This year Yule / the equinox is the first day of Hanukah, which then proceeds in it normal fashion right through Christmas. That’s right three of the major winter holidays are all touching each other. I think that is cool, in a useless trivia sort of way. I also hope it spreads true peace and tolerance through all who celebrate any of the above, and while we are at it everyone else too.
Now in order to help keep things happy and peaceful, (and to keep my temper from causing my tong to get me on Santa’s naughty list) I am going to counter the three most annoying holiday rants from the last few years. To be fair I have not yet heard any of them this year, but the season is still young and I want my objections in a place where I can say “go read my blog” then move on. It may not change any minds but I can enjoy my holidays for a bit while my opponent finds and reads this which will at least give me a few moments peace.
“They stole that tradition from us”
I hear this from many of my fellow pagans. I hate it. The “they” is naturally Christians. The theory seems to be that since things like the Christmas / Yule tree and candles and winter feasts pre date Christ, and therefore Christianity that the Christians stole them. I have never understood how this is stealing. Yes these traditions have roots in Pre-Christian traditions but it’s not as if your neighbor having a Christmas tree prevents you from having a Yule tree. If you look at the history of how this happened you realize that it was the Christians trying to show brotherhood by adopting some of the traditions around them that caused them to end up using these traditions. That right not some evil plot to take peoples traditions but a “hey lets share this in brotherhood” adaptation. That is not theft that is in my opinion being all cool and Christ like. I am a fan of sharing what makes us happy so lets just put presents under our trees (what ever kind) and enjoy.
“When people say ‘Happy Holidays’ it is an assault on Christmas”
I hear this one from people who claim to be Christian. I say claim because almost all the Christians I know personally do not like being associated with the people who do this. The people who say this act as if this wish is an attack, a declaration of war against their belief in Christ. Thing is there are several winter holidays this time of year. I opened this blog with three of them, and there are more then that. In most cases the person wishing this upon you doesn’t know your religion, so they wish you something that will cover all bases. The people who make this claim are trying to say that only Christians deserve happiness this time of year, a sentiment that flies in the face of everything Christ stood for. Jesus wants everybody happy. Also with New Years celebrated by almost everyone that could be the second holiday that causes the word “Holidays”. Regardless treating a wish of happiness like an attack is paranoid and stupid.
“Jesus is the reason for the season” / “I’m not Christian so why should I take part in that foolishness”
The above are the same rant. Both are attempting to claim that Christmas traditions have not grown past their Christian roots. Here it is a day where we give gifts and all celebrate peace on earth. ALL OF US. While there are those (even some groups of Christians) who do not celebrate, the vast majority of us do celebrate regardless of religion. We do it for our parents, our kids, our families. I think it’s a great tradition. It hasn’t been a strictly Christian holiday in my life time. Christmas is about sharing peace and love. If you call that foolish then you are an idiot. No mater how much like a hippy this may make me sound, Peace and Love are good things and should be shared with everyone. You know who agreed with me on that? Jesus did. I don’t care if you think he is a fiction or have dedicated you life to his reality, the guy in the Bible real or fake is a guy who agreed with me on Peace and Love. The “reason” folk are trying to claim they are the only source for this, in a way that kills it. They are behaving exactly as Jesus told them not to in the Sermon on the Mount. The “foolishness” people are just being hateful. “Hateful?” I hear you ask “isn’t that a bit harsh?” Well if the “foolishness” is celebrating Peace and Love then yes that is the right word. What else is being opposed to Peace and Love if not hateful? Let us all agree to share the Peace and Love on a day that celibates a guy (real or not) who stood for those things.
Well there you have it my responses (in short and in part at least) to my three least favorite holiday buzz kill rants. Hopefully I won’t have to deal with any of them this year.
Peace, Love, Goodwill and Happy Holidays too ALL
Bradleyman.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Saturday, November 8, 2008
On the question of marriage
I am not going to dance around the issue, I have been thinking about this since the Prop. 8 people on both sides got nasty. I am sorry but you did. ALL OF YOU!!! You have flung insults and hatred at each other in a way that is disturbing. So I actually sat down and thought about it, and I found the problem. I say this as someone who has preformed marriages and felt the beauty and power of bringing people together. The problem is marriage is a sacred institution.
That is where the problem lies in its sacredness. See we are supposed to have a separation of Church and State in this country. The reason we have this is our founding fathers knew that what was sacred to one person wouldn’t necessarily be sacred to the next, even with in the different families of Christianity. They were wise. To use Marriage as an example The Catholics do not with in their church recognize a Mormon marriage or vise versa. I am not saying they should, I am in fact supporting their right to NOT. This is where gay marriage becomes an immediate problem. Most Christian churches (whether you agree or like it) DO NOT condone homosexuality. (Those same Churches also don’t condone any sex outside of marriage, as well as a lot of other things I don’t personally have a problem with). NO Church should be forced to recognize a marriage that to them is wrong. It’s a sacred thing, and therefore a thing of the church not the state. NO marriage should be recognized by the state, none of them.
“Um Bradleyman are you not overlooking a whole bunch of rights given to those who are married that are really cool and we need to protect?” I hear you ask oh small group of readers. Yes we do and we need to give them to ANY two people who wan t to make a home together for them selves and their off spring, biological or adopted. When I say “any” above I do not limit my comment to homosexual union ether. Yes they would be included, but I have in my life known couples who have gotten married fro the “tax breaks”. That is a contract not the sacred union of marriage. Since the 70’s at least there have been married couples who were “swingers” they openly have sex with people out side the bounds of their marriage. Most Christian and Jewish churches I know of would NOT consider this to be a true marriage. Both the “tax break” and the “swinging” couples are not “proper” marriages but they ARE legal. If they are then it is discrimination to not allow gays to be married. However most churches would consider both of those to be broken marriages. From a legal stand point ANY two people should be able to have ALL of these rights, whether or not they love each other, regardless of sex, or relationship to each other. A pair of cousins who both have children and who would NEVER have sex with each other but want to raise their kids together should have this right. An old man who wants to help out a young person with a child by extending his medical coverage to that person should have this right. ANY TWO PEOPLE who want to have community property and all of that should have that right. I am just not sure it should be called “marriage”.
Let’s call it “Civil Union” or “CU” for the sake of argument. I think that any properly documented marriage should automatically be considered a CU. Generally speaking people choosing to unite their love are MORE committed then any of the examples at the end of the last paragraph. Those who choose to do it in their church of choice are doing so with in a community that will most likely support them. That said from the perspective of the state it should be just another CU. I am not denying that a marriage is more sacred then a simple CU. I am saying that the state has NO business in things sacred. The state has no right to make those choices.
I believe marriage is sacred. I do not believe the state has the right to tell me or any one what is sacred or not, so the state has no right to tell me or any one else what marriage is. Any two adults should be able to enter in to a state recognized CU. Any one of those blessed by a religion is a marriage with in that religion. To handle this ANY other way is to violate someone’s rights.
That is where the problem lies in its sacredness. See we are supposed to have a separation of Church and State in this country. The reason we have this is our founding fathers knew that what was sacred to one person wouldn’t necessarily be sacred to the next, even with in the different families of Christianity. They were wise. To use Marriage as an example The Catholics do not with in their church recognize a Mormon marriage or vise versa. I am not saying they should, I am in fact supporting their right to NOT. This is where gay marriage becomes an immediate problem. Most Christian churches (whether you agree or like it) DO NOT condone homosexuality. (Those same Churches also don’t condone any sex outside of marriage, as well as a lot of other things I don’t personally have a problem with). NO Church should be forced to recognize a marriage that to them is wrong. It’s a sacred thing, and therefore a thing of the church not the state. NO marriage should be recognized by the state, none of them.
“Um Bradleyman are you not overlooking a whole bunch of rights given to those who are married that are really cool and we need to protect?” I hear you ask oh small group of readers. Yes we do and we need to give them to ANY two people who wan t to make a home together for them selves and their off spring, biological or adopted. When I say “any” above I do not limit my comment to homosexual union ether. Yes they would be included, but I have in my life known couples who have gotten married fro the “tax breaks”. That is a contract not the sacred union of marriage. Since the 70’s at least there have been married couples who were “swingers” they openly have sex with people out side the bounds of their marriage. Most Christian and Jewish churches I know of would NOT consider this to be a true marriage. Both the “tax break” and the “swinging” couples are not “proper” marriages but they ARE legal. If they are then it is discrimination to not allow gays to be married. However most churches would consider both of those to be broken marriages. From a legal stand point ANY two people should be able to have ALL of these rights, whether or not they love each other, regardless of sex, or relationship to each other. A pair of cousins who both have children and who would NEVER have sex with each other but want to raise their kids together should have this right. An old man who wants to help out a young person with a child by extending his medical coverage to that person should have this right. ANY TWO PEOPLE who want to have community property and all of that should have that right. I am just not sure it should be called “marriage”.
Let’s call it “Civil Union” or “CU” for the sake of argument. I think that any properly documented marriage should automatically be considered a CU. Generally speaking people choosing to unite their love are MORE committed then any of the examples at the end of the last paragraph. Those who choose to do it in their church of choice are doing so with in a community that will most likely support them. That said from the perspective of the state it should be just another CU. I am not denying that a marriage is more sacred then a simple CU. I am saying that the state has NO business in things sacred. The state has no right to make those choices.
