or upon a specific religious belief. This gives the citizens of the U.S. freedom FROM religion. Its intent is to keep any and all religions from gaining any power within the U.S. government
2. ..or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
-This prohibits congress from passing any laws that disallow any and all religious practices that do not violate another citizens rights (i.e. human sacrifice would still be murder even if done in the name of religious practice). This gives U.S. citizens freedom OF religion.
(Note: The remaining portion of the first amendment protects and/or provides the freedom of speech and press, and protects the right of the citizens to peaceably assemble to petition the government to answer for any and all grievances)
What this first portion of the first amendment does is make sure that no one can use their religion to oppress fellow US citizens and to make sure that the government cannot oppress any religious group. This means that the "Defense of Marriage Act" is unconstitutional and thereby not a truly legal document. It is a law that respects the religious belief that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. As a Christian I can honestly say that this law offends me in every way possible. It does the exact opposite of what Christ taught us to do. As an American it still offends me because it violates the constitution and oppresses my fellow Americans for no reason other then that they are a minority group.
CONCERNING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
I have touched on this already in discussions, but will briefly discuss it here for any reader who was not privy to the afore mentioned debates and conversations.
The term "under God" was not in the pledge of allegiance until 1954. It being there is not valid support of the argument that our nation was founded upon Christian beliefs because of its very recent addition. Also, the original pledge itself was not written until 1892, over 100 years after the U.S. Constitution was written.
That being said, I can see no reason to remove it. I can see no rational thinker being offended by its presence. One, it does not violate the 1st amendment because the pledge is not a law, nor was it written or authorized by congress. Two, "under God" does not imply any specific religion. In fact, it implies nearly all religions because nearly all religions believe in God, even though they may refer to Him by a different name or title. Three, it is just a very stupid battle to fight. It is based on nothing more then a dislike of religion in general, not on any real moral or ethical judgment. Fighting to remove it from the pledge is no better then fighting to have evolution removed from science class curriculum. Certain things just need to be left alone and as they are because changing them serves no purpose. This is one of those things.
I do not know, nor wish to research the origins of "In God we trust" being on the U.S. currency. Fighting to remove or keep it falls in the same category as the pledge. A stupid and pointless waste of time that serves no real or tangible purpose other then for the winning side to get their way. Keep it, get rid of it, a dollar will still be worth a dollar. Not to mention that their really isn't a lot of people that read their money for, divine or otherwise, inspiration.
CONCERNING GOD IN SCHOOLS
On this I ask, exactly who's God should the schools teach our children about? My God? The Jewish God? The Muslim God? The Hindu God?
The children of this nation should not be subjected or forced to deal with the childish bickering between adults. This is one of those cases where children are being objectified and put on posters and forced to hold protest signs in the name of a specific religion. Teaching alternatives to evolution is not the responsibility of the schools. The schools are there to teach academia, not religion. If you want your child to learn about God then it is your responsibility to teach your child. Asking a school to teach your version of the origins of man violates the rights of the students, teachers, and parents of the student that do not share your religious beliefs. Evolution has nothing to do with religion. It is a Darwinian theory that has opened the doors to many discoveries about human mental development and disorders that changed the history of psychological medicine. The origin of man, by Charles Darwin, was a result of Darwin's studies in human development. It was not the catalyst. It belongs in science class, and to remove it is to rob children of priceless knowledge. To remove it also robs children of the ability to be open minded and objective thinkers (something that is sorely needed these days).
No one's religion has any place in public schools. This does not mean that a school official, teacher or otherwise, has any right to tell any student that they are not allowed to pray while in class, at lunch, before a test, etc. etc. A student has the right to practice their religion anywhere they choose as long as it does not violate the rights of fellow students. Quietly praying before beginning a test or eating lunch does not hurt anyone. Insisting that a student's praying violates the 1st amendment shows nothing but ignorance in the insister. If you want your child's academic studies to be based also in your religious beliefs, there are private schools for this, send your child there. If you cannot afford to do this, then I think that you are concerning yourself with something that should be on the bottom of your to do list.
