I find myself, again, at least in my own, self-important mind, caught between the more-or-less Christianity of my own beliefs, and the atheism of many of those I deal with. A longtime proponent of the "Don't-be-an-ass" school of interpersonal relations, I've decided to use my own, mostly dormant blog to work through my sleep-deprived musings, and not upset my wife.
Between Pandagon and Adventus, one can get quite an education, you know ;) But sometimes it requires me to act,er, speak, er, type. And now I'm going to violate my own principles, for neither fun nor profit. I must make an ass of myself by pointing out that religion in general, and even Christianity in particular,
has more to it than one big patriarchal power trip. Yeah, there's a lot of that to be found. Religion is human thought about the Divine. Patriarchy pervades human thought in the historical period. Why would we be able to filter it out from that one subset?
Because, ultimately, religion isn't about power. At least, not the way I was taught and believe and try to practice it. It's about humility.
It's about acknowledging that humans in general, and I in particular, are flawed, falible, imperfect beings. That we (and I) fail. If humans are the end-all and be-all, there's no hope (to me), because we can't get everything right all the time. We never will be able to. We're only human.
I've been accused of talking to atheists and telling them were they're wrong.
This is probably true. I do this because I disagree, and want to explain why I, personally, can't be an atheist. You know, rather than attack the people themselves as self-important fools damned to eternal hellfire. I'm not THAT big an ass. But I'm gonna outline why atheism is not for me, and therefore, not for everyone.
First, I've talked about this before, I think atheism leads to an unhealthy neglect of one's spiritual nature. This is natural, because atheism involves a denial of spirituality as a real phenomenon, preferring materialism.
Now, I find materialism a particularly unsatisfying philosophical position. I have issues with both the problem of numbers (Platonic forms if I never saw one!), and because it is impossible to do ethics in a strictly materialist framework. Materialism doesn't lend itself to ethics, because "good" and "evil" are abstract concepts. nary a particle of either if you demolish the universe to fundamental particles.
My third problem with atheism has to do with the nature of humans as imperfect, flawed beings. As I said above, we fail. None of us lives up to even what we think of as morality completely perfectly, all the time. In more religious terms, sin happens. Atheism, as far as I can tell, offers no method for addressing questions like sin, repentance, atonement, and rehabilitation.
Now, some of these objections are probably based on my own ignorance of the subtle nuances of current atheist thought. But hey, I already disagree with it, why should I bother learning more when I can pillory strawmen? Or even just argue out of y own good-faith, if inaccurate, understanding?
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Back in the Saddle Again
Sorry for the long hiatus, once babies start crawling, they need more time spent in constant attention than I could do and still blog. Who knew? Well, the darling dollbaby is at her grandparents', and I'm about to (finally!) start back to college, so I thought I'd try sharing some thoughts again. For instance, one of the Pandagon trolls got me thinking last night. I'd link straight to the thread, but the troll's already been replaced by bunny videos. I thought I'd repost my responce over here and expand a bit on it. Or at least clean it up a notch.
One of this troll's rants was that Muslim Extremists want to Kill Us All. This is World War IV.
And that got me thinking. One thing that is often overlooked is that THIS IS NOT WORLD WAR IV. It’s not even WWIII. We managed to skip the threequel, as evidenced by the lack of, oh, I don’t know, dozens of vaporized cities? The idea that we’re facing some sort of existential threat is laughable.
One of the things I learned from "Law and Order" reruns, besides that Fred Thompson doesn't look Presidential, is that in order for a crime to occur, a criminal needs three things: means, motive, and opportunity. Muslim extermists may have the desire to kill us all, but do they have the means? Unless they get ahold of a lot more nukes than are currently floating about unaccounted for, my magic eight ball says “no”. “But!” cry the wingnuts, “they didn’t need nukes on 9/11! Did they, Mr. Liberal Traitor Smarty McSmartypants!” Well, no. But we’re a big country. Vast geographically, with a huge population. Muslim extremists can commit mass murder (just like anyone who’s so far gone that that seems like a good idea can), but please. We are 300 MILLION strong. It would take about 100,000 9/11s to “kill us all”.