I believe marriage is sacred. I do not believe the state has the right to tell me or any one what is sacred or not, so the state has no right to tell me or any one else what marriage is. Any two adults should be able to enter in to a state recognized CU. Any one of those blessed by a religion is a marriage with in that religion. To handle this ANY other way is to violate someone’s rights.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Happy Samhine, Happy Halloween
You may have noticed a lack of bloging on my part, well I have taken a brief break from the on line world AND most of what I wish to write about is political, religious or both. In the religious category I was waiting for the New Year, it here so I will end this blog with a bit of the spiritual. In the political category (and there fore the both category as well) I am waiting till after the election. “Why wait?” I hear you ask. Because at this point everyone is WAY too emotionally charged. Once the election is over I will once again open my mouth on the political side. However with BOTH of the big parties yelling at any one who disagrees like it’s the end of the world I think I will wait till after the dust settles.
So on that note a little something spiritual that I cut and pasted from Superwench (who didn’t write most of either as you shall see):
Dalai Lama's 18 rules for living
At the start of the new millennium the Dalai Lama apparently issued eighteen rules for living. Since word travels slowly in the digital age these have only just reached me. Here they are.
1. Take into account that great love and great achievements involve great risk.
2. When you lose, don't lose the lesson.
3. Follow the three Rs:
1. Respect for self
2. Respect for others
3. Responsibility for all your actions.
4. Remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a wonderful stroke of luck.
5. Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
6. Don't let a little dispute injure a great friendship.
7. When you realize you've made a mistake, take immediate steps to correct it.
8. Spend some time alone every day.
9. Open your arms to change, but don't let go of your values.
10. Remember that silence is sometimes the best answer.
11. Live a good, honorable life. Then when you get older and think back, you'll be able to enjoy it a second time.
12. A loving atmosphere in your home is the foundation for your life.
13. In disagreements with loved ones, deal only with the current situation. Don't bring up the past.
14. Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality.
15. Be gentle with the earth.
16. Once a year, go someplace you've never been before.
17. Remember that the best relationship is one in which your love for each other exceeds your need for each other.
18. Judge your success by what you had to give up in order to get it.
Blessed Be
Bradleyman
So on that note a little something spiritual that I cut and pasted from Superwench (who didn’t write most of either as you shall see):
Dalai Lama's 18 rules for living
At the start of the new millennium the Dalai Lama apparently issued eighteen rules for living. Since word travels slowly in the digital age these have only just reached me. Here they are.
1. Take into account that great love and great achievements involve great risk.
2. When you lose, don't lose the lesson.
3. Follow the three Rs:
1. Respect for self
2. Respect for others
3. Responsibility for all your actions.
4. Remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a wonderful stroke of luck.
5. Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
6. Don't let a little dispute injure a great friendship.
7. When you realize you've made a mistake, take immediate steps to correct it.
8. Spend some time alone every day.
9. Open your arms to change, but don't let go of your values.
10. Remember that silence is sometimes the best answer.
11. Live a good, honorable life. Then when you get older and think back, you'll be able to enjoy it a second time.
12. A loving atmosphere in your home is the foundation for your life.
13. In disagreements with loved ones, deal only with the current situation. Don't bring up the past.
14. Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality.
15. Be gentle with the earth.
16. Once a year, go someplace you've never been before.
17. Remember that the best relationship is one in which your love for each other exceeds your need for each other.
18. Judge your success by what you had to give up in order to get it.
Blessed Be
Bradleyman
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Intelligent Design
So I was discussing the concept of “intelligent design” with a friend and afterward I decided to do some basic research on who was saying what about whom in this debate. Yes I know there are more topical debates going on out there but this one seemed interesting and sort of fun. What I found was two groups of people willing to attack, slander and ruin the careers of others with out listing to what the other has to say.
First let me define some terms as I understand them. Evolution is the theory of how life came to be as it is that holds up under the laws of current science. Creationism is the theory of how life came to be according to the Bible. On these terms there is little debate. Where things get dicey for me is with the term “intelligent design”. What the two words suggest, when used to discuss the origin of life is “made by a higher power”. What BOTH sides of this point missing debate use it to mean is “Creationism”. This irks me because this misuse of a great term doesn’t allow for any third or forth view points and doesn’t allow for a meeting of the minds on the debate.
What “intelligent design” should mean is that there is a higher power the created life. I happen to believe this. However I also believe that said higher power used evolution or something similar to create us. He/she/it used evolution as a tool to create life in all its wonder and glory. In its true form, “intelligent design” allows us to discus how the divine created us with out separating our selves from the observable clues. If this version of “intelligent design” was what was being proposed in ANY of the web pages I read, I would have written happy notes to the person who wrote it.
However that is not what I found, instead the old Creationism vs. Evolution using the term to mean Creationism. The attacks they made on each other were the same old attacks, I have been hearing for years. I hate this debate. I hate it because if you accept the idea that gods “day” might be a couple of million years long then Genesis is an excellent metaphor for the way scientists think things came to be. If either side would concede this then the debate would be over and the world would be much more peaceful. I also hate it because it is an Atheists vs. Christians debate in which all other views are tossed to the side like they don’t matter. As I member of neither camp with views that I hold as least as strongly as any one I have met from both does, I find this insulting and demeaning. I would ask the two camps to treat me with respect but as you don’t respect each other I am probably hoping for to much. This is a debate in which both sides look down on the other with out any higher ground to stand on.
I will say this however; when it comes to misusing this term I am more likely to forgive the Christians then the Atheists. “Why is that Bradleyman?” I hear my dozen or so readers ask. Well because they are believers in the Bible so the god of said bible is the intelligence they are expecting. Regardless of whether you are talking about a Christian who believes in the Bible literally or as a divine metaphor, the intelligence in “intelligent design” is going to be the one they worship. This is going to be true for any religion. A Wiccan would think or the intelligence as being the God and Goddess. A Muslim would think of is as Allah. If you believe in a creator you are naturally going to see the intelligence as that creator, so when you are debating something like “intelligent design” it is only human and natural to see it as your version in you head. However the Atheists don’t have this excuse. If you are using cold hard science as your foundation, you should not be assuming the intelligence in “intelligent design” is the Christian intelligence. The term in no way implies a specific religion. Acting as if the intelligence must be the one from the Christian Bible is not scientific and it is discrimination against all other religions.
I do think evolution should be taught in schools? Yes, in a science class the current models of how the world works according to science should be taught. Do I think “intelligent design” should be taught alongside it? If by “intelligent design” you mean present the idea that things this complex suggest there is intelligence behind it, then yes. If you mean any specific religions creation story, then no, at least not in a science class.
First let me define some terms as I understand them. Evolution is the theory of how life came to be as it is that holds up under the laws of current science. Creationism is the theory of how life came to be according to the Bible. On these terms there is little debate. Where things get dicey for me is with the term “intelligent design”. What the two words suggest, when used to discuss the origin of life is “made by a higher power”. What BOTH sides of this point missing debate use it to mean is “Creationism”. This irks me because this misuse of a great term doesn’t allow for any third or forth view points and doesn’t allow for a meeting of the minds on the debate.
What “intelligent design” should mean is that there is a higher power the created life. I happen to believe this. However I also believe that said higher power used evolution or something similar to create us. He/she/it used evolution as a tool to create life in all its wonder and glory. In its true form, “intelligent design” allows us to discus how the divine created us with out separating our selves from the observable clues. If this version of “intelligent design” was what was being proposed in ANY of the web pages I read, I would have written happy notes to the person who wrote it.
However that is not what I found, instead the old Creationism vs. Evolution using the term to mean Creationism. The attacks they made on each other were the same old attacks, I have been hearing for years. I hate this debate. I hate it because if you accept the idea that gods “day” might be a couple of million years long then Genesis is an excellent metaphor for the way scientists think things came to be. If either side would concede this then the debate would be over and the world would be much more peaceful. I also hate it because it is an Atheists vs. Christians debate in which all other views are tossed to the side like they don’t matter. As I member of neither camp with views that I hold as least as strongly as any one I have met from both does, I find this insulting and demeaning. I would ask the two camps to treat me with respect but as you don’t respect each other I am probably hoping for to much. This is a debate in which both sides look down on the other with out any higher ground to stand on.
I will say this however; when it comes to misusing this term I am more likely to forgive the Christians then the Atheists. “Why is that Bradleyman?” I hear my dozen or so readers ask. Well because they are believers in the Bible so the god of said bible is the intelligence they are expecting. Regardless of whether you are talking about a Christian who believes in the Bible literally or as a divine metaphor, the intelligence in “intelligent design” is going to be the one they worship. This is going to be true for any religion. A Wiccan would think or the intelligence as being the God and Goddess. A Muslim would think of is as Allah. If you believe in a creator you are naturally going to see the intelligence as that creator, so when you are debating something like “intelligent design” it is only human and natural to see it as your version in you head. However the Atheists don’t have this excuse. If you are using cold hard science as your foundation, you should not be assuming the intelligence in “intelligent design” is the Christian intelligence. The term in no way implies a specific religion. Acting as if the intelligence must be the one from the Christian Bible is not scientific and it is discrimination against all other religions.
I do think evolution should be taught in schools? Yes, in a science class the current models of how the world works according to science should be taught. Do I think “intelligent design” should be taught alongside it? If by “intelligent design” you mean present the idea that things this complex suggest there is intelligence behind it, then yes. If you mean any specific religions creation story, then no, at least not in a science class.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
A little something I am thinking:
“I try not to judge groups by their people or people by their groups.” I just said this to a friend and its very true. There are churches who have said insulting things about me with members who are the best people ever. I have know organizations that did great things for people and the world led by A$$ holes. For better or worse I do judge both people and organizations by their actions. However it is important to remember that people are more then the groups they belong to and groups are made of all types of people.
I have been a pagan with evangelical Christian friends. They went to churches that said I was evil, but we were still pals. I am a liberal in a conservative area, and yet know that both “we” and “they” are good people under it all. Yes I disagree with both political parties on some issues, but most everyone I know belongs to one or the other, including most all of my friends. They are still my friends, even though my thoughts about their parties are sometimes less then friendly.