FINAL NOTES
I am a Christian. Yes, my faith is not as strong as some. Yes, it has been rattled lately, but his is due mostly to the actions of fellow "Christians." Christ, as a man, taught the world to be humble, loving, compassionate, and forgiving. He taught us to have integrity, morality, and ethics. He came to the world in a time of desperate need. He left in a symbolic way that shows mankind that sacrifice is a more honorable and worthy cause then selfish acquisition. I use the bible, and the teachings of Christ as a guide to how I make decisions, and treat others.
However, I do not think that these lessons are strictly Christian. I believe, no not believe, I know that these values and lessons are attainable and learnable outside of church. I know that a person does not need to know Christ in order to live by his teachings. I believe that Christ and his teachings are the way and path to heaven. I do not know that he is the only path. To say that you know Christ is the one and only path negates the need for faith. God and Christ taught to have faith, not knowledge that God is out there.
I hope that this clearly explained my stand on this issue. I hope that it some how made those who would disagree think about it more and consider their own opinions a little more critically. I hope that it inspired other Christians to think and act more on the teachings of Christ, and to not pick and choose what passages tells them its ok to oppress a certain type of person. This is the last time I will address this issue in writing. Thank you to any who decided to read it and I apologize for any grammatical errors that may have cause complications in understanding what I have said.
CONCERNING THE FOUNDING FATHERS:
A popular argument used by proponents of getting God in schools, government, etc. Is that our country was founded on Christian beliefs. While our "founding fathers" may have been Christian, or claim to have been, this is actually a great distance from the truth of the historical events leading to the creation of the United States of America.
The United States was not founded based on Christian beliefs. It was created through the use of violence, murder, and conquest. When Europeans first landed in the "new world" they were welcomed by the local natives and in fact only survived their first winter because the natives helped them. This very brotherly and loving gesture was answered with blankets infested with small pox. That is where the murder comes in. This is not the actions of Christian men.
Continuing with U.S. history we move forward to the actual creation of the colonies. This was achieved by stealing land through conquest from the natives of this land. The founding fathers waged war with the natives, killing thousands. This is historical fact. This is also is not the actions of Christian men.
Now we come to the founding of the United States. After having adequately gotten rid of the people who were inconveniently here before them, the founding fathers decided it was necessary to separate the colonies from Great Britain and form a country of their own. Thomas Jefferson wrote a long, eloquently worded document condemning King George of Great Britain as a tyrant and oppressor of the people. He wrote in this document that all men are created equal. Meanwhile he owned over 80 African slaves. He raped some of the female slaves that led to many illegitimate children. This hypocrisy aside, the Declaration of Independence, while not an actual legal document, contained many words of wisdom and displayed an ethical standard to be strived for.
These are the founding fathers as they truly were. They were conquerors, murders, pillagers, rapists, and prone to acts of evil. They were not the great, wise, and Christian men we are sometimes taught they were. They founded this country in blood and violence, not Christian or any moral beliefs.
CONSERNING THE 1ST AMENDMENT
Setting aside the murderous habits of the founding fathers we can see that they did have some wisdom and fore sight that is rare among the world today. The pertinent part of the first amendment concerning religion and government is as follows:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion:
- This means that no law can be passed that is based in or upon a specific religious belief. This gives the citizens of the U.S. freedom FROM religion. Its intent is to keep any and all religions from gaining any power within the U.S. government
2. ..or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
-This prohibits congress from passing any laws that disallow any and all religious practices that do not violate another citizens rights (i.e. human sacrifice would still be murder even if done in the name of religious practice). This gives U.S. citizens freedom OF religion.
(Note: The remaining portion of the first amendment protects and/or provides the freedom of speech and press, and protects the right of the citizens to peaceably assemble to petition the government to answer for any and all grievances)
What this first portion of the first amendment does is make sure that no one can use their religion to oppress fellow US citizens and to make sure that the government cannot oppress any religious group. This means that the "Defense of Marriage Act" is unconstitutional and thereby not a truly legal document. It is a law that respects the religious belief that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. As a Christian I can honestly say that this law offends me in every way possible. It does the exact opposite of what Christ taught us to do. As an American it still offends me because it violates the constitution and oppresses my fellow Americans for no reason other then that they are a minority group.
CONCERNING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
I have touched on this already in discussions, but will briefly discuss it here for any reader who was not privy to the afore mentioned debates and conversations.