And while we’re on the subject of this big, populous, obscenely wealthy nation of ours, if this is an existential struggle on the scale of WWII, why are fighting it with both hands, one foot, and three toes tied behind our backs? Why am I not dealing with a universal draft of all males 18-30? Why are we not re-opening shuttered factories, converting them to produce munitions? Why are we not even being asked to fricken ration a single damn thing? Has anyone heard any winger calling for any of these measures? For a matter of national life and death, they sure aren’t taking it very seriously…
One of this troll's rants was that Muslim Extremists want to Kill Us All. This is World War IV.
And that got me thinking. One thing that is often overlooked is that THIS IS NOT WORLD WAR IV. It’s not even WWIII. We managed to skip the threequel, as evidenced by the lack of, oh, I don’t know, dozens of vaporized cities? The idea that we’re facing some sort of existential threat is laughable.
One of the things I learned from "Law and Order" reruns, besides that Fred Thompson doesn't look Presidential, is that in order for a crime to occur, a criminal needs three things: means, motive, and opportunity. Muslim extermists may have the desire to kill us all, but do they have the means? Unless they get ahold of a lot more nukes than are currently floating about unaccounted for, my magic eight ball says “no”. “But!” cry the wingnuts, “they didn’t need nukes on 9/11! Did they, Mr. Liberal Traitor Smarty McSmartypants!” Well, no. But we’re a big country. Vast geographically, with a huge population. Muslim extremists can commit mass murder (just like anyone who’s so far gone that that seems like a good idea can), but please. We are 300 MILLION strong. It would take about 100,000 9/11s to “kill us all”.
And while we’re on the subject of this big, populous, obscenely wealthy nation of ours, if this is an existential struggle on the scale of WWII, why are fighting it with both hands, one foot, and three toes tied behind our backs? Why am I not dealing with a universal draft of all males 18-30? Why are we not re-opening shuttered factories, converting them to produce munitions? Why are we not even being asked to fricken ration a single damn thing? Has anyone heard any winger calling for any of these measures? For a matter of national life and death, they sure aren’t taking it very seriously…
Friday, February 16, 2007
To treat insomnia and remove excess brain cells
I've been watching the House debate on C-Span, and, a few minutes ago, I was forced to ask, Why did the people of Michigan elect a concern troll to Congress?
The rest of the Repubs are pushing the same, tired, old talking points, comparing Iraq to WWII, or to the American Civil War. In other words, this is an existential threat to the United States. Of course, in that case, we need to stop half-assing it, slap a draft in place, and gear up all those shuttered factories to crank out tanks and bullets and bombers. Let's impose government rationing plans. They want WWII, let's have some sacrifice from someone other than the military, from the white and well-off, as well as from the overwhelmingly poor and brown.
Yeah, okay, the GOP are the party of disingenuous assholes, what else is new since 1900 or so?
The rest of the Repubs are pushing the same, tired, old talking points, comparing Iraq to WWII, or to the American Civil War. In other words, this is an existential threat to the United States. Of course, in that case, we need to stop half-assing it, slap a draft in place, and gear up all those shuttered factories to crank out tanks and bullets and bombers. Let's impose government rationing plans. They want WWII, let's have some sacrifice from someone other than the military, from the white and well-off, as well as from the overwhelmingly poor and brown.
Yeah, okay, the GOP are the party of disingenuous assholes, what else is new since 1900 or so?