My sense of humor is such that I often come down hard on organizations that I dislike. I assume that any members know I don’t mean for them to take it personally. In the same way that I assume that they don’t mean it as a personal attack when they attack (or agree with an attack, or don’t defend me from an attack) on a group I belong to. If you do take what I say personally then I have to assume you mean the reverse personally, That could get ugly really quickly.
Ultimately it comes down to the fact that a person who belongs to a group that seems to hate me, can still be my friend. Yes, that is reversible there are people I want nothing to do with who are part of groups that in my humble opinion do “good work”. However I would rather focus on the positive. I can be friends with people, even if they belong to groups that I don’t like. I would like to assume we can all do that.
So the lessons for today, “keep a sense of humor”, “take it all with a grain of salt” and “try not to judge groups by their people or people by their groups”
I have been a pagan with evangelical Christian friends. They went to churches that said I was evil, but we were still pals. I am a liberal in a conservative area, and yet know that both “we” and “they” are good people under it all. Yes I disagree with both political parties on some issues, but most everyone I know belongs to one or the other, including most all of my friends. They are still my friends, even though my thoughts about their parties are sometimes less then friendly.
My sense of humor is such that I often come down hard on organizations that I dislike. I assume that any members know I don’t mean for them to take it personally. In the same way that I assume that they don’t mean it as a personal attack when they attack (or agree with an attack, or don’t defend me from an attack) on a group I belong to. If you do take what I say personally then I have to assume you mean the reverse personally, That could get ugly really quickly.
Ultimately it comes down to the fact that a person who belongs to a group that seems to hate me, can still be my friend. Yes, that is reversible there are people I want nothing to do with who are part of groups that in my humble opinion do “good work”. However I would rather focus on the positive. I can be friends with people, even if they belong to groups that I don’t like. I would like to assume we can all do that.
So the lessons for today, “keep a sense of humor”, “take it all with a grain of salt” and “try not to judge groups by their people or people by their groups”
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Three of Twelve
I post my Blog in three places and my last Blog got a lot more comments then any other to date. Now some of that was a general agreement to the joy of mint which was not a problem. However three of my latest list of twelve seems to have hit a nerve or eighty with some of my readers. The three in question are:
“Thought Number Three: (this one is political) If you are going to be the “Family Values” party, you need to have candidates who didn’t divorce their wives for a prettier girl or not pay so little attention to there teen daughters that said daughters get pregnant.
Thought Number Four: (again political) you can not support the troops by voting for the guy who voted against the GI bill. He did the opposite of supporting the troops and so do you if you vote for him.
Thought Number Five: (again political) Three and four DO NOT suggest that the other guy is either “family values” or “pro-troops” it only states the guy suggested isn’t and only fools would say he is.”
So since there was so much controversy I thought I would clarify where I stand a bit.
To start with, I DO NOT stand by the “it’s the parents fault” line of thinking. Never have never willed. I also DO NOT think less of any one who gets pregnant out side of marriage. It is a tough situation and one I have in my small way helped many people with. I was commenting on the irony of the party who has said repeatedly though out my life that, teen pregnancy is a sign of poor parenting, suddenly changing its tune. I have had friends reduced to tears by what “good Republicans” have called them for being pregnant; I have NEVER shared their views. Perhaps I should have put the words “so little attention” in quotes so it would have been more obvious. To anyone who thought I shared these views rather then was commenting on others having them, I apologize for the confusion.
Next let me point out that I IN NO WAY support the O man in my statements. NOPE don’t do it. Yeah, I am leaning toward voting for Obama, as a symbol of change, but voting for someone as a symbol rather then as a person is mostly a mistake. It is a mistake I can chose to make, but I understand that my choice is flawed. I may vote for a third party candidate however, I belong to nether big party and may choose to vote that way. Now that the tangent to over let me restate, I said nothing pro-Obama. In number five (although it includes a barb) I even go out of my way to not attach my self to “the other guy”
How that we have those two points out of the way, lets get on to the negative stuff. If you don’t like rants, especially those of a political nature then thank you for reading to this point and go have a good day. However to read past this point is to read words that you may find offensive. This is especially likely if you support Mc Cain or call your self a Republican. I can’t promise that I will be inoffensive to any one else either, so if you read on you were warned.
So to any who are still here, I have a few gripes and I am letting them lose, here and now. I thank the few of you who are still reading for bothering. I know rants of this sort can be tedious.
I am not going to say much about the Democrats or Obama, I am not ranting about them right now. My lack of rant IS NOT a sign of support. I am focusing on the Republicans and Mc Cain; if you try to defend either by attacking any one else I will take that as an admission that I am right. I really hate the “well the other guys did X” false argument. I am going to discuss ONE reason I am not a Republican and ONE problem I have with Mc Cain. I have other Reasons. I have other problems. I also have reasons why I am not a Democrat. I have problems with almost all politicians. Please if you respond, respond ONLY to what I say here, otherwise I am likely to call you names.
I despise double standards. I despise hypocrisy. I was commenting on the hypocrisy of the Republican Party with thought three. For years they have been attacking people who didn’t live up to their “Family Values”. I have had friends verbally attacked by members of their own family in the name of “Republican Family Values”. Divorce was frowned upon and teen pregnancy was “a sign the parents weren’t doing their job”, (“parents” in this case meaning the parents of the pregnant teen.) I believe there are reasons for divorce, and have been called “immoral” by Republicans because of that. If I was immoral for supporting my friends while they went though rough times, then what does that make the party who supports a presidential candidate who has a divorce? Why is it acceptable for your guy to divorce his wife but not acceptable for everyone else? It is not divorce I have a problem with it is the serious double standard. The Republicans have used teen pregnancy as proof as the “problems of the world” for as long as I can remember. A pregnant teen was proof of a lack of character on the teen’s parents in EVERY case. Again I do not agree with this. I have been arguing with Republicans over it for years. If it is no longer a sign of poor parenting and leadership skills then the Republicans need to apologize for YEARS of hatred. If it is still a sign then the Republicans need to rethink there support of their VP hopeful. They can not have it both ways. That is a double standard, which is hypocrisy.
Now something a little touchier, thought four. I write this as a person who has never been in the armed services so perhaps my understanding is flawed. Mc Cain claims to support the troops but has repeatedly voted against things that would help them. The GI bill is only one example, but it is the big one for me. He uses his ex-military credentials to “prove” he is pro-military but he stabbed his fellow soldiers in the back voting to deny them a college education. From what I understand of military tradition this is the opposite of “looking out for your brothers”. I believe he will treat those who vote for him with the same respect he does his “brothers”. This alone is reason enough for me not to vote for him. I have others but as I said I am sticking to the tights from before.
I really only included thought five to point out that my thoughts contained support for no one. So now that that is over, how about some mint Ice Cream, maybe organic, Yum.
“Thought Number Three: (this one is political) If you are going to be the “Family Values” party, you need to have candidates who didn’t divorce their wives for a prettier girl or not pay so little attention to there teen daughters that said daughters get pregnant.
Thought Number Four: (again political) you can not support the troops by voting for the guy who voted against the GI bill. He did the opposite of supporting the troops and so do you if you vote for him.
Thought Number Five: (again political) Three and four DO NOT suggest that the other guy is either “family values” or “pro-troops” it only states the guy suggested isn’t and only fools would say he is.”
So since there was so much controversy I thought I would clarify where I stand a bit.
To start with, I DO NOT stand by the “it’s the parents fault” line of thinking. Never have never willed. I also DO NOT think less of any one who gets pregnant out side of marriage. It is a tough situation and one I have in my small way helped many people with. I was commenting on the irony of the party who has said repeatedly though out my life that, teen pregnancy is a sign of poor parenting, suddenly changing its tune. I have had friends reduced to tears by what “good Republicans” have called them for being pregnant; I have NEVER shared their views. Perhaps I should have put the words “so little attention” in quotes so it would have been more obvious. To anyone who thought I shared these views rather then was commenting on others having them, I apologize for the confusion.
Next let me point out that I IN NO WAY support the O man in my statements. NOPE don’t do it. Yeah, I am leaning toward voting for Obama, as a symbol of change, but voting for someone as a symbol rather then as a person is mostly a mistake. It is a mistake I can chose to make, but I understand that my choice is flawed. I may vote for a third party candidate however, I belong to nether big party and may choose to vote that way. Now that the tangent to over let me restate, I said nothing pro-Obama. In number five (although it includes a barb) I even go out of my way to not attach my self to “the other guy”
How that we have those two points out of the way, lets get on to the negative stuff. If you don’t like rants, especially those of a political nature then thank you for reading to this point and go have a good day. However to read past this point is to read words that you may find offensive. This is especially likely if you support Mc Cain or call your self a Republican. I can’t promise that I will be inoffensive to any one else either, so if you read on you were warned.
So to any who are still here, I have a few gripes and I am letting them lose, here and now. I thank the few of you who are still reading for bothering. I know rants of this sort can be tedious.
I am not going to say much about the Democrats or Obama, I am not ranting about them right now. My lack of rant IS NOT a sign of support. I am focusing on the Republicans and Mc Cain; if you try to defend either by attacking any one else I will take that as an admission that I am right. I really hate the “well the other guys did X” false argument. I am going to discuss ONE reason I am not a Republican and ONE problem I have with Mc Cain. I have other Reasons. I have other problems. I also have reasons why I am not a Democrat. I have problems with almost all politicians. Please if you respond, respond ONLY to what I say here, otherwise I am likely to call you names.
