"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ..." and so begins the second sentence in the United States Declaration of Independence. Equality is one of the basic tenets of our society, but what exactly does being equal mean?
There are people who are born without limbs. Are they equal in the ability to move and carry objects as those who are born with limbs? Were they "created equal" as the Declaration of Independence states? If we say that an inequality does exist for those born without limbs do we cry, "foul ... unfair ... cruel universe"? Should we then level the playing field so to speak and force everyone to be equal? What would that look like? Would we tie back limbs or surgically remove them? Who would perform the surgery if no one had limbs? People are also born with different levels of intelligence, some even with what we call mental disabilities. Should everyone then undergo frontal lobotomies or other brain surgeries to make us all equal? Who would be left to intelligently perform brain surgery?
These scenarios sound ridiculous, don't they? So why doesn't all forced equality sound just as ridiculous?
I have a sister who did not enjoy school and did not do well at it. Our father was a school teacher so one would expect him to have a high educational standard for his children, and he did. He expected me to get straight A's. Yet he did not expect that of my sister and would be elated if she came home with straight C's. Was he unfair? No, he treated us equally. How is that possible? By having different (unequal) standards for each of us based on our individuality he treated us equally by encouraging us equally to be at our best. Equality means understanding and accepting differences and not forcing sameness. Being "created equal" to me means all human beings are of equal value. We are all different but we all have the same worth, which is priceless.
This year the world has experienced the scare of the "swine" or H1N1 flu virus. Mexico seems to have been the hardest hit, but it has affected people from divers nations with diverse ethnic backgrounds. We know scientifically that some diseases seem to be more prevalent for certain races than for others. For the sake of argument let's say there was a new virus that only affected Latinos. If we developed a vaccine for the disease would we distribute it based on race or would we be "equal" and make sure all races received equal amounts? In this case, by "favoring" that one race--only giving it to them--we would be treating all races equally: those who need it get it, those who don't need it don't get it.
In the late 70's and early 80's there was a huge push to pass the Equal Rights Amendment ("ERA"). [Note: It has been reintroduced in every Congress since 1982.] For those not familiar with the ERA, it basically mandates that the law turn a blind eye to gender, or in other words, the law would not recognize that there is any difference between men and women. The big problem is that there are differences. (Any scientist could confirm that for you in case you're in doubt.)
So why would I write about equality this week? Because this week the California Supreme Court ruling upheld the voters' passage of Proposition 8. Opponents immediately cried foul stating that California is not treating people equally. But haven't we established that in order to treat people equally they must be treated differently because they are different? By definition homosexuals claim that there are differences between men and women because they prefer one over the other. Men and women are different. Heterosexuals and homosexuals are different. So let's not force equality by fooling ourselves into saying everything is the same. It's not. Marriage should not be forced to undergo a frontal lobotomy to make it "equal".
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Saturday, May 23, 2009
A Memorable Holiday
Are you enjoying this holiday weekend? Is there such a thing as a bad holiday? It's always nice to have some extra time, but it's important to stop and think why we've been given a holiday. This one more so than some others.
I think the 4th of July is another one of those holidays we should stop and think about. Our last one was pretty memorable. We did something quite different than we ever had in the past. My son had recently gotten into model rockets so we decided to shoot some of them off. We ended up not launching any rockets because of how windy it was, so no "rockets' red glare," but we did launch something that wouldn’t be affected by the wind: we decided to launch one of my daughter’s dolls.
Yeah, weird, I know. Earlier in the day my niece’s boyfriend was helping my daughter color one of her dolls with a Sharpie. My daughter calls it a Barbie doll because it’s the size of a Barbie, but it was a Troy doll from High School Musical. My daughter cut the doll’s hair and our niece’s boyfriend gave it a mustache. They thought it looked like Ben Stiller from one of his movies. I don’t remember how the conversation got from there to substituting “Ben” for a rocket, but it did. We even gave him a red cape. He didn’t go very high (dolls are much heavier than model rockets), maybe 20 feet, but we still considered it a successful launch. It still looked funny and gave us all a good laugh.
