Posts
So far, so good. But time hasn't been terribly well managed. Was supposed to get up, read the paper, go to the gym, then start writing. Instead, I got engrossed in Helium (haven't figured out what they're looking for from writers yet) and haven't done anything else.
Moira's coming for a visit this afternoon, so better get a move on.
Already got a call from work - they couldn't figure out how to hit the return carriage in a table. How will they survive without me?
Panic about not having direction beginning to set in...
Anyone? Thoughts on what I should be when I grow up? Text message your votes to....
Friday, June 1, 2007
I Swear on a Bible
So, again, I'm posting what I just wrote - not terribly successfully - for Helium.com The question was - should we continue to swear on a Bible. My opinion follows:
I recently heard that a woman was not allowed to use the Koran when she was sworn in during a court case. Of what value is it to have her use the Bible if the Bible has no meaning for her? But more importantly, why do we use religious books at all in the court? Perjury is not revealed through Divine intervention. Does God declare us honest or false? What we are truly trying to do is uphold the tenants of our form of government. And considering we are meant to have a separation of church and state, would it not make more sense to have people swear on the Constitution? The Constitution is the foundation of our country. Our legal system stems from the principles it espouses. It is non-denominational and applies equally to all citizens. When someone is found guilty of perjury, their real crime is not against God, but against the state, undermining the justice system. They are discovered not by the hand of God, but by fellow citizens. Therefore, the Constitution would be the most appropriate document for swearing-in ceremonies and in courtrooms as what we are actually asking is that people tell the truth as part of their responsibility to the country.
I recently heard that a woman was not allowed to use the Koran when she was sworn in during a court case. Of what value is it to have her use the Bible if the Bible has no meaning for her? But more importantly, why do we use religious books at all in the court? Perjury is not revealed through Divine intervention. Does God declare us honest or false? What we are truly trying to do is uphold the tenants of our form of government. And considering we are meant to have a separation of church and state, would it not make more sense to have people swear on the Constitution? The Constitution is the foundation of our country. Our legal system stems from the principles it espouses. It is non-denominational and applies equally to all citizens. When someone is found guilty of perjury, their real crime is not against God, but against the state, undermining the justice system. They are discovered not by the hand of God, but by fellow citizens. Therefore, the Constitution would be the most appropriate document for swearing-in ceremonies and in courtrooms as what we are actually asking is that people tell the truth as part of their responsibility to the country.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Marriage - Revised
The United States was founded on the principle that all citizens are created equal and have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There are no exceptions to that clause based on gender, race, sexual orientation or religion. Too often, this principle comes under attack when an individual’s pursuit of happiness conflicts with another individual’s moral beliefs. The question of whether marriage is an “institution between only a woman and a man” highlights this conflict in American society – but also raises more significant questions of what it means to live in a “free country” and how we truly separate “church and state.”
Among the first colonials to American shores were those seeking religious freedom; and though our history is not purely one of enlightened tolerance, we generally have accepted that one person’s understanding of God may differ entirely from another’s. As James Madison wrote, “Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us” (Memorial and Remonstrance).
Ideally, American society is supposed to embrace freedom, tolerance and reject prejudice. To be a “land of the free,” the founders recognized there must be a separation of church and state. Our laws and institutions should promote freedom and impose as few restrictions as possible on an individual’s ability to pursue happiness. It is a natural instinct in people to couple and therefore to form and recognize a committed relationship is part of many people’s pursuit of happiness, which should not be denied because of a certain subsets religious values.
Marriage is not a specific fact with a definitive definition (like two parts hydrogen plus one part oxygen IS water); it is a function of its time and place. Throughout history, it has served various purposes – from assuring property transfer to defining heirs. By modern standards, most often it is used to describe a commitment based (one hopes) on binding love. Marriage is a term that can be defined in any manner a society sees fit. The implication that there is a gender element to the term comes from religious principles that have no place in civil legislation.
As a question of semantics, perhaps “marriage” should be left to the religious to define as they see fit. The state should recognize “civil unions” only and for all.
America must not allow any particular religious viewpoint to dominate or become law. Freedom depends on safeguarding ourselves not only from outsiders, but from the tyranny of the majority. If we must err, we should err on the side of allowing too much liberty, rather than too little.