I despise double standards. I despise hypocrisy. I was commenting on the hypocrisy of the Republican Party with thought three. For years they have been attacking people who didn’t live up to their “Family Values”. I have had friends verbally attacked by members of their own family in the name of “Republican Family Values”. Divorce was frowned upon and teen pregnancy was “a sign the parents weren’t doing their job”, (“parents” in this case meaning the parents of the pregnant teen.) I believe there are reasons for divorce, and have been called “immoral” by Republicans because of that. If I was immoral for supporting my friends while they went though rough times, then what does that make the party who supports a presidential candidate who has a divorce? Why is it acceptable for your guy to divorce his wife but not acceptable for everyone else? It is not divorce I have a problem with it is the serious double standard. The Republicans have used teen pregnancy as proof as the “problems of the world” for as long as I can remember. A pregnant teen was proof of a lack of character on the teen’s parents in EVERY case. Again I do not agree with this. I have been arguing with Republicans over it for years. If it is no longer a sign of poor parenting and leadership skills then the Republicans need to apologize for YEARS of hatred. If it is still a sign then the Republicans need to rethink there support of their VP hopeful. They can not have it both ways. That is a double standard, which is hypocrisy.
Now something a little touchier, thought four. I write this as a person who has never been in the armed services so perhaps my understanding is flawed. Mc Cain claims to support the troops but has repeatedly voted against things that would help them. The GI bill is only one example, but it is the big one for me. He uses his ex-military credentials to “prove” he is pro-military but he stabbed his fellow soldiers in the back voting to deny them a college education. From what I understand of military tradition this is the opposite of “looking out for your brothers”. I believe he will treat those who vote for him with the same respect he does his “brothers”. This alone is reason enough for me not to vote for him. I have others but as I said I am sticking to the tights from before.
I really only included thought five to point out that my thoughts contained support for no one. So now that that is over, how about some mint Ice Cream, maybe organic, Yum.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
12
So I sit here writing not feeling 100% and a few thoughts have crossed my brain. I will now share them in the hopes that they will entertain and possibly cause thinking to happen in the world at large. Yes I know not likely but one can always hope that ones words will inspire, even when they are in ones opinion less then inspirational. So on we go a bit random today but life is like that sometimes.
Thought Number One: If someone says they support evil, do they still have the right to take the moral high ground? My immediate answer is “No”, I mean this seems like a no brainier, but I have recently been told I was essentially a drug using pervert by people who also think that evil gets things done, and should be used in moderation. At first I held back thinking this might be a problem with the definition of evil. Then I realized that ANY support for what you consider evil places you on the moral low ground. Even if we disagree on what evil is if you support it and I don’t you are immoral by the dictionary definition once you support “evil”.
Thought Number Two: (triggered by attempts to contact old friends) If you don’t want to communicate with someone and you don’t tell them you are a coward. Apparently my difficulty in contacting old friends in the past has pissed some of said old friends off. While I find that sad, I have only my self to blame. That said in two cases I have received no response but have got indirect word that I am “no longer considered a friend”. Now mind you indirect word could be wrong or a lie, so I’m more curious then mad, but IF it’s true that seems cowardly to me. A simple “go away” while would get your point across, to not answer is to simply make me think my method has failed, which in one case is what I still think.
Thought Number Three: (this one is political) If you are going to be the “Family Values” party, you need to have candidates who didn’t divorce their wives for a prettier girl or not pay so little attention to there teen daughters that said daughters get pregnant.
Thought Number Four: (again political) You can not support the troops by voting for the guy who voted against the GI bill. He did the opposite of supporting the troops and so do you if you vote for him.
Thought Number Five: (again political) Three and four DO NOT suggest that the other guy is either “family values” or “pro-troops” it only states the guy suggested isn’t and only fools would say he is.
Thought Number Six: Humming birds would be dangerous beasts if only slightly larger. The darn things are fearless and keep buzzing my head as I write this. (They also seem to be curious abut me as long as the lap top keeps me in place)
Thought Number Seven: A proper Christian church couldn’t support either major political party in the U.S. Mind you it has been a while since I went to a christen church for any thing other then Easter, Christmas, and other special events, but neither party (or at least it’s leaders) seems to be particularly Christian. Now I am not saying a person who is christen couldn’t vote for either, they may feel forced to vote for what they view as the lesser evil. However I have a hard time seeing how either party could be supported by a proper Christian church.
Thought Number Eight: If my tax dollars can go to faith based Christian programs that are anti-homosexual then a Christians can go to faith based pagan programs that are pro-homosexual.
Thought Number Nine: I need to lighten up seven of the last eight thought were WAY to deep for a happy go lucky guy like my self.
Thought Number Ten: I like dark chocolate and mint. Further more I seem to be craving it as I type this. I mean a lot. Any body got some. Mint fudge would work. So would Girl Scout Thin Mints. Mmmmmmm Mint and Chocolate.
Thought Number Eleven: It is difficult to be torn between the need to give an area a comic book store and the need to get out of said area. This is even harder when running said store might (or might not) make living in said area tolerable.
Thought Number Twelve: Twelve is my lucky number, so I should stop at a dozen of these thoughts. OH look I have achieved my goal. Huzzah for me.
Thought Number One: If someone says they support evil, do they still have the right to take the moral high ground? My immediate answer is “No”, I mean this seems like a no brainier, but I have recently been told I was essentially a drug using pervert by people who also think that evil gets things done, and should be used in moderation. At first I held back thinking this might be a problem with the definition of evil. Then I realized that ANY support for what you consider evil places you on the moral low ground. Even if we disagree on what evil is if you support it and I don’t you are immoral by the dictionary definition once you support “evil”.
Thought Number Two: (triggered by attempts to contact old friends) If you don’t want to communicate with someone and you don’t tell them you are a coward. Apparently my difficulty in contacting old friends in the past has pissed some of said old friends off. While I find that sad, I have only my self to blame. That said in two cases I have received no response but have got indirect word that I am “no longer considered a friend”. Now mind you indirect word could be wrong or a lie, so I’m more curious then mad, but IF it’s true that seems cowardly to me. A simple “go away” while would get your point across, to not answer is to simply make me think my method has failed, which in one case is what I still think.
Thought Number Three: (this one is political) If you are going to be the “Family Values” party, you need to have candidates who didn’t divorce their wives for a prettier girl or not pay so little attention to there teen daughters that said daughters get pregnant.
Thought Number Four: (again political) You can not support the troops by voting for the guy who voted against the GI bill. He did the opposite of supporting the troops and so do you if you vote for him.
Thought Number Five: (again political) Three and four DO NOT suggest that the other guy is either “family values” or “pro-troops” it only states the guy suggested isn’t and only fools would say he is.
Thought Number Six: Humming birds would be dangerous beasts if only slightly larger. The darn things are fearless and keep buzzing my head as I write this. (They also seem to be curious abut me as long as the lap top keeps me in place)
Thought Number Seven: A proper Christian church couldn’t support either major political party in the U.S. Mind you it has been a while since I went to a christen church for any thing other then Easter, Christmas, and other special events, but neither party (or at least it’s leaders) seems to be particularly Christian. Now I am not saying a person who is christen couldn’t vote for either, they may feel forced to vote for what they view as the lesser evil. However I have a hard time seeing how either party could be supported by a proper Christian church.
Thought Number Eight: If my tax dollars can go to faith based Christian programs that are anti-homosexual then a Christians can go to faith based pagan programs that are pro-homosexual.
Thought Number Nine: I need to lighten up seven of the last eight thought were WAY to deep for a happy go lucky guy like my self.
Thought Number Ten: I like dark chocolate and mint. Further more I seem to be craving it as I type this. I mean a lot. Any body got some. Mint fudge would work. So would Girl Scout Thin Mints. Mmmmmmm Mint and Chocolate.
Thought Number Eleven: It is difficult to be torn between the need to give an area a comic book store and the need to get out of said area. This is even harder when running said store might (or might not) make living in said area tolerable.
Thought Number Twelve: Twelve is my lucky number, so I should stop at a dozen of these thoughts. OH look I have achieved my goal. Huzzah for me.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
A QUESTION
So I have a question, how does one undo a drift? I have lost touch with several friends over the past few years. I blame no one but my self, I have been lazy in all form of writing, whether plays, stories, blogs or personal correspondence. This is something I am endeavoring to fix. With the first three it is fairly easy, as the shoe company would say, just do it. The forth is far trickier. I honestly can not figure out a polite, non-weird, way to open correspondence. So I put it to you audience: How does one approach the people whom one has not communicated with in an appropriate fashion?
Maybe I will share the best answers, maybe not. No promises here.
Maybe I will share the best answers, maybe not. No promises here.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
In the last few weeks I have officiated at two different weddings. Always the officiate never the groom. Actually I discovered something that you rarely hear about, bringing two people together in marriage is a wonderful experience. The reason you don’t hear about it is that the day of marriage is not about the guy (or gal) who performs the ceremony it is about the Bride and Groom, as it should be. A wedding is the calibration of two peoples love and devotion for each other and those two deserve all the attention. The guy who officiates is just a traditional (and legal) part of ceremony. He is a side kick to eternal love. Having said all that, it is also a really cool thing to be able to do. Both of the weddings I preformed (to date there is at least one more) were for friends. Seeing two friends filled with love, joy, and happiness while pledging their lives to each other is even more amazing at two feet away. Being allowed to assist two people in beginning a life together is an honor. Perhaps it because I am a guy the “magic” of wedding has often in the past escaped me, but it is inescapable when you are the one performing the “spell”. It is a joy to be allowed to be part of someone’s joy. So to the happy couples, Thank you for letting me be a part of your day. May you have all the joy you deserve. I am awed by being allowed to be a part of it.
