I probably could cut out a lot of ramblings or 'fat' in the beginning of here as I worked through a scattered mind, but some people have told me it's somewhat entertaining sooo...I'll just use that as an excuse to not have to edit it out and reconnect the thoughts. (it's really not that long, btw, just took me a long time to write).
kay, that's it. [I'm posting this late, I actually wrote it Friday night].
---
Ugh. I don't even know where to start. Let me pray and then come back to the keys...maybe I can turn my frustration into some sense. *prays that God keeps my mind clear and inspired, and that all tangents have a purpose, and have nothing to do with pistachios or rhyming. amen* I'm back.
Okay sooo...I'll start this post with the words which I start many posts: I don't even know where to start.
[lol, I totally just realized I already wrote those exact words in my first line up there.]
Anyways, so i guess I'll just start where my mind is at the moment. My family along with some friends just saw the movie Monumental, and then discussed it over some warm fresh cookies.
"Monumental is the story of America's beginnings. Presented, produced, and starring Kirk Cameron, the 90-minute true story follows this father of six across Europe and the U.S. as he seeks to discover America's true "national treasure" -- the people, places, and principles that made America the freest, most prosperous and generous nation the world has ever known. "
http://monumentalmovie.com/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WuN86qIqfw0
(it won't let me post it as a video)
This post isn't directly about the movie, but some of the ideas are inspired from our discussion afterwords.
Truth, tolerance, and guilt.
Before I jump to tolerance, I want to discuss truth. Let's first vent a little about the idiocy behind 'relatism' and make sure you understand the idiocy.
Let's define it:
"The doctrine that no ideas or beliefs are universally true but that all are, instead, 'relative' — that is, their validity depends on the circumstances in which they are applied. "[1]
"no ideas are true and that's the truth." Confuzzled?
I'd also like to question the words "validity depends". You're most likely sitting in a chair. [I'm taking this explanation example from "Prove It!: God" ...I tried being more original and coming up with my own...but I started talking about the digital VT-100 and decided to backspace and try 'simple' for a change.] Anyways. The truth is you're sitting in a chair no matter what 'circumstances' you 'apply' it to. [that is of course, unless you are sitting in/on your bed, the floor, a beanbag, a swing, a box, an exercise ball, a spring animal, a pillow, a bike, the grass, a boflex, rocking horse, or a wagon, in which case I ask that you move yourself to a chair, so the previous statement can (not may, but can) be true.] Have you moved? Okay, now let's say that again. The truth is that you are sitting in a chair, right? It doesn't matter if it is raining. It doesn't matter if you are eating pistac- almonds. It doesn't matter if you have a Buddhist friend next to you. You are sitting in a chair. Okay, glad we got that down. That's objective. I think most of us know the difference between 'objective' and 'subjective' statements. And I suppose I could even have just used the example from the 2nd grade work books, when you had to differentiate between fact and opinion. But I didn't think of that until now, and in the words of Pilate- I have written what I have written.
[*sigh* I'm taking waaayyyy to long to get to my point. and I hope you have not abandoned taking me seriously, because I do {believe it or not} have a point.]
SO. Back to the chair (thought I dropped it?). You may say that your chair is the most comfortable, most beautiful chair to ever have existed. But your Buddhist friend thinks it is horrid. [here is where 'most people' would follow with some "non-racist" "don't want to offend" "politically correct" comment, about how they don't have a problem with Buddhist and they just randomly wrote that and blah blah blah. which...I don't...have a particular 'problem' with them (the people) and I did just randomly write that....but I don't make "political apologies" kay? good.]
Anyways, so your friend disagrees and believes the chair is hideous and uncomfortable. Is one of you "right"? Whose belief is "truth"? Okay, well that's subjective.
But while your friend can say, "that chair is uglier than an old sphinx cat" he may not (see, now I use 'may') say in truth "that is not a chair." No matter how much he believes it is not- the chair is. and that's the truth.
Okay, I REALLY need to move on to my point, and I really hope I haven't lost you. Basically- you can't be sitting on a chair - AND- not sitting on a chair- at the same time. Truth is truth, and it's validity doesn't "depend" on circumstances.
Yet, 'politically correct' too-lazy-to-try-to-debate-about-your-God relativists, may just say, "oh, well everything is true, so nothing is truly true- and that's the truth."
yeah...okay...and fuzzy wuzzy wasn't very fuzzy. was he?
TOLERANCE.
Here's a HUGE, if not the BIGGEST problem with our society today. Another political attempt to please everyone, which ends up pleasing no one, therefore like many of the 'socially acceptable' statements and ideas- caves in on itself.
"Tolerate everything except intolerance!"
Okay, I just looked up the definition for 'intolerance' on dictionary.com...and it irks me. I guess it just says for itself what our culture has become.