Among the first colonials to American shores were those seeking religious freedom; and though our history is not purely one of enlightened tolerance, we generally have accepted that one person’s understanding of God may differ entirely from another’s. As James Madison wrote, “Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us” (Memorial and Remonstrance).
Ideally, American society is supposed to embrace freedom, tolerance and reject prejudice. To be a “land of the free,” the founders recognized there must be a separation of church and state. Our laws and institutions should promote freedom and impose as few restrictions as possible on an individual’s ability to pursue happiness. It is a natural instinct in people to couple and therefore to form and recognize a committed relationship is part of many people’s pursuit of happiness, which should not be denied because of a certain subsets religious values.
Marriage is not a specific fact with a definitive definition (like two parts hydrogen plus one part oxygen IS water); it is a function of its time and place. Throughout history, it has served various purposes – from assuring property transfer to defining heirs. By modern standards, most often it is used to describe a commitment based (one hopes) on binding love. Marriage is a term that can be defined in any manner a society sees fit. The implication that there is a gender element to the term comes from religious principles that have no place in civil legislation.
As a question of semantics, perhaps “marriage” should be left to the religious to define as they see fit. The state should recognize “civil unions” only and for all.
America must not allow any particular religious viewpoint to dominate or become law. Freedom depends on safeguarding ourselves not only from outsiders, but from the tyranny of the majority. If we must err, we should err on the side of allowing too much liberty, rather than too little.
Marriage
I just discovered a site called Helium that invites people to write on various issues. I happened on the issue of gay marriage. Of course I couldn't let that one pass without comment. While this certainly wasn't my most eloquent prose (I actually do have work to do on my last day and therefore was trying to crank something out quickly), I did touch upon many of my main points. I will never understand the hypocrisy of people who use religion as a means to justify prejudice. I don't understand people who believe in a cruel and judgmental God. I'm sure, though, that I'll get into religion far more in posts-to-come and since I have 9 minutes until pizza arrives and I still have this project to do, I guess I'll just paste my little rant below.
On Marriage - for all.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that is the country's founding principle. It doesn't have any exceptions for whether you agree with your neighbor's concept of happiness. It doesn't specify that the pursuit of happiness must be in concert with any specific religious beliefs. In fact, in those documents that define what kind of nation this country would be, it specifically says each individual has religious freedom.
Who has defined marriage as a "sacred institution between only a woman and a man?" Presumably, anyone who agrees with that statement will reference a religious doctrine. Though perhaps inspired by a divine source, even religious documents were transcribed by humans and humans are fallible - subject to their times and their personal prejudices. Perhaps, therefore, interpretations of those documents should err on the side of promoting love and kindness and mutual support, no matter who is exhibiting those qualities.
Most religions are, most fundamentally, about God's love for mankind. God loves his "children" and wants them to love one another. Religious testament asks us not to judge others, lest we be judged. This is particularly important when twice or thrice married individuals (like those members of Congress who passed the "Defense of Marriage" act) criticize monogamous, loving relationships between other couples who happen to be members of the same sex.
One of those imponderable questions is how anyone's relationship is in any way impacted by other couple's relationship. To claim that opening God's sacrament of marriage to other couples in any way diminishes its value is an indication of extreme insecurity and bigotry.
Now, if it's a question of semantics, one can make a strong argument that the state should not be involved in conferring "marriage" on anyone. Leave that to the churches and then leave it to the churches to pursue hypocritical policies that deny God's love and sanction to one's fellow men and women. The state should only confer "civil unions." But those civil unions should not be something for which anyone has to ask permission - it is not the state's duty to determine who is eligible to pursue happiness. It should be something about which one simply informs the state. "I am now part of a civil union."
And certainly this is not a "state's rights" issue. When liberal politicians make that argument it is an incomprehensible cop out. How can a couple be married in Massachusetts but not in Kansas? What happens if they must move to Kansas for work?
Someday, people will have to turn away from the dark side of religious indoctrination, fear and prejudice to realize that God's true message is one of love. Love, in any form, is good and should be encouraged. And more importantly, people should realize that morality is a personal issue that should be lived and taught among families - not legislated and not imposed on strangers.
This is a country came to be because brave individuals wanted the opportunity to live free and worship (or not) as they saw fit. Who are we to destroy their vision and undermine their noble purpose?