Rev. Bradley Null
Rev. Bradley Null
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Drugs
In the past few mouths I have been in various forms and ways accused of being “on drugs”. Four of the accusers took a “and therefore I must stay away from you so you wont be a bad example” tone. It is to those four in particular, that I address this, however points will be made that ALL might enjoy. If you are not one of these people enjoy my rant if you ARE one of these people please pay attention.
Let me start by saying this all four people this goes out to were A) people who I called friend up until these accusations started, B) are people who I have “let slide” when I traced rumors that were false to them C) all said they couldn’t associate with me due to the immorality of my drug use and D) who never bothered to TALK to me about this.
My anger at the Evil Four (henceforth referred to as E4kers), is such that I am writing this then writing them off. This Blog is strictly for me to vent and move on. If any of the E4 read this I truly hope you learn your lesson as you have lost a friend, but I figure that as you are most likely to “moral” to read this I doubt it.
So why am I so Angered? Well imaginary audience voice I am glad you asked. There are many reasons but lets start with. “I am not on drugs”. Nope sorry. Not even prescription. Not cigarettes, not booze, not pot, and dear gods not any thing else. Let me be clear the ONE, illegal drug I might be on would be Pot, however as I am looking for employment and broke (related things there) it is both stupid and imposable for me to get any much less smoke it. If we are counting Alcohol as a drug (it is legal) I still wouldn’t again due to funding. I haven’t smoked a cigarette in 12 years. Any other drug, not for me, not for a while and never to any real degree. So anger part one is “I am not on drugs you lying E4kers”
So let us take the “no drugs right now” fact and add it to our 4 part list above. I must say the first bit, “A” is my fault I should have been more careful with my friendship but hey I am a friendly guy and hate letting any one go. I obviously should have the moment “B” happened. When you spread roomers about friends you are betraying the friendship, something that as it hurts others and not just you is LESS moral then any drug use. That brings us to “C”, your so called “morality”. How is it moral to spread lies? All 4 of you E4kers talked about morality while LYING about me. I know 3 of you claim to be Christian witch you failed to be by “bearing false witness” against me. The one I am less sure of has property of mine that he stole. I go out of my way to not harm others, you harm with lies. You DO NOT get to play the morality card with me. This leaves us with “D” none of you E4kers bothered to talk to me, not even on the phone. ALL of you sent me messages via a “networking site” not even my personal E-mail. None of you could be bothered to check to see if your lies were true. That is wrong and cowardly. But heaven forbid you give the person you are slandering a chance to defend themselves. I am done with you E4kers because you are ALL lying cowards.
So E4kers I don’t know why you couldn’t just turn down my friend request or delete me as a friend. I don’t know why you couldn’t actually be a friend and call. But thank you for showing you true colors, I hope your kids turn out ok, learning morality from liars and all. Remember you are as moral as you are brave and honest.
Bradleyman
(And yes not including names and quotes may seem a bit cowardly on my part, but I am afraid of lawsuits and one of the E4kers come from a family that sues it’s self at reunions)
Let me start by saying this all four people this goes out to were A) people who I called friend up until these accusations started, B) are people who I have “let slide” when I traced rumors that were false to them C) all said they couldn’t associate with me due to the immorality of my drug use and D) who never bothered to TALK to me about this.
My anger at the Evil Four (henceforth referred to as E4kers), is such that I am writing this then writing them off. This Blog is strictly for me to vent and move on. If any of the E4 read this I truly hope you learn your lesson as you have lost a friend, but I figure that as you are most likely to “moral” to read this I doubt it.
So why am I so Angered? Well imaginary audience voice I am glad you asked. There are many reasons but lets start with. “I am not on drugs”. Nope sorry. Not even prescription. Not cigarettes, not booze, not pot, and dear gods not any thing else. Let me be clear the ONE, illegal drug I might be on would be Pot, however as I am looking for employment and broke (related things there) it is both stupid and imposable for me to get any much less smoke it. If we are counting Alcohol as a drug (it is legal) I still wouldn’t again due to funding. I haven’t smoked a cigarette in 12 years. Any other drug, not for me, not for a while and never to any real degree. So anger part one is “I am not on drugs you lying E4kers”
So let us take the “no drugs right now” fact and add it to our 4 part list above. I must say the first bit, “A” is my fault I should have been more careful with my friendship but hey I am a friendly guy and hate letting any one go. I obviously should have the moment “B” happened. When you spread roomers about friends you are betraying the friendship, something that as it hurts others and not just you is LESS moral then any drug use. That brings us to “C”, your so called “morality”. How is it moral to spread lies? All 4 of you E4kers talked about morality while LYING about me. I know 3 of you claim to be Christian witch you failed to be by “bearing false witness” against me. The one I am less sure of has property of mine that he stole. I go out of my way to not harm others, you harm with lies. You DO NOT get to play the morality card with me. This leaves us with “D” none of you E4kers bothered to talk to me, not even on the phone. ALL of you sent me messages via a “networking site” not even my personal E-mail. None of you could be bothered to check to see if your lies were true. That is wrong and cowardly. But heaven forbid you give the person you are slandering a chance to defend themselves. I am done with you E4kers because you are ALL lying cowards.
So E4kers I don’t know why you couldn’t just turn down my friend request or delete me as a friend. I don’t know why you couldn’t actually be a friend and call. But thank you for showing you true colors, I hope your kids turn out ok, learning morality from liars and all. Remember you are as moral as you are brave and honest.
Bradleyman
(And yes not including names and quotes may seem a bit cowardly on my part, but I am afraid of lawsuits and one of the E4kers come from a family that sues it’s self at reunions)
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Why I hate Gambit or where the X-men went wrong.
WARNING: The following bit of written entertainment and thought is about comic books. If you are NOT in to comic books then this will probably be boring. You were warned. Don’t be like the friend of a friend of mine who went to Comic con to see her favorite British actor (on a Dr. Who panel) and then was amazed by all the comic geeks acting like comic geeks.
I started reading comics when I started reading. However really reading comics, becoming a fan of the on going story line didn’t happen until I was 11. I read a comic that made me want to read and collect and follow the stories. Until then comics had been just something fun, but I rarely got two consecutive issues of the same comic book. I liked the heroes the way a lot of kids do and it was a diversion but all of that changed with a single issue. It wasn’t mine, it was about two months old or so when I read it, and it changed my life. You may think that is an exaggeration but I am a comic geek because of it. The issue in question is X-men 138, written as the epilog of the “Dark Phoenix Saga” and packaged as the first story in “Days of future past”. I now own both collections and in reading them as an adult I must say I was lucky to be reading some of the best comic stories ever written.
Back to that particular issue. X-men 138 was set at the funeral for Jean Grey (the first one) and in it via flash back her fiancé, Scott (Cyclops) Summers, tells the entire history of the team from issue one through the death of his lover. As jumping on points go I scored BIG time. The thing that impressed me most that made want to know what would happen was that the X-men could change. The current team except for Cyclops was NOT the original team. One of the originals had rejoined and died. One of the current members showed no problem with the idea of killing someone if it was needed. This was like nothing I thought superheroes should be but it made sense to me. Then at the end this guy Cyclops quits to go morn his love, the one guy (according to what I had just read) who had been there the whole time was leaving. I was amazed, shocked and hooked for life. Well hooked on comics any way. My love of comics and Marvel came (as it did for many) via the X-Men; I was a huge Night Crawler fan. I even had a crush on Kitty, who was at the time older then me.
Over the years I became more and more bored with the X-men. I stayed loyal to them well past the point I found them entertaining. Recently I was explaining the importance to comics in general of the above mentioned Dark Phoenix Saga; I was asked when I stopped liking the X-men as much. It took some thinking but I figured it out. There are two character events that I can point too which best show the problem. They are the return of Jean Grey and the introduction of Gambit. (The sad part is that in both cases there are things about both characters that I like.)
The first fatal blow was the Return of Jean Grey. Her return to life was done so Marvel could launch a new title called “X-Factor” staring the original five X-men. It was not the first X-men spin off (New Mutants has that honor), but it was the one turned the X-men in to the “X-books” as now there were four (Wolverine had his own comic by this point). So with Fantastic Four # 286 and X-factor # 1 we get the first mortal wound to what had made the X- folk cool. Permanent change was GONE. The team that had left to go on to other things was all back, The beast was no longer fuzzy and Jean was back from the dead. At that moment Marvel reversed everything that had made the X-men special, but it would get worse.
The second fatal blow is shown in the introduction of Gambit in X-men #266. Yes I know he has a cool look and accent. There is a lot about the character that is great. I am picking on Mr. LeBeau because he is the most visible of the “fake changes”. He is presented as a “new idea” which he ultimately isn’t. He is a mysterious Mutant with a dark past who prefers to go it alone but sticks with the team any way, in other words Wolverine II. Now I like odd variants on old themes and Gambit IS that. It’s why I like him. That said he is not real change any more then having a third Robin hang out with Batman is. After he joined how many “mutant with a dark past loner” characters popped up in the X-books? I can’t even name them all.
See, the problem with both of these characters and what they caused is that together they made a great comic book in to a group of average comics. Jean returned and proved change was not real in the X-books. Gambit (and those like him) was then bought out and presented as change when he (and they) was not. I am not saying this destroyed the X-men. I am saying they represent where those comics went from being “cutting edge” to being just superhero stories no different from any other team book. None of this would bother me if fans of Marvel in general and the X-men in particular didn’t constantly talk about how “edgy” their books are. They are Ok team stories but out side of Grant Morison’s run nothing “new” has graced those pages since Jean’s return.