Okay, I just looked up the definition for 'intolerance' on dictionary.com...and it irks me. I guess it just says for itself what our culture has become.
"lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc."[3]
Excuse me? "unwillingness" or "refusal"? ..."to respect contrary opinions or..." okay I have issues with every single one of those words, so if I begin to emphasize on it, I'll just end up retyping it.
Here's the definition given for tolerate:
"to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit. "[4]
Sounds nice and pretty, right? Let's remove the synthesizers and autotune...and look at what this TRULY sounds like...what it TRULY is.
The new resolution, known as “resolution 16/18,” called on countries to combat “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization” based on religion, without seeking to criminalize speech – except in cases of “incitement to imminent violence.”[2]Oh, we won't criminalize your free speech...well...except when we think you're encouraging violence that may be likely to occur.
Sooo...who gets to decide what, how and when violence is 'likely to occur'? Oh, that's right. When those really threatening, terrifying, violent pro-lifers are quietly praying on the sidewalk.
Read this shocking article (and you can sadly find mannnyyy more just like it) titled "Pro-life activist beaten, arrested, and accused of bomb plot by police while handing out pro-life flyers at local town fair":
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/11c/Dattilio_arrest/index.html
And what about those out there fighting against the intolerance "based on religion" regarding the HHS mandate?
Let's go back to the "resolution 16/18" Obama Administration is pushing.
On the sidelines of a first meeting held to advance resolution 16/18, in Istanbul last July, Pakistan’s U.N. ambassador Zamir Akram said that the OIC [Organization of Islamic Cooperation] would not compromise on three things – anything said or done against the Qur’an, anything said or done against Mohammed, and discrimination against the Muslim community. (Akram represents a government overseeing some of the Islamic world’s most controversial blasphemy laws, where“blaspheming” the Qur’an or Mohammed carries the death penalty.)[2]Whoo! Yeahh!! Let's tolerate the ones who refuse to 'tolerate' us! If we don't tolerate them...oh wait- they don't tolerate that! Well, since we have to tolerate their intoleration of our intoleration-
we're tolerating the death penalty.
I'm not being dramatic.
But when Catholics would not compromise...
The new Obama mandate that requires religious groups to pay for birth control and drugs that may cause abortions for their employees could result in fines as much as $2,000 per employee or $100 each day if they refuse to comply.[5]
“Don’t impose your teaching upon us and make us do as a church what we find unconscionable to do!”[6]- Cardinal Timothy Dolan
"the administration announced they were taking religious principles very seriously–by giving institutions an extra year to get over them. The Obama administration refused to change a controversial rule that would require religious institutions, in violation of their conscience, to pay for contraceptive drugs—including those that could cause an abortion."[7]
But let's tolerate those who killed a part of the United Sates on that one September day in 2001.
President Obama, how about you just tolerate our refusal to your unconstitutional mandates.
Finally, as much as I wanted to end with that comment, I have one thing left I have to clear up. (oh, and I'll have to just write about guilt another time, even though it goes hand in hand with truth and toleration...or is sort of the skewed connection between the two. But you've been very patient, so I'll save it for another time.)
BUT. I have to add that the HHS mandate is NOT a "Catholic" issue, nor is it a "contraceptive" issue. Yes, those two are very involved- but this is an American issue. An issue of Religious Freedom.
The Religious Freedom Act had it's own battles of being passed. Religious freedom laws were instituted and repealed over and over, beginning in 1649 with the Maryland Religion Toleration Act, up until the establishment of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and the First Amendment as a part of the Bill of Rights, in 1791.
Those $2,000 per employee fines, will put religious affiliated organizations out of business. This includes, hospitals (who often help the poor for no costs), insurance companies (many which remain affordable for those who can barely afford insurance), social services...etc.
And in a TRUE final comment, I really wasn't planning on going off about the HHS mandate...but it goes along the lines of liberty and freedom and truth and tolerance...and all of that...so it came out.
Heheh. I just read the post. it ended up nothing like I thought it would.
And in a TRUE final comment, I really wasn't planning on going off about the HHS mandate...but it goes along the lines of liberty and freedom and truth and tolerance...and all of that...so it came out.
Heheh. I just read the post. it ended up nothing like I thought it would.
If you have any comments to add or respond, and/or ESPECIALLY if any of my information is incorrect, please feel free to uh...comment!
---
[1]The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
[5] http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/06/obama-mandate-could-fine-religious-groups-2000-per-employee/
[6] http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/03/cardinal-dolan-blasts-obamas-contraception-plan-as-freedom-of-religion-battle-video/
[7] http://www.becketfund.org/obama-administration-refuses-to-change-abortion-drug-mandate/
No comments:
Post a Comment
Feedback? Love it like a panda? Want to strangle me with words? TYPE HERE.