The term "under God" was not in the pledge of allegiance until 1954. It being there is not valid support of the argument that our nation was founded upon Christian beliefs because of its very recent addition. Also, the original pledge itself was not written until 1892, over 100 years after the U.S. Constitution was written.
That being said, I can see no reason to remove it. I can see no rational thinker being offended by its presence. One, it does not violate the 1st amendment because the pledge is not a law, nor was it written or authorized by congress. Two, "under God" does not imply any specific religion. In fact, it implies nearly all religions because nearly all religions believe in God, even though they may refer to Him by a different name or title. Three, it is just a very stupid battle to fight. It is based on nothing more then a dislike of religion in general, not on any real moral or ethical judgment. Fighting to remove it from the pledge is no better then fighting to have evolution removed from science class curriculum. Certain things just need to be left alone and as they are because changing them serves no purpose. This is one of those things.
I do not know, nor wish to research the origins of "In God we trust" being on the U.S. currency. Fighting to remove or keep it falls in the same category as the pledge. A stupid and pointless waste of time that serves no real or tangible purpose other then for the winning side to get their way. Keep it, get rid of it, a dollar will still be worth a dollar. Not to mention that their really isn't a lot of people that read their money for, divine or otherwise, inspiration.
CONCERNING GOD IN SCHOOLS
On this I ask, exactly who's God should the schools teach our children about? My God? The Jewish God? The Muslim God? The Hindu God?
The children of this nation should not be subjected or forced to deal with the childish bickering between adults. This is one of those cases where children are being objectified and put on posters and forced to hold protest signs in the name of a specific religion. Teaching alternatives to evolution is not the responsibility of the schools. The schools are there to teach academia, not religion. If you want your child to learn about God then it is your responsibility to teach your child. Asking a school to teach your version of the origins of man violates the rights of the students, teachers, and parents of the student that do not share your religious beliefs. Evolution has nothing to do with religion. It is a Darwinian theory that has opened the doors to many discoveries about human mental development and disorders that changed the history of psychological medicine. The origin of man, by Charles Darwin, was a result of Darwin's studies in human development. It was not the catalyst. It belongs in science class, and to remove it is to rob children of priceless knowledge. To remove it also robs children of the ability to be open minded and objective thinkers (something that is sorely needed these days).
No one's religion has any place in public schools. This does not mean that a school official, teacher or otherwise, has any right to tell any student that they are not allowed to pray while in class, at lunch, before a test, etc. etc. A student has the right to practice their religion anywhere they choose as long as it does not violate the rights of fellow students. Quietly praying before beginning a test or eating lunch does not hurt anyone. Insisting that a student's praying violates the 1st amendment shows nothing but ignorance in the insister. If you want your child's academic studies to be based also in your religious beliefs, there are private schools for this, send your child there. If you cannot afford to do this, then I think that you are concerning yourself with something that should be on the bottom of your to do list.
FINAL NOTES
I am a Christian. Yes, my faith is not as strong as some. Yes, it has been rattled lately, but his is due mostly to the actions of fellow "Christians." Christ, as a man, taught the world to be humble, loving, compassionate, and forgiving. He taught us to have integrity, morality, and ethics. He came to the world in a time of desperate need. He left in a symbolic way that shows mankind that sacrifice is a more honorable and worthy cause then selfish acquisition. I use the bible, and the teachings of Christ as a guide to how I make decisions, and treat others.
However, I do not think that these lessons are strictly Christian. I believe, no not believe, I know that these values and lessons are attainable and learnable outside of church. I know that a person does not need to know Christ in order to live by his teachings. I believe that Christ and his teachings are the way and path to heaven. I do not know that he is the only path. To say that you know Christ is the one and only path negates the need for faith. God and Christ taught to have faith, not knowledge that God is out there.
I hope that this clearly explained my stand on this issue. I hope that it some how made those who would disagree think about it more and consider their own opinions a little more critically. I hope that it inspired other Christians to think and act more on the teachings of Christ, and to not pick and choose what passages tells them its ok to oppress a certain type of person. This is the last time I will address this issue in writing. Thank you to any who decided to read it and I apologize for any grammatical errors that may have cause complications in understanding what I have said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)