As my beloved Chargers opted not to make it to the Superbowl this year, I wasn't insanely interested, except for the commercials, which, sadly, I missed most of due to my SIL's recent acquisition of Sims 3. It's fun, if less than user-friendly. However, to review:
Previews: The previews for Alice in Wonderland and the Wonderful World of Harry Potter have me salivating for both. The one for AIW in particular was simply lovely. The preview for Robin Hood was decent, but after having read Stephen Lawhead's Hood, I don't know that I'll be satisfied with a film rendition of anything else.
Commercials: Doritos was the victor this year, with the little kid and his order to "Keep yo' hands off my mama, Keep yo' hands of my Doritos". Snickers came in a close second, if only for the use of Betty White, who I can't believe is still as alive as she is.
Tebow: The whole world just needs to knock it off with the whole Tebow thing. I didn't see the halftime show, but the controversy leading up to it was preposterous. To all the Anti-Tebow Ad people - Shut up. CBS can show whatever they want when they are the ones airing the Superbowl. They are a television station. They aren't required to be non-partisan, and Tebow's mother is certainly entitled to her freedom of speech, and the church which funded the commercial is free to spend their money however they want. To all the Pro-Tebow Ad people - Shut up. Gloating over this woman's freedom of speech is not classy. If a Pro-choice woman had done what she did, you wouldn't be talking about her freedom of speech, you'd be yelling about how inappropriate it is for someone to push a political agenda during the Superbowl.
The Saints - Well played, Gentlemen. Well played.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Monday, February 8, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
Judgey Jeudi - Haiti and one day late
Today I read a facebook status that read thusly:
"Shame on you America: A country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed without eating, elderly going without needed meds, and veterans without medical treatment yet we have a benefit for the people of Haiti on 12 TV stations. 99% of people won't have the guts to copy and repost this, but I do!!!!!"
I stared at it for a moment, thinking "There's no way someone can have posted this. No way." But they did. Apparently, many people share this opinion, and I can't help but wonder: What the F***? (I do not curse, but I will certainly imply it in this situation).
The status has the laughable audacity to compare the situation of the poor in our own country to that of the poor (read: everyone) in Haiti. That comparison is ridiculous at best. There is a system in America for the poor, for the elderly, for the veterans. Is it a perfect system? Of course not, but at least we have a government in place to try and correct the failings in those systems. On any given day, in any cty in America, the homeless of our country can find a place that will give them food, shelter, clothing, free medical care and , in many places, the opportunity to gain an education. Will all the poor in our country avail themselves of these things? No, but the point remains that the resources exist, and are free to those who would come. The elderly have resources from the government as well, and while Veterans do find themselves tied up in beuracratic red tape, their medical care is FREE.
In Haiti, especially after the earthquake, there is nothing. Nothing. In place of a soup kitchen, they are recieving food drops that sometimes have to sit on the tarmac because there is not enough manpower to transport them to hungry mouths. In place of medical care, the sick and injured are in tents, on the ground, with scant medication and fewer supplies. The infastructure that could have provided for the destitute and displaced is gone, crumbled to the ground by the earthquake and aftershocks. This is not New Orleans after Katrina, which had an entire country of fellow Americans to help them rebuild. Haiti is not just one city, but an entire country that now has to start from square one. They have no fellow Haitians that were unaffected by the disaster to help them rebuild, and if we, America, with some of the wealtiest citizens in the world, do not help, who will? Should we stand by in our comfy homes, watch them suffer and say "We've got problems of our own!" right before we flip on the XBOX?
The American method for caring for our poor and elderly is far from perfect, and sadly, there are some who slip through the cracks in the infastructure. But the point here is that there IS a system. There IS help available, wheras in Haiti, there is nothing, and to refuse help, based on the argument of our own poverty, is nothing short of ignorant, ethnocentric and hypocritical. Without assistance, the entire country of Haiti will slip through the cracks, leaving America standing sheepishly by, saying "But we had our own poor!".
"Shame on you America: A country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed without eating, elderly going without needed meds, and veterans without medical treatment yet we have a benefit for the people of Haiti on 12 TV stations. 99% of people won't have the guts to copy and repost this, but I do!!!!!"
I stared at it for a moment, thinking "There's no way someone can have posted this. No way." But they did. Apparently, many people share this opinion, and I can't help but wonder: What the F***? (I do not curse, but I will certainly imply it in this situation).