I’ll bet you didn’t know that Ben Stiller was a superhero, did you? Have you noticed how popular superhero movies are lately? They’ve yet to make a feature length film of my childhood superhero: the Green Lantern. I guess I liked him because he was just an ordinary mortal that was given a special ring which granted him superhero powers by “the Guardians of the Universe” because he was a good person and could be trusted. Society has always seemed to have a fascination with heroes, especially super ones (e.g., Greek and Roman mythology). Of course the only ones that actually count are real life heroes.
I think that what this holiday's about: real life superheroes; just mortals who have been called upon by the Guardians of our "universe" (nation) to protect our freedoms by giving their all.
Others have not been called upon to give their all, though they were willing to. They deserve some memory engrams as well. We don't need to just sit back though, we can be their sidekicks; something many of us didn't do very well at during the Vietnam War. And the least we can do as sidekicks is to remember these heroes during this holiday.
I think the 4th of July is another one of those holidays we should stop and think about. Our last one was pretty memorable. We did something quite different than we ever had in the past. My son had recently gotten into model rockets so we decided to shoot some of them off. We ended up not launching any rockets because of how windy it was, so no "rockets' red glare," but we did launch something that wouldn’t be affected by the wind: we decided to launch one of my daughter’s dolls.
Yeah, weird, I know. Earlier in the day my niece’s boyfriend was helping my daughter color one of her dolls with a Sharpie. My daughter calls it a Barbie doll because it’s the size of a Barbie, but it was a Troy doll from High School Musical. My daughter cut the doll’s hair and our niece’s boyfriend gave it a mustache. They thought it looked like Ben Stiller from one of his movies. I don’t remember how the conversation got from there to substituting “Ben” for a rocket, but it did. We even gave him a red cape. He didn’t go very high (dolls are much heavier than model rockets), maybe 20 feet, but we still considered it a successful launch. It still looked funny and gave us all a good laugh.
I’ll bet you didn’t know that Ben Stiller was a superhero, did you? Have you noticed how popular superhero movies are lately? They’ve yet to make a feature length film of my childhood superhero: the Green Lantern. I guess I liked him because he was just an ordinary mortal that was given a special ring which granted him superhero powers by “the Guardians of the Universe” because he was a good person and could be trusted. Society has always seemed to have a fascination with heroes, especially super ones (e.g., Greek and Roman mythology). Of course the only ones that actually count are real life heroes.
I think that what this holiday's about: real life superheroes; just mortals who have been called upon by the Guardians of our "universe" (nation) to protect our freedoms by giving their all.
Others have not been called upon to give their all, though they were willing to. They deserve some memory engrams as well. We don't need to just sit back though, we can be their sidekicks; something many of us didn't do very well at during the Vietnam War. And the least we can do as sidekicks is to remember these heroes during this holiday.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
How Far Would You Go To Protect A Child?
Last month the San Jose (California) City Council voted against a proposal to put filters on public library computers to protect children from exposure to porn sites (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/south_bay&id=6771963). Opponents of the proposal sited First Amendment "rights" and the cost of filters. This isn't the first municipality to rule against protecting children. I've written on First Amendment rights in the past and on how there needs to be a balance. As far as the cost of filters goes, I'm the IT Director where I work and I use a free and open source software (FOSS) filter that gets the job done better than the one I used to pay for.
What do you think workers of a public library would do if some people came into their library and stated they were going to a corner of the library to take pornographic pictures (but of course quietly so they wouldn't "disturb" other patrons)? Would they allow it because everyone has the "right" to freedom of expression or would they immediately dial 911? Chances are, the latter. And I'm willing to bet that the majority of society would also agree that such expression would be inappropriate. So if we don't allow such lewdness through the front doors of libraries why do we allow it through the Internet doors? Have you ever been to a public library that had Playboy magazines or porn films on their shelves? Then why allow access to such things on their computers?
Someone attending the meeting said, "Why use anyone's money to filter where nothing happens?" Apparently that person was uninformed that, "There have ... been 14 complaints to library staff regarding the use of explicit content," and that "ABC7's 2006 I-Team investigation captured several library patrons performing lewd acts while visiting porn sites." But it doesn't just happen in San Jose (see Man arrested on child pornography charges following library incident, Isabella Co. Man Arrested for Printing Child Porn on Library Computers, and Man arrested with child pornography after leering at children outside Covington library to name a few). The fact is, it does happen too frequently and there are free and low cost ways to alleviate it.