Friday, February 9, 2007
Rabble Rousing, part one of many
I know from history that liberals and progressives have advanced many ambitious sets of programs with catchy names like Square Deal, New Deal, Fair Deal, and Great Society. I think that now we need another catchy slogan. I call it the Fair Share. The idea isn't unique to me, by any means, but I thought I'd give a bit of stump speechifying a try. The reasoning goes like this:
Most Americans, real Americans, in the heartlands, on the coasts, on the farms and in the small towns, and in the cities, gripe about their taxes. Fair enough, griping is part of what America is all about. But, and here is the important part, they go ahead and pay them. They pay taxes to every level of government, not cheerfully, but they pay them. They recognize that what they get back from the various levels of government depends, in some vague and mysterious way, on taxes being paid. They understand that taxes are their bill for living in a functioning country, not a geographic expression. They know that taxes pay the salaries of their kids' teachers, the beat cops on the street, the firemen who show up for emergencies, the roads that they drive on. Perhaps most personally, they know that the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines serving their country abroad, in whatever capacity, their sons and daughters, are paid by the government, using money from taxes. They may grumble, but in the end, real Americans pay their Army bill.
But there a few who think they are above all that. The ultra-rich, in their decadent enclaves scattered throughout the nation, along with their enablers, declare that they shouldn't have to shoulder the burden of taxation. They don't want to pay their fair share. In a way, this is perfectly understandable. After all, the richest of the rich have been cutting themselves off from the rest of us for decades. They deny that they have any obligation to their employees, to their customers, to the environment, to their communities. Why should the nation be any different? They see themselves as lone wolves, above all us common sheep.
But most of us know that even wolves do better hunting in packs. We understand that "no man is an island", that a certain amount of interdependence is inevitable in any society of any real complexity. We know that we are, to a point, our brothers' and sisters' keepers. And we know that keeping up with our responsibilities to our neighbors, our communities, our nation, is the right thing to do. We pay our fair share. Why won't the "libertarians" and those who hide behind them pay theirs?
Most Americans, real Americans, in the heartlands, on the coasts, on the farms and in the small towns, and in the cities, gripe about their taxes. Fair enough, griping is part of what America is all about. But, and here is the important part, they go ahead and pay them. They pay taxes to every level of government, not cheerfully, but they pay them. They recognize that what they get back from the various levels of government depends, in some vague and mysterious way, on taxes being paid. They understand that taxes are their bill for living in a functioning country, not a geographic expression. They know that taxes pay the salaries of their kids' teachers, the beat cops on the street, the firemen who show up for emergencies, the roads that they drive on. Perhaps most personally, they know that the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines serving their country abroad, in whatever capacity, their sons and daughters, are paid by the government, using money from taxes. They may grumble, but in the end, real Americans pay their Army bill.
But there a few who think they are above all that. The ultra-rich, in their decadent enclaves scattered throughout the nation, along with their enablers, declare that they shouldn't have to shoulder the burden of taxation. They don't want to pay their fair share. In a way, this is perfectly understandable. After all, the richest of the rich have been cutting themselves off from the rest of us for decades. They deny that they have any obligation to their employees, to their customers, to the environment, to their communities. Why should the nation be any different? They see themselves as lone wolves, above all us common sheep.
But most of us know that even wolves do better hunting in packs. We understand that "no man is an island", that a certain amount of interdependence is inevitable in any society of any real complexity. We know that we are, to a point, our brothers' and sisters' keepers. And we know that keeping up with our responsibilities to our neighbors, our communities, our nation, is the right thing to do. We pay our fair share. Why won't the "libertarians" and those who hide behind them pay theirs?
Thursday, February 8, 2007
An open message
To the religious right: Having seen some of the garbage written about Molly Ivins' demise, and then the sheer hypocrisy of the Catholic League's William Donohue accusing other people of bias, I have no choice but to say this.
I renounce you, and all your lies, and all your works. I recognize the true source of the hateful, vicious rhetoric that you spew at every opportunity. You drive people away from the church, instilling in them the false idea that Christianity is about hate and exclusion, not about Christ's message of universal, inclusive love. "No man can serve two masters", and you have clearly chosen yours. And so, I renounce you. And every time I see you rise out of your fetid swamps of bigotry and ignorance, dripping with hate, I will denounce you, renounce you, and reaffirm that you do not speak for me, nor do you speak for the Lord.