The status has the laughable audacity to compare the situation of the poor in our own country to that of the poor (read: everyone) in Haiti. That comparison is ridiculous at best. There is a system in America for the poor, for the elderly, for the veterans. Is it a perfect system? Of course not, but at least we have a government in place to try and correct the failings in those systems. On any given day, in any cty in America, the homeless of our country can find a place that will give them food, shelter, clothing, free medical care and , in many places, the opportunity to gain an education. Will all the poor in our country avail themselves of these things? No, but the point remains that the resources exist, and are free to those who would come. The elderly have resources from the government as well, and while Veterans do find themselves tied up in beuracratic red tape, their medical care is FREE.
In Haiti, especially after the earthquake, there is nothing. Nothing. In place of a soup kitchen, they are recieving food drops that sometimes have to sit on the tarmac because there is not enough manpower to transport them to hungry mouths. In place of medical care, the sick and injured are in tents, on the ground, with scant medication and fewer supplies. The infastructure that could have provided for the destitute and displaced is gone, crumbled to the ground by the earthquake and aftershocks. This is not New Orleans after Katrina, which had an entire country of fellow Americans to help them rebuild. Haiti is not just one city, but an entire country that now has to start from square one. They have no fellow Haitians that were unaffected by the disaster to help them rebuild, and if we, America, with some of the wealtiest citizens in the world, do not help, who will? Should we stand by in our comfy homes, watch them suffer and say "We've got problems of our own!" right before we flip on the XBOX?
The American method for caring for our poor and elderly is far from perfect, and sadly, there are some who slip through the cracks in the infastructure. But the point here is that there IS a system. There IS help available, wheras in Haiti, there is nothing, and to refuse help, based on the argument of our own poverty, is nothing short of ignorant, ethnocentric and hypocritical. Without assistance, the entire country of Haiti will slip through the cracks, leaving America standing sheepishly by, saying "But we had our own poor!".
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Mappy Christmashannukuwanzaamadan...and Chinese New Year
Every year around December 1st, Christians all over America take up the “It’s Merry Christmas, Not Happy Holidays” banner. I myself was one of those Christians until this year when I made a stunning realization. Much like the Christian war on “The Gays”, the war on “Happy Holidays” is a shining example of the modern church’s ability to shoot itself in the foot. With an assault rifle, probably.
Somewhere around 1982*, corporate America made a startling discovery. Turns out, we had Jews in our country! Jews, and Muslims, and Black People and CHINESE! Obviously this was a terrible oversight on all our parts, which was only compounded when corporate America realized that all of those people celebrate holidays around the same time as Christmas. Hanukuh, Kwanzaa, Ramadan, Chinese New Year. Add to that the fact that the Catholics had somehow turned up to complicate things, and now we had not only those, but Advent and Epiphany! Thank goodness the Canadians never showed up. If we added Boxing Day to the mess, who knows what kind of chaos could have ensued. But I digress. Shortly after the discovery, board meetings were called to determine what to do with this newfound knowledge, and more importantly, the newfound potential for profit. After all, Halmark had done such a fantastic job commercializing Christmas, why couldn’t corporate America do it with all the other Holidays? Plans were made, Graphs were drawn up, and suddenly someone said “But what will we say?” Thus, “Happy Holidays” was born.
“Happy Holidays” is corporate America’s way of being inclusive and to avoid offending, which is their job if they wish to make a profit. Perhaps this is news to many, but there are thousands of families and people who don’t celebrate Christmas, and we can’t be so selfish that we aren’t willing to share the month of December. How can we spread the love and message that was given to us if we are so busy ranting about how we are being stolen from? In case you have all forgotten, this season is not “ours”. Strictly speaking, the Romans had it first, and it was a festival to celebrate one of their many gods. We just borrowed it and changed it around to suit what we needed it to suit. You can’t feel entitlement over something that wasn’t yours to begin with. We celebrate a worthy thing, truly, and there is nothing wrong with celebrating the birth of our savior, but if Christmas is the only time we think about the fact that our world has lost sight of its creator, we are doing something very wrong.
In reality, there is no reason for Christians to expect corporate America to cater to them during the Holiday season, and it’s counter-productive to think so. In fact, why are we getting so concerned about what corporate America is doing anyway? This is a time to think about a birth whose sole purpose was sacrifice, a young woman who accepted a challenge that seemed impossible, and a young man who trusted what he could not see. This season is a celebration of the greatest gift ever given to mankind, and a reminder to all of us to think first of our fellow man. Why have we allowed simple words to eclipse that? The truth is, we live in a world of many people, religions and creeds. Our mission is to spread the word of God, it’s true, but we will not accomplish that if we are expecting the secular world to spread our message for us.