On Marriage - for all.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that is the country's founding principle. It doesn't have any exceptions for whether you agree with your neighbor's concept of happiness. It doesn't specify that the pursuit of happiness must be in concert with any specific religious beliefs. In fact, in those documents that define what kind of nation this country would be, it specifically says each individual has religious freedom.
Who has defined marriage as a "sacred institution between only a woman and a man?" Presumably, anyone who agrees with that statement will reference a religious doctrine. Though perhaps inspired by a divine source, even religious documents were transcribed by humans and humans are fallible - subject to their times and their personal prejudices. Perhaps, therefore, interpretations of those documents should err on the side of promoting love and kindness and mutual support, no matter who is exhibiting those qualities.
Most religions are, most fundamentally, about God's love for mankind. God loves his "children" and wants them to love one another. Religious testament asks us not to judge others, lest we be judged. This is particularly important when twice or thrice married individuals (like those members of Congress who passed the "Defense of Marriage" act) criticize monogamous, loving relationships between other couples who happen to be members of the same sex.
One of those imponderable questions is how anyone's relationship is in any way impacted by other couple's relationship. To claim that opening God's sacrament of marriage to other couples in any way diminishes its value is an indication of extreme insecurity and bigotry.
Now, if it's a question of semantics, one can make a strong argument that the state should not be involved in conferring "marriage" on anyone. Leave that to the churches and then leave it to the churches to pursue hypocritical policies that deny God's love and sanction to one's fellow men and women. The state should only confer "civil unions." But those civil unions should not be something for which anyone has to ask permission - it is not the state's duty to determine who is eligible to pursue happiness. It should be something about which one simply informs the state. "I am now part of a civil union."
And certainly this is not a "state's rights" issue. When liberal politicians make that argument it is an incomprehensible cop out. How can a couple be married in Massachusetts but not in Kansas? What happens if they must move to Kansas for work?
Someday, people will have to turn away from the dark side of religious indoctrination, fear and prejudice to realize that God's true message is one of love. Love, in any form, is good and should be encouraged. And more importantly, people should realize that morality is a personal issue that should be lived and taught among families - not legislated and not imposed on strangers.
This is a country came to be because brave individuals wanted the opportunity to live free and worship (or not) as they saw fit. Who are we to destroy their vision and undermine their noble purpose?
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
The Alpha and the Omega
I am a child of the transcendentalists- Thoreau, Emerson, Whitman. I learned where to walk from Frost.
And yet, here I sit... in a cube. Very little marrow-sucking going on here. Soul-sucking, but not much else. I rarely yalp. And I have literally, but not figuratively plunged into the sublime seas.
Even as I stare at the screen, minutes tick by bringing me ever-closer to the one thing I've wanted for years - freedom.
In twenty-four hours, I will begin a brief sabbatical from reality. Two months off from work. Well - I've just barely enough money to make it two months; I'm hoping it lasts that long...
I plan to use this space to think through the things that bother me - work (generally - the fact that we have to, the fact I can't find anything I like doing, my fear of wasting life and ending up living many years after the money's run out); the state of US government (the administration governed entirely by the Peter Principle); the election (Barack? Hillary? Just don't let it be McCain); life in New York (I don't want to be a part of it - I want a little cottage on the sea); and any other thought that happens to pop up.
Two months to figure out my raison d'etre. Two months to sort out a new job. Two months to figure out where I've been (my divorce, my import boyfriend, my six jobs in six years) and where I could go...
And yet, here I sit... in a cube. Very little marrow-sucking going on here. Soul-sucking, but not much else. I rarely yalp. And I have literally, but not figuratively plunged into the sublime seas.
Even as I stare at the screen, minutes tick by bringing me ever-closer to the one thing I've wanted for years - freedom.
In twenty-four hours, I will begin a brief sabbatical from reality. Two months off from work. Well - I've just barely enough money to make it two months; I'm hoping it lasts that long...
I plan to use this space to think through the things that bother me - work (generally - the fact that we have to, the fact I can't find anything I like doing, my fear of wasting life and ending up living many years after the money's run out); the state of US government (the administration governed entirely by the Peter Principle); the election (Barack? Hillary? Just don't let it be McCain); life in New York (I don't want to be a part of it - I want a little cottage on the sea); and any other thought that happens to pop up.
Two months to figure out my raison d'etre. Two months to sort out a new job. Two months to figure out where I've been (my divorce, my import boyfriend, my six jobs in six years) and where I could go...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)