Well that’s my take any way
Peace, Love and Squids
Bradleyman
update
Update. No sign of further injuries. The Daily Press has told me they will print a retraction and have been very nice about it. I have a replacement car. This seems to be going as well as can be expected, maybe a little better which is an odd thing to say about a “I should be dead (and my lady too)” crash.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Smash
For those of you who do not know. I was hit and my car totaled on Monday night. I was struck by a Shrifts deputy. I will have details and stories about this next few blogs BUT right now I am still putting pieces back together. For those of you local enough to have seen the article about this in the Daily Press on Tuesday, My lights were on, the article is in error when it says otherwise. http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/apple_7601___article.html/valley_crash.html
For those who want to read the inaccurate article that also fails to mention my car was flipped rolled and totaled in such a way that makes Crystina and I lucky to be alive much less unhurt.
For those who want to read the inaccurate article that also fails to mention my car was flipped rolled and totaled in such a way that makes Crystina and I lucky to be alive much less unhurt.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
The 12 Revealed
So when last my words graced here I took a short cut and made a quick list. The list was designed to get a reaction from readers…and it didn’t. I got two responses. The one from My space that pointed out (correctly) that I had written “Museum” instead of “Muslim”. I will tackle that at then end of this. The Second on LiveJornal was a smaller version what I am going to say now. (Kudos to Cheshirekitty) The statements on my list are all things I believe but are all improvable as written. Let us explore my list in grater detail.
1) “If you want to live in a Christian nation, you do not want to be an American citizen.”
This is my personal take on the Church and State Issue. As a Pagan and a student of the Constitution, I despise the people who try to take my country from me by claiming it is a Christian nation. Yes all of the founding fathers were raised Christian and many were in adulthood. However several (Ben Franklin for one) revealed in their writing that while they believed in a “higher power” they were unsure that Christianity (at least as it existed then) had it right. Those who were Christian weren’t all the same type of Christian either, so when given an opportunity to create a new nation they added a clause to allow all religions. Any attempt to force any religion (even the “right one”) on the U.S.A. is an assault on this freedom. There fore those who want to live in a nation with out this freedom, such as in a Christian nation (or Jewish, or Museum etc.), do not want to live in our nation with this freedom.
“But Bradleyman what makes your statement improvable then?” I am so very glad you asked. The main problem is the world “want”. “Want” presents us with a triple flaw. First, as humans we can want things that are mutually exclusive. You might want to be old for the wisdom but young for the energy. I might want to have the fame of stardom but also be able to go to the corner store and not be noticed. A third person might want a woman who was his love/sex slave, as well as a strong independent woman. Second, wants do not affect reality. My father used to say to me as a child “want in one hand spit in the other see which one fills up first” (once I hit 18 the word “spit” was replaced). Wants are only desires. They have no real value. They are illusions. Third, since wants are illogical illusions, you can not deduce them from a logical argument. With out that (or the ability to read minds) you can not assume any person’s want from any of their other wants.
2) “The Original Star Wars Trilogy is far better then the Lord of the Rings movies (the LoR Books being better then both)”
I love both trilogies. I grew up with Luke. I was in first grade when Star Wars (not yet referred to as a New Hope as it was the only one) came out. I wanted to be Luke when I grew up. So I like Star Wars better. However dose that make it a better movie? With out guide lines “better” is meaningless. We could argue over “better acting”, “better special effects”, “better drama” etc. that would give us some direction, but we would still need a pre argument agreement on what “better” meant in any of those. With out guidelines “better” is just what I (or whom ever) likes, and by that standard the final 3 episodes of “The Tomorrow People” could be considered good science fiction. Just for the record if you remove the childhood nostalgia I think they are about equal in terms of ways to waste my time enjoyably.
3) “Most people who say “get a life” don’t have one and are speaking to people who do.”
My original reason for including this in my “improvable but believed” list can be simply sated as “while the statement made might imply something about the speaker we can't infer anything about who it is being spoken too” (Thank you Cheshirekitty for saying it in about half as many words as I would have). It was in fact the reason I added the “and are speaking to people who do”. That said in trying to write this I came across a problem. I do not know what “get a life” means. If we are not dead we all have a life. Witch means that even those who say this have one; I hate it when I disprove my self but I just did. Well at least I can take this opportunity to point out that I am capable of changing my mind if there is a good enough argument. I think “get a life” just irritates me so much I want to say bad things about the people who use it. So the new statement is “people who say ‘get a life’ are being meaningless in way that irritates Bradleyman” (and even that statement could be changed if some one can tell what the phrase actually means).
4) In the comics, Batman could give Iron man the beating he deserves, armor or no armor.
I didn’t actually expect a whole lot of argument on this one. It can’t be proven because we can’t test it. They do not exist in this universe for us to test. Heck in the comics they don’t even exist in the same universe. Given what they have been shown to do well the Bat is the better fighter and has taken on armored foes. (And for those who read Civil War you know why Iron Man deserves to be beat). This is the sort of improvable debate that all comics fans LOVE to have but the saner ones fear to tread on. Yes it is fun to discuss “X” vs. “Y” and try to counter your opponent’s arguments. However that Sub-Set of Comics fandom that gets rabid will eventually show up and call you names for disagreeing with him (or rarely her). Worse yet they offer no argument to support their position that your are a "retarded dunder head” for disagreeing with them. I am embarrassed to share ANY of my hobbies with theses people.
5) If you are pro war you are anti-Christ.
This is a statement based on the title “prince on peace” and nothing else. I can think of MANY reasons why one would reluctantly decide there was a need for war, despite the peaceful teaching of their religion. This holds true for Christians. True Christ taught peace but when your family is threatened there may be reasons to fight back. “Bradleyman if you feel this way then why did you include the above” Because my dear reader I have been told “Christ supports us in this war”. I have read the Bible, I like the Bible, and it has great stories, regardless of how true you think they are. Jesus as he is presented to us in said book would not support ANY war. He would forgive you for your actions, especially if they were necessary, but he would not support war. I take this to the extreme in my bit of rhetoric here. I still basically believe it, but with exceptions. (Yes it is my opinion that the War in Iraq flies in the face of everything Christ taught, but I am not a Christian any more so it is not my place to correct them in their beliefs)
6) In the movies, Bruce could beat Tony but the suit could take the car.
The simple answer here is see #4. However it’s really based on the movie trailers I had just seen seconds before writing the above. The suits just look far more awesome then the current movies “bat tank”. So this actually goes back to 2. None the less I have already given it more words then it disserves as a subject.
7) Keeping Marijuana illegal supports gang activity.
I could go on at length about why Marijuana should be legal. There are many people out there who can do it better then I can. Google it. The fact that prohibition of a substance leads to a black market of said substance, and said black market will be run by organized crime is irrefutable. However to say that support of said prohibition equals support for said gang activity, is a serious error. Removing the revenue from gangs would be a good thing, but that doesn’t mean that if you think pot is bad you think the gang banger are good. This could be fixed had I said “Keeping Marijuana illegal helps fund gang activity, via the black market.
8) There are Museums who are loyal Americans.
Yes I meant “Muslims” not “Museums”. How ever the statement is equally false either way. The flaw: “loyal Americans”. I believe, that to be a loyal American you must question your government. I believe, that to be a loyal American, you must vote as often as you can and do so in an informed fashion. There are people who think the only “true” loyal Americans are the members of their political party (and I see this in third parties as well as the big two). We have NO solid definition of what it means to be a loyal American, so regardless of weather we are talking about a religion or a building with cool stuff in it the argument is not provable.
9) If marriage is a sacred institution then it is religious and must be separated from state sponsorship or tax breaks.
10) If marriage is a state institution then it is a legal agreement and ANY ONE should be able to do it, with any one (over the age of consent) they want.
First these are really two parts of one argument but 12 is my favorite number and I need to reach that goal. Second they belong to a much longer rant that I am still try to work the kinks out of. Also after trying in my own words to describe the problems with the statements I find that I am going to have to steal from Cheshirekitty’s comments once again:
“9-Separation of church and state does not mean exclusion of all things religious from government. The government has granted all religions a certain level of support including tax breaks, because our founding fathers believed that religion in whatever form was beneficial and necessary for a healthy nation.
10- when you say "should" you reduce the statement to personal opinion rather than logic; moreover, just being of the age of consent doesn't consider situations like mail order brides or marriages for the sake of citizenship. It's not enough to break down a law to allow what you support without consideration for the doors it opens to other things.”
She said it better then any of the 47 ways I tried to so I will use her quote and let it stand.
11) If you swear before God and the people to “uphold the constitution”, then in ANY WAY try to get around for ANY reason, then you have betrayed that oath.
To this the lovely Cheshirekitty replied “by this logic you stand against the Bill of Rights and consider those who instituted it to be traitors...” and she is WRONG. Ok. Only a little wrong, but my ego is still bruised over my lack of a better answer for 9 and 10 so allow me to briefly gloat. The only reason she is wrong, she used the Bill of Rights. No one swore anything about the Constitution until it was ratified, and that didn’t happen until after those 10 amendments were added. That said the flaw she pointed out does hold for any one who voted on any amendment after # 10. As I am a fan of many if not all amendments since then (big fan of 13, 19, 21 and hate 18) then I can not truly stand by the above statement. Now I could fix the above to read “If you swear before God and the people to “uphold the constitution”, then try to get around it, with out a valid and explainable reason then you have betrayed that oath and those you swore to.”, but that still leaves the “what does valid mean” argument, to keep it from being truly fixed.
12) Allen Scott IS the greatest Green Lantern of all time.
Yeah this is #4 again. However I am a huge GL fan (all of them even Guy Gardener) and Allen Scott is my favorite. I like magic over science as an explanation for ANY superpower as I expect a reasonable answer from science, and that takes time to explain, “poof magic” gets the story going faster.