In this, we Christians have, yet again, missed the point. Somehow rhetoric has replaced the message of goodwill, and semantics the message of peace. If you celebrate Christmas, say “Merry Christmas” without fear of offending. If you are Jewish, wish a “Happy Hanukkuh” with joy. If you celebrate nothing, say nothing, but take all wishes in the spirit in which they are meant, without worrying whether their salutation matches yours.
The point, Church, is to stop worrying so much about what comes out of the mouth of your fellow man between December 1st and 31st, and start worrying about your fellow man*. This season, I challenge every Christian to wish all a “Merry Christmas” while showing Christ’s love to the world, and, when greeted with “Happy Holidays” to smile warmly, wish them the same, and think about the gift that makes this holiday so very happy indeed.
* This year is completely made up, as is any account of corporate America’s actions during said year. Duh.
* I don’t much like this sentence. It’s awkward, but hopefully you see the point. Worry about your fellow man as a person, rather than judging him for the words that are coming out of his mouth.
Somewhere around 1982*, corporate America made a startling discovery. Turns out, we had Jews in our country! Jews, and Muslims, and Black People and CHINESE! Obviously this was a terrible oversight on all our parts, which was only compounded when corporate America realized that all of those people celebrate holidays around the same time as Christmas. Hanukuh, Kwanzaa, Ramadan, Chinese New Year. Add to that the fact that the Catholics had somehow turned up to complicate things, and now we had not only those, but Advent and Epiphany! Thank goodness the Canadians never showed up. If we added Boxing Day to the mess, who knows what kind of chaos could have ensued. But I digress. Shortly after the discovery, board meetings were called to determine what to do with this newfound knowledge, and more importantly, the newfound potential for profit. After all, Halmark had done such a fantastic job commercializing Christmas, why couldn’t corporate America do it with all the other Holidays? Plans were made, Graphs were drawn up, and suddenly someone said “But what will we say?” Thus, “Happy Holidays” was born.
“Happy Holidays” is corporate America’s way of being inclusive and to avoid offending, which is their job if they wish to make a profit. Perhaps this is news to many, but there are thousands of families and people who don’t celebrate Christmas, and we can’t be so selfish that we aren’t willing to share the month of December. How can we spread the love and message that was given to us if we are so busy ranting about how we are being stolen from? In case you have all forgotten, this season is not “ours”. Strictly speaking, the Romans had it first, and it was a festival to celebrate one of their many gods. We just borrowed it and changed it around to suit what we needed it to suit. You can’t feel entitlement over something that wasn’t yours to begin with. We celebrate a worthy thing, truly, and there is nothing wrong with celebrating the birth of our savior, but if Christmas is the only time we think about the fact that our world has lost sight of its creator, we are doing something very wrong.
In reality, there is no reason for Christians to expect corporate America to cater to them during the Holiday season, and it’s counter-productive to think so. In fact, why are we getting so concerned about what corporate America is doing anyway? This is a time to think about a birth whose sole purpose was sacrifice, a young woman who accepted a challenge that seemed impossible, and a young man who trusted what he could not see. This season is a celebration of the greatest gift ever given to mankind, and a reminder to all of us to think first of our fellow man. Why have we allowed simple words to eclipse that? The truth is, we live in a world of many people, religions and creeds. Our mission is to spread the word of God, it’s true, but we will not accomplish that if we are expecting the secular world to spread our message for us.
In this, we Christians have, yet again, missed the point. Somehow rhetoric has replaced the message of goodwill, and semantics the message of peace. If you celebrate Christmas, say “Merry Christmas” without fear of offending. If you are Jewish, wish a “Happy Hanukkuh” with joy. If you celebrate nothing, say nothing, but take all wishes in the spirit in which they are meant, without worrying whether their salutation matches yours.
The point, Church, is to stop worrying so much about what comes out of the mouth of your fellow man between December 1st and 31st, and start worrying about your fellow man*. This season, I challenge every Christian to wish all a “Merry Christmas” while showing Christ’s love to the world, and, when greeted with “Happy Holidays” to smile warmly, wish them the same, and think about the gift that makes this holiday so very happy indeed.
* This year is completely made up, as is any account of corporate America’s actions during said year. Duh.
* I don’t much like this sentence. It’s awkward, but hopefully you see the point. Worry about your fellow man as a person, rather than judging him for the words that are coming out of his mouth.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
If your marriage isn't sacred. don't blame the Gays
Are you sitting down? You should be. It’s about to get intense. Here’s the thing. I’m a conservative. I’m a Southern Baptist. I voted for McCain. I’m Pro-Gay Marriage.
See? I told you it was intense.