I invite you to examine your words and deeds, and then join me, a fellow sinner, in prayer and repentance.
Thank you,
Scott
I renounce you, and all your lies, and all your works. I recognize the true source of the hateful, vicious rhetoric that you spew at every opportunity. You drive people away from the church, instilling in them the false idea that Christianity is about hate and exclusion, not about Christ's message of universal, inclusive love. "No man can serve two masters", and you have clearly chosen yours. And so, I renounce you. And every time I see you rise out of your fetid swamps of bigotry and ignorance, dripping with hate, I will denounce you, renounce you, and reaffirm that you do not speak for me, nor do you speak for the Lord.
I invite you to examine your words and deeds, and then join me, a fellow sinner, in prayer and repentance.
Thank you,
Scott
Friday, February 2, 2007
Somthing you don't see every day....
Rick Perry actually did something right, good, and useful. Whoda thunkit?
via comments at Eschaton:
Texas may not be that backward after all.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ 20070...cervical_cancer
JohnJS
via comments at Eschaton:
Texas may not be that backward after all.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ 20070...cervical_cancer
JohnJS
Crass Warfare
Sorry about missing yesterday. Thinking up something to be coherent about daily is harder than I thought.
So, today's subject is the minimum wage increase, and the opposition to it. Frankly, I find it mystifying that this is even an issue. Inflation in prices has continued since the last minimum wage hike, so why shouldn't wages keep up? No, really, why shouldn't minimum wage hikes be triggered automatically, indexed to inflation? Because that would make life easier for those making the minimum? I know you've all heard the argument that we shouldn't make life easier for minimum-earners, because they are losers. Apparently, we're all still in high school, where the number one priority is being able to identify, feel superior to, and mock all the laaa-hooooooo-seers. It's especially important that we rub their face in their loserdom, it seems, lest they start to think of themselves as human beings with value not measured by their wallet's contents.
And this is where that real third rail of American politics, class, comes in. We're told, over and over, by very rich people,. and those on the payrolls of the very rich, that there are no classes in America. That really, the interests of the richest of the rich are our own interests, because there's no class. That wages are best left to the "marketplace", because their we excel or fail based on our merit, because there is no class. There's a lack of class involved, all right, but not in the way it's portrayed.
As expected the "libertarian" defenders of all things free-market (as long as it benefits the rich), have rolled out the arguments against the very concept of a minimum wage, or any government regulation at all. Hell, I've seen it argued that it's tantamount to slavery. Yes, having to deal with minimum wages and affirmative action and OSHA laws is exactly like slavery. Excuse me while I roll my eyes. Look, the arguments against a minimum wage seem to be dependent on certain assumptions. For instance, that the consequences of not taking a job are exactly the same as those of not offering one. Or that all employers will make an immediate, accurate, honest, and fair evaluation of a prospective employee's potential contribution, and then offer a wage exactly in line with that. And a dishonest boss will be promptly driven out of business by the invisible hand. And anyway, there's no way that an employer would take advantage of someone from a lower socioeconomic class, because there is no class. Because we live in a pure and perfect meritocracy.
And if you'll buy that, come see me after this post, because I'd like to have an exciting conversation with you about the many merits of bridge ownership.
EDIT: Hot damn, we won this one.
So, today's subject is the minimum wage increase, and the opposition to it. Frankly, I find it mystifying that this is even an issue. Inflation in prices has continued since the last minimum wage hike, so why shouldn't wages keep up? No, really, why shouldn't minimum wage hikes be triggered automatically, indexed to inflation? Because that would make life easier for those making the minimum? I know you've all heard the argument that we shouldn't make life easier for minimum-earners, because they are losers. Apparently, we're all still in high school, where the number one priority is being able to identify, feel superior to, and mock all the laaa-hooooooo-seers. It's especially important that we rub their face in their loserdom, it seems, lest they start to think of themselves as human beings with value not measured by their wallet's contents.