13) Believing something doesn’t make it fact and arguing as if it does is will solve little.
Ok that wasn’t on the original list but it’s the point of why I did this. Yeah I added flaws to some of these to make a point, others were pure improvable opinion. As statements of belief I would stand by most of them, but I also accept that many are not provable. I am not saying they are wrong, I am saying I can’t prove them. I like most humans have beliefs that I can not prove. I will stand by those beliefs unless a reasonable argument against them can be proven. With out proof you do not expect me to change my beliefs; I won’t expect you to change yours.
A few notes before I go. Although not provable I stand by most of what I said until proven wrong. I can’t really stand by 3 or 7 as both “get a life” and “loyal American” lack a proper definition in my head right now. Witch I suppose shows I am open minded enough to let some things go. (Huxxah for me). Also in refuting my arguments Cheshirekitty said “For the record I am personally painfully in favor of gay marriage. I'm just addressing the construction of your arguments.” The first sentence it one I 100% agree with, the second was my point.
Peace, Love, and Goldfish
Bradleyman.
P.S. About the spelling. I have a learning disability called Dysgraphia. Dysgraphia is a learning disability resulting from the difficulty in expressing thoughts in writing and graphing. It generally refers to extremely poor handwriting and spelling. I have taken tests that show that despite my intelligence I spell AT the “national average”. Now I know my spelling is bad so that is a sad statement about our “national average”. I use a spell checker but words as other words may sometimes slip though. I apologize for this. That said if you don’t like what I said and use my spelling to say I am stupid, I will assume you were too stupid to form a real argument. Yes I am sensitive about this, I have had my spelling used against me like this before and the scars and bruising are far from healed.
1) “If you want to live in a Christian nation, you do not want to be an American citizen.”
This is my personal take on the Church and State Issue. As a Pagan and a student of the Constitution, I despise the people who try to take my country from me by claiming it is a Christian nation. Yes all of the founding fathers were raised Christian and many were in adulthood. However several (Ben Franklin for one) revealed in their writing that while they believed in a “higher power” they were unsure that Christianity (at least as it existed then) had it right. Those who were Christian weren’t all the same type of Christian either, so when given an opportunity to create a new nation they added a clause to allow all religions. Any attempt to force any religion (even the “right one”) on the U.S.A. is an assault on this freedom. There fore those who want to live in a nation with out this freedom, such as in a Christian nation (or Jewish, or Museum etc.), do not want to live in our nation with this freedom.
“But Bradleyman what makes your statement improvable then?” I am so very glad you asked. The main problem is the world “want”. “Want” presents us with a triple flaw. First, as humans we can want things that are mutually exclusive. You might want to be old for the wisdom but young for the energy. I might want to have the fame of stardom but also be able to go to the corner store and not be noticed. A third person might want a woman who was his love/sex slave, as well as a strong independent woman. Second, wants do not affect reality. My father used to say to me as a child “want in one hand spit in the other see which one fills up first” (once I hit 18 the word “spit” was replaced). Wants are only desires. They have no real value. They are illusions. Third, since wants are illogical illusions, you can not deduce them from a logical argument. With out that (or the ability to read minds) you can not assume any person’s want from any of their other wants.
2) “The Original Star Wars Trilogy is far better then the Lord of the Rings movies (the LoR Books being better then both)”
I love both trilogies. I grew up with Luke. I was in first grade when Star Wars (not yet referred to as a New Hope as it was the only one) came out. I wanted to be Luke when I grew up. So I like Star Wars better. However dose that make it a better movie? With out guide lines “better” is meaningless. We could argue over “better acting”, “better special effects”, “better drama” etc. that would give us some direction, but we would still need a pre argument agreement on what “better” meant in any of those. With out guidelines “better” is just what I (or whom ever) likes, and by that standard the final 3 episodes of “The Tomorrow People” could be considered good science fiction. Just for the record if you remove the childhood nostalgia I think they are about equal in terms of ways to waste my time enjoyably.
3) “Most people who say “get a life” don’t have one and are speaking to people who do.”
My original reason for including this in my “improvable but believed” list can be simply sated as “while the statement made might imply something about the speaker we can't infer anything about who it is being spoken too” (Thank you Cheshirekitty for saying it in about half as many words as I would have). It was in fact the reason I added the “and are speaking to people who do”. That said in trying to write this I came across a problem. I do not know what “get a life” means. If we are not dead we all have a life. Witch means that even those who say this have one; I hate it when I disprove my self but I just did. Well at least I can take this opportunity to point out that I am capable of changing my mind if there is a good enough argument. I think “get a life” just irritates me so much I want to say bad things about the people who use it. So the new statement is “people who say ‘get a life’ are being meaningless in way that irritates Bradleyman” (and even that statement could be changed if some one can tell what the phrase actually means).
4) In the comics, Batman could give Iron man the beating he deserves, armor or no armor.
I didn’t actually expect a whole lot of argument on this one. It can’t be proven because we can’t test it. They do not exist in this universe for us to test. Heck in the comics they don’t even exist in the same universe. Given what they have been shown to do well the Bat is the better fighter and has taken on armored foes. (And for those who read Civil War you know why Iron Man deserves to be beat). This is the sort of improvable debate that all comics fans LOVE to have but the saner ones fear to tread on. Yes it is fun to discuss “X” vs. “Y” and try to counter your opponent’s arguments. However that Sub-Set of Comics fandom that gets rabid will eventually show up and call you names for disagreeing with him (or rarely her). Worse yet they offer no argument to support their position that your are a "retarded dunder head” for disagreeing with them. I am embarrassed to share ANY of my hobbies with theses people.
5) If you are pro war you are anti-Christ.
This is a statement based on the title “prince on peace” and nothing else. I can think of MANY reasons why one would reluctantly decide there was a need for war, despite the peaceful teaching of their religion. This holds true for Christians. True Christ taught peace but when your family is threatened there may be reasons to fight back. “Bradleyman if you feel this way then why did you include the above” Because my dear reader I have been told “Christ supports us in this war”. I have read the Bible, I like the Bible, and it has great stories, regardless of how true you think they are. Jesus as he is presented to us in said book would not support ANY war. He would forgive you for your actions, especially if they were necessary, but he would not support war. I take this to the extreme in my bit of rhetoric here. I still basically believe it, but with exceptions. (Yes it is my opinion that the War in Iraq flies in the face of everything Christ taught, but I am not a Christian any more so it is not my place to correct them in their beliefs)
6) In the movies, Bruce could beat Tony but the suit could take the car.
The simple answer here is see #4. However it’s really based on the movie trailers I had just seen seconds before writing the above. The suits just look far more awesome then the current movies “bat tank”. So this actually goes back to 2. None the less I have already given it more words then it disserves as a subject.
7) Keeping Marijuana illegal supports gang activity.
I could go on at length about why Marijuana should be legal. There are many people out there who can do it better then I can. Google it. The fact that prohibition of a substance leads to a black market of said substance, and said black market will be run by organized crime is irrefutable. However to say that support of said prohibition equals support for said gang activity, is a serious error. Removing the revenue from gangs would be a good thing, but that doesn’t mean that if you think pot is bad you think the gang banger are good. This could be fixed had I said “Keeping Marijuana illegal helps fund gang activity, via the black market.
8) There are Museums who are loyal Americans.
Yes I meant “Muslims” not “Museums”. How ever the statement is equally false either way. The flaw: “loyal Americans”. I believe, that to be a loyal American you must question your government. I believe, that to be a loyal American, you must vote as often as you can and do so in an informed fashion. There are people who think the only “true” loyal Americans are the members of their political party (and I see this in third parties as well as the big two). We have NO solid definition of what it means to be a loyal American, so regardless of weather we are talking about a religion or a building with cool stuff in it the argument is not provable.
9) If marriage is a sacred institution then it is religious and must be separated from state sponsorship or tax breaks.
10) If marriage is a state institution then it is a legal agreement and ANY ONE should be able to do it, with any one (over the age of consent) they want.
First these are really two parts of one argument but 12 is my favorite number and I need to reach that goal. Second they belong to a much longer rant that I am still try to work the kinks out of. Also after trying in my own words to describe the problems with the statements I find that I am going to have to steal from Cheshirekitty’s comments once again:
“9-Separation of church and state does not mean exclusion of all things religious from government. The government has granted all religions a certain level of support including tax breaks, because our founding fathers believed that religion in whatever form was beneficial and necessary for a healthy nation.
10- when you say "should" you reduce the statement to personal opinion rather than logic; moreover, just being of the age of consent doesn't consider situations like mail order brides or marriages for the sake of citizenship. It's not enough to break down a law to allow what you support without consideration for the doors it opens to other things.”
She said it better then any of the 47 ways I tried to so I will use her quote and let it stand.
11) If you swear before God and the people to “uphold the constitution”, then in ANY WAY try to get around for ANY reason, then you have betrayed that oath.
To this the lovely Cheshirekitty replied “by this logic you stand against the Bill of Rights and consider those who instituted it to be traitors...” and she is WRONG. Ok. Only a little wrong, but my ego is still bruised over my lack of a better answer for 9 and 10 so allow me to briefly gloat. The only reason she is wrong, she used the Bill of Rights. No one swore anything about the Constitution until it was ratified, and that didn’t happen until after those 10 amendments were added. That said the flaw she pointed out does hold for any one who voted on any amendment after # 10. As I am a fan of many if not all amendments since then (big fan of 13, 19, 21 and hate 18) then I can not truly stand by the above statement. Now I could fix the above to read “If you swear before God and the people to “uphold the constitution”, then try to get around it, with out a valid and explainable reason then you have betrayed that oath and those you swore to.”, but that still leaves the “what does valid mean” argument, to keep it from being truly fixed.