Here’s the thing about gay marriage. Actually, here’s the thing about marriage in general. Marriage is not a constitutional right, so get that idea out of your head right this moment. Marriage, for all intents and purposes under the law, is a legal partnership between two consenting adults (Yes, I agree to limiting the definition of marriage to two, and only two, adults. Let’s not get silly. We’ve all seen the wonders of polygamy.) Yes, a marriage is entered into with love and trust and emotional attachment and all those other wonderful, gushy things, but my marriage contract doesn’t mention any of that. My marriage contract, as far as I can see, is a legal document. I had to swear an oath…raise my right hand and repeat after the clerk of courts, even.
Marriage (again, under the law only) provides couples with protection in the event of the death of a spouse, tax exemptions, the ability to share insurance, adopt children, ect ect ect. There is literally NO reason to exclude a citizen of the United States from something that is given to the rest of us over something that is, at it’s base, a purely moral, and mostly religious issue. It seems to me that this resembles the miscegenation laws a bit too much. Remember? When a black woman and a white man (or vice-versa) could not marry because of the color of their skin? Or even, and this is a bit of a stretch, but go with me, the fight in the early 1900’s that secured the vote for women. Men beat these women in the streets because they found it morally reprehensible that women would want to take a hand in their nation’s politics. American History is littered with inequality based on the argument of morality and tradition.
It is not enough anymore to deny marriage to certain individuals based on the beliefs of the religion you practice. I mean really. If a national law allowing gay marriage did pass, how would churches feel if they were then required to marry homosexuals? You would hear pastors in pulpits across America screaming “Separation of Church and State!” Government and Religion in our country are not meant to mix, as much for the Church’s protection as for the Government’s. The Government can make no law restricting or dictating the practices of any religion, and Churches cannot expect Congress to uphold a practice that is discriminatory simply because it goes against the words of the Bible.
So what is the Church to do? Well, for one, if you find homosexual behavior morally reprehensible, don’t marry them in your church. Simple. There are at least 200 churches, notaries and justices of the peace in Jacksonville ALONE. Homosexual couples aren’t going to be offended that you won’t marry them.
Sidetrack! Actually, I can't say that. Maybe they will be offended, but homosexuals who would be offended, listen up. No church is, or should be, required to do anything that goes against their moral code, and you can't be offended every time someone disagrees with you, that would be exausting, and also pointless. In fact, how much integrity can a religious institution have that will go against what they truly believe in order to be politically correct and earn the few dollars that an officiation fee would bring? Come on, No one is required to agree with anyone else, and really, if they find your behavior morally reprehensible, why would you want them to marry you anyway? Remember that the fact that someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them judgemental. It makes the different.
Where was I? Ah yes, churches that won't marry homosexuals on moral grounds, and homosexuals who may or may not, but shouldn't be offended. Point is, there are other officiation options. Also, Church, listen up for a minute, because this is important. Isn’t our goal to win souls to Christ? How good a job are we doing by telling homosexuals “Jesus Loves You! We Love You! But we don’t want to have the same rights under the law that we have, because Jesus says you don't deserve them. Sooooryyyyy” What makes the church think that outlawing gay marriage will somehow achieve the goal of winning people to Christ, which is, I thought, supposed to be our primary focus?
“But Rai! What about the sanctity of marriage?!”
What about it? If your marriage isn’t sacred, don’t blame the Gays. Maybe you need to look at your own life and decide what’s going on to make your marriage less than sacred. The governemt doesn't make a marriage sacred. A marriage is sacred because of what it means to the two induviduals entering into it, not because of how the government defines it. If your marriage suddenly loses sanctity because Gay Gary and Lezzie Linda* are allowed to marry their respective partners, it can't have been that sacred to begin with.
“But Rai! Don’t you believe what the Bible says about Homosexuality?!” Actually, I do. I don’t approve of the lifestyles of my homosexual friends. There. I said it. But, to be fair, I don’t approve of the lifestyles of a lot of my heterosexual friends. I’m judgey that way. (Ask me about my plan for your life. I dare you) That doesn’t mean I’m going to ask them to turn in their voter registration cards and social security numbers until they’re ready to ascribe to my version of morality. I love them, because that’s what Jesus told me I'm supposed to do, and I leave the legislation to offer equality to everyone, because that's what it's supposed to do.
Point is, we have to stop seeing the law as a way to push the religious agenda. The law is there to protect the citizens of our country, and to provide equality for as many as is possible. It is not there to evangilize, to win to Christ, or to proselitize. That's OUR job, and if we're expecting the law to do it for us, we are being lazy.
*I apologize for the use of Gay Gary and Lezzie Linda. They are close friends and said it would be ok.
See? I told you it was intense.