"But they have a 'right' to view it if they want to," others may say, "the First Amendment guarantees it." Since when did the First Amendment guarantee that the government supply illicit material to its people?
Of course the ACLU was there to defend their everything/anything goes stance. Their representative, Skyler Porras, said we should "not deny people access to important health and sexuality information." Again, where exactly in the Constitution does it say the government must supply this? Should we supply this to our children? According to City Council Member Pete Constant, "Studies have shown that 75-percent of children get to pornographic sites inadvertently and that's something I think we should be protecting our youngest children from in our libraries."
The most common argument seems to be the "legitimate research" (e.g., breast feeding or other physical health related issues, etc.) that an upstanding citizen can't get to because a filter has miscategorized it. Are these people saying that they are unwilling to go to an Internet café or a friend's house to do their research instead of a public library because their inconvenience is more important than protecting children from debauchery? Also--and I hate to sound like a broken record here--but why is it the government's responsibility to provide this research for free?
So what's more important to you: protecting children or protecting your selfishness?
What do you think workers of a public library would do if some people came into their library and stated they were going to a corner of the library to take pornographic pictures (but of course quietly so they wouldn't "disturb" other patrons)? Would they allow it because everyone has the "right" to freedom of expression or would they immediately dial 911? Chances are, the latter. And I'm willing to bet that the majority of society would also agree that such expression would be inappropriate. So if we don't allow such lewdness through the front doors of libraries why do we allow it through the Internet doors? Have you ever been to a public library that had Playboy magazines or porn films on their shelves? Then why allow access to such things on their computers?
Someone attending the meeting said, "Why use anyone's money to filter where nothing happens?" Apparently that person was uninformed that, "There have ... been 14 complaints to library staff regarding the use of explicit content," and that "ABC7's 2006 I-Team investigation captured several library patrons performing lewd acts while visiting porn sites." But it doesn't just happen in San Jose (see Man arrested on child pornography charges following library incident, Isabella Co. Man Arrested for Printing Child Porn on Library Computers, and Man arrested with child pornography after leering at children outside Covington library to name a few). The fact is, it does happen too frequently and there are free and low cost ways to alleviate it.
"But they have a 'right' to view it if they want to," others may say, "the First Amendment guarantees it." Since when did the First Amendment guarantee that the government supply illicit material to its people?
Of course the ACLU was there to defend their everything/anything goes stance. Their representative, Skyler Porras, said we should "not deny people access to important health and sexuality information." Again, where exactly in the Constitution does it say the government must supply this? Should we supply this to our children? According to City Council Member Pete Constant, "Studies have shown that 75-percent of children get to pornographic sites inadvertently and that's something I think we should be protecting our youngest children from in our libraries."
The most common argument seems to be the "legitimate research" (e.g., breast feeding or other physical health related issues, etc.) that an upstanding citizen can't get to because a filter has miscategorized it. Are these people saying that they are unwilling to go to an Internet café or a friend's house to do their research instead of a public library because their inconvenience is more important than protecting children from debauchery? Also--and I hate to sound like a broken record here--but why is it the government's responsibility to provide this research for free?
So what's more important to you: protecting children or protecting your selfishness?
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Quotes
Every now and again someone gets a flash of inspiration and captures an insight that, typically, is expressed in not very many words yet speaks volumes. There are many famous quotes; some valuable, some not worthy of their notoriety. Following are some quotes that have recently been sent to me. See how many you find which you would consider putting in the valuable category.