12) Allen Scott IS the greatest Green Lantern of all time.
Yeah this is #4 again. However I am a huge GL fan (all of them even Guy Gardener) and Allen Scott is my favorite. I like magic over science as an explanation for ANY superpower as I expect a reasonable answer from science, and that takes time to explain, “poof magic” gets the story going faster.
13) Believing something doesn’t make it fact and arguing as if it does is will solve little.
Ok that wasn’t on the original list but it’s the point of why I did this. Yeah I added flaws to some of these to make a point, others were pure improvable opinion. As statements of belief I would stand by most of them, but I also accept that many are not provable. I am not saying they are wrong, I am saying I can’t prove them. I like most humans have beliefs that I can not prove. I will stand by those beliefs unless a reasonable argument against them can be proven. With out proof you do not expect me to change my beliefs; I won’t expect you to change yours.
A few notes before I go. Although not provable I stand by most of what I said until proven wrong. I can’t really stand by 3 or 7 as both “get a life” and “loyal American” lack a proper definition in my head right now. Witch I suppose shows I am open minded enough to let some things go. (Huxxah for me). Also in refuting my arguments Cheshirekitty said “For the record I am personally painfully in favor of gay marriage. I'm just addressing the construction of your arguments.” The first sentence it one I 100% agree with, the second was my point.
Peace, Love, and Goldfish
Bradleyman.
P.S. About the spelling. I have a learning disability called Dysgraphia. Dysgraphia is a learning disability resulting from the difficulty in expressing thoughts in writing and graphing. It generally refers to extremely poor handwriting and spelling. I have taken tests that show that despite my intelligence I spell AT the “national average”. Now I know my spelling is bad so that is a sad statement about our “national average”. I use a spell checker but words as other words may sometimes slip though. I apologize for this. That said if you don’t like what I said and use my spelling to say I am stupid, I will assume you were too stupid to form a real argument. Yes I am sensitive about this, I have had my spelling used against me like this before and the scars and bruising are far from healed.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
The 12
12 things I believe to be true:
1) If you want to live in a Christian nation, you do not want to be an American citizen.
2) The Original Star Wars Trilogy is far better then the Lord of the Rings movies (the LoR Books being better then both)
3) Most people who say “get a life” don’t have one and are speaking to people who do.
4) In the comics, Batman could give Iron man the beating he deserves, armor or no armor.
5) If you are pro war you are anti-Christ.
6) In the movies, Bruce could beat Tony but the suit could take the car.
7) Keeping Marijuana illegal supports gang activity.
8) There are Museums who are loyal Americans.
9) If marriage is a sacred institution then it is religious and must be separated from state sponsorship or tax breaks.
10) If marriage is a state institution then it is a legal agreement and ANY ONE should be able to do it, with any one (over the age of consent) they want.
11) If you swear before God and the people to “uphold the constitution”, then in ANY WAY try to get around for ANY reason, then you have betrayed that oath.
12) Allen Scott IS the greatest Green Lantern of all time.
If you think any of the above is wrong…Tell me why. Yeah I know I am asking for a bit of an argument, but my mind IS open and if I am inaccurate I need to correct my views.
1) If you want to live in a Christian nation, you do not want to be an American citizen.
2) The Original Star Wars Trilogy is far better then the Lord of the Rings movies (the LoR Books being better then both)
3) Most people who say “get a life” don’t have one and are speaking to people who do.
4) In the comics, Batman could give Iron man the beating he deserves, armor or no armor.
5) If you are pro war you are anti-Christ.
6) In the movies, Bruce could beat Tony but the suit could take the car.
7) Keeping Marijuana illegal supports gang activity.
8) There are Museums who are loyal Americans.
9) If marriage is a sacred institution then it is religious and must be separated from state sponsorship or tax breaks.
10) If marriage is a state institution then it is a legal agreement and ANY ONE should be able to do it, with any one (over the age of consent) they want.
11) If you swear before God and the people to “uphold the constitution”, then in ANY WAY try to get around for ANY reason, then you have betrayed that oath.
12) Allen Scott IS the greatest Green Lantern of all time.
If you think any of the above is wrong…Tell me why. Yeah I know I am asking for a bit of an argument, but my mind IS open and if I am inaccurate I need to correct my views.
So here we are.
It’s
Now to all of you who are now saying “Oh that alright then”. You are wrong. Its ok I was wrong when I thought it was a good enough reason to. I recently got a message from someone who had enjoyed reading my blogs; we shall call her Miss M. When She asked my why I gave her pretty much the reason above, and then I started thinking.
There are 2 problems with my reasoning:
First, I have had a fairly grand adventure so far this year. True stable employment has eluded me but I have had many interesting thing happen as I looked for it. I have also had short weird jobs that would have made great stories. Had I written of them while fresh they would have been far better then they will be now. Then there are the ideas you have while driving cross country, many of witch are now forgotten. Lost ideas that wouldn’t lie discarded along interstate 5 if I had preserved them.
Second, NO excuse is good enough. If I am going to call my self a writer (and I have been know to) I should be writing EVERY day and I haven’t been doing that. IF I had been writing every day then making my blog part of that would have been easy. I need to write more and bloging needs to be part of that.
So really I have no excuse. I have a reason, but in looking g at it it’s not a very good one. I have apologies that go out to all the people who liked reading my stuff and wanted more. I have apologies that go out to the dead ideas. Finally I have the intention of writing more, and Bloging is part of that.
So there it is, a blog to sort of cover why there haven’t been more blogs. There will be more, hopefully more interesting them this.Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
Geek Philosophy
File this under "Weird but Valid Philosophy - Spirituality."
So, according to Myspace (and all such fare), my religion is Wicca. If they had "Shaman" on their little list, I would probably check that instead, but those things tend to be limited in scope. The term "eclectic" could be placed in front of either of those titles. I also have what most would call a "skewed" view of life, and that extends into religion (or philosophy or spirituality). So, recently I was asked what the influences on my beliefs were, and that "skew" showed up. Now, in my mind's ear, I can hear thousnds of fans asking me: "What form did that skew take, Bradleyman? Please, please enlighten us!" (Well, okay, it's probably ten of you saying "Get to the point," but I can dream.) The "skew" is Popular Culture.
To be precise, some of the more geek-related parts of Popular Culture; Star Wars, Dungeons and Dragons, and comic books. So how do these geeky little pieces of culture figure into my (at least somewhat) serious views of life? Hold on, and I will enlighten you.
Let us start with Star Wars. You probably think I am going to claim to follow the Way of the Jedi. Well, I like them and all, but no. It was not the philosophy of Lucas' thinly-disguised wizards that shaped my world-view. Nor did Luke's "Hero's Journey" shape my view of what a hero is any more than, say, "Clash of the Titans." I love the movies (I even find the prequels more tolerable than most do), but only a small part of them shaped my beliefs. That small part was Yoda. Actually, it was ONE LINE spoken in his Grover-like voice that affected me on a deep spiritual level. It's in "The Empire Strikes Back"; Luke has just failed miserably at using the Force to rescue his X-wing from the swamp. He goes off to sulk, and Yoda effortlessly levitates the X-wing. Seeing this, Luke mutters, "I don't believe it!", and the Jedi Master responds, "That is why you fail." That moment changed me. It wasn't the Force or God or whatever was important, it was Belief. That little piece of philosophy is still part of the core of my world-view. In a five-word response, a green piece of rubber, foam, and imagination taught me one of the most important lessons of my life.
Next, Dungeons and Dragons--or "D and D" as its players and the spelling-impaired are wont to call it. (I am both.) I learned two major things from "D and D". The first was "Order is not always Good." The alignment system of "D and D" has probably caused more fights among players than any other part of the game. It also should be taught in Philosophy 101. I could write an entire article on the system, but for my personal philosophy, the important part was that Good was not always the same as Order, and Chaos was not always the same as Evil. It was a realization that has served me well ever since. The greater realization that neither Law nor Chaos were, by nature, Good (or Bad) took longer to set in, but it still got its start from the realization that Robin Hood was Chaotic Good.
The other thing it taught me was that some people who call themselves Christian lie. Let me explain. My parents didn't jgo to church when I was growing up. As a result, I discovered "D and D" just before I started going to church with the families of my friends. I played the game for about a year before the first "Concerned Christian" told me it was evil. Now, I knew that "D and D" wasn't evil. When I tried to make a case, I was told I was stupid, something else I knew not to be true. It was the beginning of what caused me to seek paths other than Christianity. It was also the start of my hatred for those who use religion to control rather than enlighten, as well.
The grand finale in our little Geek Philosophy lesson is comic books. If I am any single type of Geek, it is a Comic Geek. I love superheroes. This is where I developed my ideas of what "justice" meant. That in and of itself is a major influence, but that is not the end of it. I also learned that "With great power comes great responsibility (Thank you Stan Lee via Ben Parker)." That lesson is one that every spiritual person should take to heart. It makes all who follow it behave as heroes, and in so doing, become heroes. Considering what a large part of my life comics have been you would thing there would be much more to say, but to again quote Stan “nuff’ said”
So, there you have the Holy Trilogy of my geekdom. The ways in which things most people think of as "light entertainment" shaped the way I live my life. Not in small ways, either. The lessons they taught me are all still part of my core belief system. Not bad for things people tend to dismiss as "fluff."
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
beginings
So now that the Holidays are over and the New Year has begun with changes aplenty. I am currently couch surfing and looking for a place to stay near school. The new plan for Blog is at least 3 a week. In my head it rotates evenly between Comics, politics and Philosophy /spirituality/ religion. Allowing me to cover each subject once a week. That is plan. Here is hoping my life stabilizes enough to let that happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)