Here’s the thing about gay marriage. Actually, here’s the thing about marriage in general. Marriage is not a constitutional right, so get that idea out of your head right this moment. Marriage, for all intents and purposes under the law, is a legal partnership between two consenting adults (Yes, I agree to limiting the definition of marriage to two, and only two, adults. Let’s not get silly. We’ve all seen the wonders of polygamy.) Yes, a marriage is entered into with love and trust and emotional attachment and all those other wonderful, gushy things, but my marriage contract doesn’t mention any of that. My marriage contract, as far as I can see, is a legal document. I had to swear an oath…raise my right hand and repeat after the clerk of courts, even.
Marriage (again, under the law only) provides couples with protection in the event of the death of a spouse, tax exemptions, the ability to share insurance, adopt children, ect ect ect. There is literally NO reason to exclude a citizen of the United States from something that is given to the rest of us over something that is, at it’s base, a purely moral, and mostly religious issue. It seems to me that this resembles the miscegenation laws a bit too much. Remember? When a black woman and a white man (or vice-versa) could not marry because of the color of their skin? Or even, and this is a bit of a stretch, but go with me, the fight in the early 1900’s that secured the vote for women. Men beat these women in the streets because they found it morally reprehensible that women would want to take a hand in their nation’s politics. American History is littered with inequality based on the argument of morality and tradition.
It is not enough anymore to deny marriage to certain individuals based on the beliefs of the religion you practice. I mean really. If a national law allowing gay marriage did pass, how would churches feel if they were then required to marry homosexuals? You would hear pastors in pulpits across America screaming “Separation of Church and State!” Government and Religion in our country are not meant to mix, as much for the Church’s protection as for the Government’s. The Government can make no law restricting or dictating the practices of any religion, and Churches cannot expect Congress to uphold a practice that is discriminatory simply because it goes against the words of the Bible.
So what is the Church to do? Well, for one, if you find homosexual behavior morally reprehensible, don’t marry them in your church. Simple. There are at least 200 churches, notaries and justices of the peace in Jacksonville ALONE. Homosexual couples aren’t going to be offended that you won’t marry them.
Sidetrack! Actually, I can't say that. Maybe they will be offended, but homosexuals who would be offended, listen up. No church is, or should be, required to do anything that goes against their moral code, and you can't be offended every time someone disagrees with you, that would be exausting, and also pointless. In fact, how much integrity can a religious institution have that will go against what they truly believe in order to be politically correct and earn the few dollars that an officiation fee would bring? Come on, No one is required to agree with anyone else, and really, if they find your behavior morally reprehensible, why would you want them to marry you anyway? Remember that the fact that someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them judgemental. It makes the different.
Where was I? Ah yes, churches that won't marry homosexuals on moral grounds, and homosexuals who may or may not, but shouldn't be offended. Point is, there are other officiation options. Also, Church, listen up for a minute, because this is important. Isn’t our goal to win souls to Christ? How good a job are we doing by telling homosexuals “Jesus Loves You! We Love You! But we don’t want to have the same rights under the law that we have, because Jesus says you don't deserve them. Sooooryyyyy” What makes the church think that outlawing gay marriage will somehow achieve the goal of winning people to Christ, which is, I thought, supposed to be our primary focus?
“But Rai! What about the sanctity of marriage?!”
What about it? If your marriage isn’t sacred, don’t blame the Gays. Maybe you need to look at your own life and decide what’s going on to make your marriage less than sacred. The governemt doesn't make a marriage sacred. A marriage is sacred because of what it means to the two induviduals entering into it, not because of how the government defines it. If your marriage suddenly loses sanctity because Gay Gary and Lezzie Linda* are allowed to marry their respective partners, it can't have been that sacred to begin with.
“But Rai! Don’t you believe what the Bible says about Homosexuality?!” Actually, I do. I don’t approve of the lifestyles of my homosexual friends. There. I said it. But, to be fair, I don’t approve of the lifestyles of a lot of my heterosexual friends. I’m judgey that way. (Ask me about my plan for your life. I dare you) That doesn’t mean I’m going to ask them to turn in their voter registration cards and social security numbers until they’re ready to ascribe to my version of morality. I love them, because that’s what Jesus told me I'm supposed to do, and I leave the legislation to offer equality to everyone, because that's what it's supposed to do.
Point is, we have to stop seeing the law as a way to push the religious agenda. The law is there to protect the citizens of our country, and to provide equality for as many as is possible. It is not there to evangilize, to win to Christ, or to proselitize. That's OUR job, and if we're expecting the law to do it for us, we are being lazy.
*I apologize for the use of Gay Gary and Lezzie Linda. They are close friends and said it would be ok.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