And this is where that real third rail of American politics, class, comes in. We're told, over and over, by very rich people,. and those on the payrolls of the very rich, that there are no classes in America. That really, the interests of the richest of the rich are our own interests, because there's no class. That wages are best left to the "marketplace", because their we excel or fail based on our merit, because there is no class. There's a lack of class involved, all right, but not in the way it's portrayed.
As expected the "libertarian" defenders of all things free-market (as long as it benefits the rich), have rolled out the arguments against the very concept of a minimum wage, or any government regulation at all. Hell, I've seen it argued that it's tantamount to slavery. Yes, having to deal with minimum wages and affirmative action and OSHA laws is exactly like slavery. Excuse me while I roll my eyes. Look, the arguments against a minimum wage seem to be dependent on certain assumptions. For instance, that the consequences of not taking a job are exactly the same as those of not offering one. Or that all employers will make an immediate, accurate, honest, and fair evaluation of a prospective employee's potential contribution, and then offer a wage exactly in line with that. And a dishonest boss will be promptly driven out of business by the invisible hand. And anyway, there's no way that an employer would take advantage of someone from a lower socioeconomic class, because there is no class. Because we live in a pure and perfect meritocracy.
And if you'll buy that, come see me after this post, because I'd like to have an exciting conversation with you about the many merits of bridge ownership.
EDIT: Hot damn, we won this one.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
And now, a word...
Now that I have my obligatory tribute post made, let me explain who the &%^* I am and what the *&(^&^% I think I'm doing. I'm an occasional commenter on Eschaton , Pandagon, Orcinus, Adventus, and a few other bastions of left blogistan using the nom de net of "Scott the Obscure." I'm a resident of southeast Texas, where I reside with a wife who's far too god for me and an absolutely wonderful, fabulous, and practically perfect in every way six-month-old daughter. I'm a lifelong liberal, loudmouthed blowhard. This makes watching Texas politics an exercise in frustration, but I'm too much of the obsessive idealist to stop.
As for what I'm up to with this, well, I seem to have bored the local papers' editorial staff to death with my occasional guest columns, and I feel the need to speak. I've been treated for several years for clinical depression, and hopefully, taking on a daily task that's freely chosen will help me fight that. Plus, it lets me get some of the thoughts out of my head without boring my wife to tears with them. So look for at least one comment, or possibly a rant, about politics, media, philosophy, theology, or the occasional bit of geekery, each day.
Hello, pleased to meet you, hope you've guessed my name.
As for what I'm up to with this, well, I seem to have bored the local papers' editorial staff to death with my occasional guest columns, and I feel the need to speak. I've been treated for several years for clinical depression, and hopefully, taking on a daily task that's freely chosen will help me fight that. Plus, it lets me get some of the thoughts out of my head without boring my wife to tears with them. So look for at least one comment, or possibly a rant, about politics, media, philosophy, theology, or the occasional bit of geekery, each day.
Hello, pleased to meet you, hope you've guessed my name.
A sad note to start things on
Molly Ivins, greatest political columnist in the history of everything, has passed away. It was reading her columns as a child (found by looking at that one more cartoon after the funny pages), that turned me into the political junkie I am today. I credit her with much of the fire in my belly, and my tendency to express it via guest columns for the Port Arthur News. She's been a huge influence on my writing style, as well, even if I'm just a pale imitation.
And I think that's what got me off my gluteus maximus, figuratively, at least, to start this blog, instead of just talking about it. Miss Molly's gone, and it's up to the rest of us to do the best we can.
And I think that's what got me off my gluteus maximus, figuratively, at least, to start this blog, instead of just talking about it. Miss Molly's gone, and it's up to the rest of us to do the best we can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)