Never give up what you want most, for what you want at the moment. --Anonymous
Some people are making such thorough preparation for rainy days that they aren't enjoying today's sunshine. --Anonymous
A life with love will have some thorns but a life without love will have no roses. --Anonymous
This is the true test of love: to respect and serve those who can be of no use to us at all. --Anonymous
We cannot make others do the right things. We can only show them by our example what doing the right things looks like. --Anonymous
For every minute you are angry you lose sixty seconds of happiness. --Anonymous
One person working with you is worth a dozen working for you. --Anonymous
When you judge others you do not define them, you define yourself. --Anonymous
A marriage may be made in heaven but the maintenance must be done on earth. --Anonymous
To forgive is to set a prisoner free and discover the prisoner was you. --Anonymous
We do not suddenly become what we do not participate in becoming. --Anonymous
When we're through changing, we're through. --Bruce Barton
Nothing is invented and perfected at the same time. --John Ray
Most of our faults are more pardonable than the means we use to conceal them. --Anonymous
Life is 10% what happens to us and 90% what we decide to do about it. --Thomas Edison
It isn't enough to put your best foot forward, you have to follow through with your other foot too. --Anonymous
It is only those who do not know how to work that do not love it. To those who do, it is better than play. --Anonymous
The highest possible reward of any mans toil is not what he gets for it but what he becomes by it. --John Ruskin
Expectations are premeditated resentments. --Anonymous
The grass may look greener on the other side but it still has to be mowed. --Anonymous
Just because we have taken one step down a wrong road is no reason why we have to take two. --Anonymous
The mighty oak was once a little nut that stood its ground. --Anonymous
Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does. --Anonymous
One last note: Too often quotes are attributed to the wrong person or not attributed when they should be. My apologies if there are any of those above.
Never give up what you want most, for what you want at the moment. --Anonymous
Some people are making such thorough preparation for rainy days that they aren't enjoying today's sunshine. --Anonymous
A life with love will have some thorns but a life without love will have no roses. --Anonymous
This is the true test of love: to respect and serve those who can be of no use to us at all. --Anonymous
We cannot make others do the right things. We can only show them by our example what doing the right things looks like. --Anonymous
For every minute you are angry you lose sixty seconds of happiness. --Anonymous
One person working with you is worth a dozen working for you. --Anonymous
When you judge others you do not define them, you define yourself. --Anonymous
A marriage may be made in heaven but the maintenance must be done on earth. --Anonymous
To forgive is to set a prisoner free and discover the prisoner was you. --Anonymous
We do not suddenly become what we do not participate in becoming. --Anonymous
When we're through changing, we're through. --Bruce Barton
Nothing is invented and perfected at the same time. --John Ray
Most of our faults are more pardonable than the means we use to conceal them. --Anonymous
Life is 10% what happens to us and 90% what we decide to do about it. --Thomas Edison
It isn't enough to put your best foot forward, you have to follow through with your other foot too. --Anonymous
It is only those who do not know how to work that do not love it. To those who do, it is better than play. --Anonymous
The highest possible reward of any mans toil is not what he gets for it but what he becomes by it. --John Ruskin
Expectations are premeditated resentments. --Anonymous
The grass may look greener on the other side but it still has to be mowed. --Anonymous
Just because we have taken one step down a wrong road is no reason why we have to take two. --Anonymous
The mighty oak was once a little nut that stood its ground. --Anonymous
Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does. --Anonymous
One last note: Too often quotes are attributed to the wrong person or not attributed when they should be. My apologies if there are any of those above.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
The Right Religion
This week the Associated Press came out with a story entitled, "Survey: Americans switch faiths early, often" based on the report, "Faith in Flux: Changes in Religious Affiliation in the U.S." The report showed that about half of U.S. adults switched religions at least once during their lives, most of which who had just gradually drifted away from their childhood faith. Most who left the religion of their childhood did so before turning 24 with a majority joining their current faith before 36.
Some who left their religion have not affiliated themselves with another. The story claimed that one-third say they just haven't found the "right" religion. I wonder what they mean by that. Do they mean "right" as in it's a right fit for their lifestyle or "right" as in the one rightly sanctioned by God?
So, how do you decide on the right religion? First off, what do you consider a religion to be? I like the Merriam-Webster definition which states: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." That means that even atheism is a religion. Ah, but you say it can't be because "faith" is a requirement of the definition and atheists don't have faith. Of course they do! They can't prove scientifically that God does not exist so all they're left with is an intense faith in their belief that one doesn't.
Now that we have that established, back to the original question, how does/should someone decide on a religion? According to the article 74 percent cited "attraction of religious services and worship". Is that a good indicator: the preacher is very charismatic or interesting or entertaining? I've read religious texts by many different faiths that are considered sacred writings and believe me, sometimes they're a great cure for insomnia. Not that I'm trying to express any disrespect for any of those writings; it's just that there is a difference in trying to read a text book versus a novel. You can get a heck of a lot more value out of a text book, but novels are generally more entertaining. If we're looking for charisma, entertainment or fascination from a character, remember that in those writings it's usually the bad guys who demonstrate those characteristics ... not that we need to jump to any conclusions here about any particular preacher. :-)
"About half of those who have become unaffiliated cited a belief that religious people are hypocritical, judgmental or insincere." Are churches sanctuaries for saints and angels or are they hospitals for the spiritually sick? Where should hypocritical, judgmental or insincere people be? Shouldn't they be where they will be taught not to be that way? Shouldn't we be glad that they're at church learning to turn their lives around? Don't most religions, in some form or another, teach us to love our neighbors? If we really love them should we be running away from them to a place where we don't have to deal with them or should we stay and be where we can help them?
"Large numbers said they think religious organizations focus too much on rules...." Good thing science doesn't focus on rules at all! Come on people, if there is a God, and he really and truly does love us, wouldn't he want to let us know the rules of happiness? Don't we do that for our kids? "Don't put your hand on a hot stove." "Look before you cross the street." And on and on and on. Rules aren't restricting, they're liberating. They keep us from harm, show us how to make and do things correctly, and let us know how to play the game so we can win!
"Nearly six in ten former Catholics who are now unaffiliated say they left Catholicism due to dissatisfaction with Catholic teachings on abortion and homosexuality." OK, so here's the real $64,000 question: Do we find a religion that agrees with what we want to believe or do we change our beliefs to agree with the correct religion? Yes, the tricky part is that "correct religion" phrase, so let's put it another way: Do we try and get God to agree with us or do we change our beliefs to agree with God? Until we answer that question for ourselves, we're not ready to find the "right" religion.
Some who left their religion have not affiliated themselves with another. The story claimed that one-third say they just haven't found the "right" religion. I wonder what they mean by that. Do they mean "right" as in it's a right fit for their lifestyle or "right" as in the one rightly sanctioned by God?
So, how do you decide on the right religion? First off, what do you consider a religion to be? I like the Merriam-Webster definition which states: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." That means that even atheism is a religion. Ah, but you say it can't be because "faith" is a requirement of the definition and atheists don't have faith. Of course they do! They can't prove scientifically that God does not exist so all they're left with is an intense faith in their belief that one doesn't.
Now that we have that established, back to the original question, how does/should someone decide on a religion? According to the article 74 percent cited "attraction of religious services and worship". Is that a good indicator: the preacher is very charismatic or interesting or entertaining? I've read religious texts by many different faiths that are considered sacred writings and believe me, sometimes they're a great cure for insomnia. Not that I'm trying to express any disrespect for any of those writings; it's just that there is a difference in trying to read a text book versus a novel. You can get a heck of a lot more value out of a text book, but novels are generally more entertaining. If we're looking for charisma, entertainment or fascination from a character, remember that in those writings it's usually the bad guys who demonstrate those characteristics ... not that we need to jump to any conclusions here about any particular preacher. :-)
"About half of those who have become unaffiliated cited a belief that religious people are hypocritical, judgmental or insincere." Are churches sanctuaries for saints and angels or are they hospitals for the spiritually sick? Where should hypocritical, judgmental or insincere people be? Shouldn't they be where they will be taught not to be that way? Shouldn't we be glad that they're at church learning to turn their lives around? Don't most religions, in some form or another, teach us to love our neighbors? If we really love them should we be running away from them to a place where we don't have to deal with them or should we stay and be where we can help them?
"Large numbers said they think religious organizations focus too much on rules...." Good thing science doesn't focus on rules at all! Come on people, if there is a God, and he really and truly does love us, wouldn't he want to let us know the rules of happiness? Don't we do that for our kids? "Don't put your hand on a hot stove." "Look before you cross the street." And on and on and on. Rules aren't restricting, they're liberating. They keep us from harm, show us how to make and do things correctly, and let us know how to play the game so we can win!
"Nearly six in ten former Catholics who are now unaffiliated say they left Catholicism due to dissatisfaction with Catholic teachings on abortion and homosexuality." OK, so here's the real $64,000 question: Do we find a religion that agrees with what we want to believe or do we change our beliefs to agree with the correct religion? Yes, the tricky part is that "correct religion" phrase, so let's put it another way: Do we try and get God to agree with us or do we change our beliefs to agree with God? Until we answer that question for ourselves, we're not ready to find the "right" religion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)