Others writing the Sunday Somethings: Kerry
Something that made me happy this week: Seeing family. And seeing mom improve so much after her shoulder surgery in just a few days’ time.
Something i struggled with this week: After five months, i bit off my fingernails. I’m not sure what happened this week, but now i just have these poor pathetic nubs instead of nails. Pout. Starting over…
Something tasty i ate this week: Grandma’s homemade applesauce. Yum.
Something i learned this week: A new game, Bananagrams. Extremely fun!
Something from the bridge table: I posted a two more new columns from last week’s sectional, and some miscellany as well.
Some things i am doing towards my goals: I competed in a Toastmasters’ speech contest Tuesday and was annihilated. It showed me that i definitely need to improve.
Something i am reading: Meltdown by Thomas E. Woods and The Graveyard Book by Neil Gaiman.
Something happening around the house: Reunion with Nugent, who has been visiting his Uncle Malcolm while we were gone this weekend.
Something i am thinking: Writing the Somethings gets to be a chore when i have so much going on and not enough time to do it all.
Something i am looking forward to next week: Having some downtime after a crazy two weeks.
Something i am hoping: That good weather continues and i have a couple of good runs this week.
Something random: On my Wii games comparison post, i got an actual comment from someone i don’t know.
Something captured: Lance and Audrey from three years ago.
October 20th, 2009 12:02 am
I look forward to the Sunday Somethings. Don’t let me down!
Also, your random quote generator gave me something like “Religion teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” Usually I find the religion-based quotes funny, and feel safely superior albeit non-atheist, but this one I just kinda went, yeah, I can see how I might actually have different values from someone who felt this way. Interesting litmus test, as I always think of religious vs. non as more of a blind allegiance, politically motivated division. Maybe it can also be a division between those who want to know the truth of everything and those who would rather some of it remain fictional.
October 20th, 2009 8:17 am
that’s just it. it’s choosing to sleepwalk or be inquisitive. there’s little political motivation to be atheistic. and, as usual, non-fiction is infinitely more interesting than fiction.
October 20th, 2009 8:23 am
we were recently watching ben stein’s joke of a movie “expelled”, and at one point, stein asked someone why they couldn’t just let the people have their religious comfort. the problem is that it’s not just some harmless comfort we’re trying to take away. it’s an instrument of murder, oppression, and persistent ignorance that casts consequences on the innocent. THAT is the problem. i see nothing wrong with silly idiosyncrasies, superstitions, traditions until they begin to have consequences for others. then, they basically boil down to the user being selfish, which basically boils down to “i am more important than you.”
October 20th, 2009 7:18 pm
No religious comment here… just wanted to say that rather randomly you are the third person to mention to game Bananagram this week! I definitely need to check that one out. Maybe I’ll get it for Christmas for a new family game.
October 21st, 2009 11:26 am
I would rather know the truth about things. I take my escapist fiction very seriously – while some people read books and forget them, i rarely forget a story or a character. But when it comes to the real world, i search for truth, whatever that may be. Kudos to you if you can recognize that you want to preserve a little fiction in your life, and that that approach may be different from someone else.
October 21st, 2009 11:48 am
kudos for the candor, no kudos for being willing to pretend that it doesn’t have real consequences for others, and that you are willing to let them pay the tax for your lazy luxury.
October 21st, 2009 8:27 pm
Many religions have been the source of the bad things mentioned above
(e.g. oppression, murder, etc). They have also been the source of much
good in the world, which I must say, often gets ignored by aggressively
soap-boxing atheists. This good doesn’t mean the bad can be ignored, but
the converse shouldn’t happen either.
Whatever you believe about him, at the core of Jesus’ teachings was
quite the opposite of selfishness I must say. And so the ‘user’ when
using honestly spends her time being anything but selfish. Mother Tereasa
is one famous example, but there are countless others around the world
carrying out the same selfless work for the poor, oppressed and brutalized
because of their silly religion.
Having faith in a God does not instantly mean that one chooses to ignore
the truth in the world/science. Yes, many Christians treat religion like
magic hoping to affect nature and matter in ways science simply doesn’t
allow, as well, some have chosen to believe that the world was actually
created in 6 literal days. But there are also numerous for whom science
does not threaten their faith, believing in God while also acknowledging
science’s breakthroughs. I would rather know the truth about things too.
Sadly, some think that seeking truth means completely throwing off
religion and that choosing ignorant religion means ignoring truth. Ironically,
this is a bit of an ignorant idea.
Regretfully, religion and politics have gone to bed together in this
country and more often religion has “played to whore” (quoting an old
church father). Narrow-minded relgion has had bad consequences for many,
there’s no question. It is only fair to recongnize that it is also still a
strong driving force for good in our world.
Kudos to you for knowing what you think/believe. No kudos to anyone being
as antagonistically narrow-minded as his or her theistic counterpart.
Also, I’m glad you like Bananagrams. I’m honored it made it on the blog,
and I was humbled as Lance continually mopped the floor with us (mostly
me).
October 22nd, 2009 9:56 am
sure. there’s no arguing that there are plenty of good religious people doing good things in the name of god; that certainly wasn’t what i intended to imply. in particular, audrey and i are both impressed by the everyday implementation you and heather display. i wish this were the standard.
i guess more to my point is that you can do good things or bad things – choose to be a resource or a hindrance – choose to be moral or immoral – totally independent of what your degree of belief or faith is. i’m an atheist, but this doesn’t mean that the jesus character (no matter what degree of fiction or symbolism you assign him) isn’t very much worth emulating. it’s not selflessness or jesus-emulation that i’m criticizing – it’s more “religion” and its consequences. you don’t see science or atheism creating a constant threat of violence and world annihilation; that takes religion. you do see scientists, non-believers, atheists working in selfless ways to build their communities, increase awareness, fight ignorance, etc.
in more general terms, you can’t choose only the good consequences of anything you do, and that includes me. it’s not okay to say “belief allows me to sleep better at night” without realizing that the current implementation of belief oppresses many and encourages us not to progress.
October 22nd, 2009 11:15 am
Nathan – just so you know, the comments between Lance and Frith have a lot of history behind them, some of it not pretty.
I have not personally found truth in religion that is not also found elsewhere.
Lance’s point about considering consequences is valid. Emulating Jesus or Mother Theresa, who loved everyone, healed the sick, gave to the poor, etc, is a good thing. Using a set of beliefs to condemn, control, oppress… these are bad things, no matter what the belief system. Religion has been a source of both.
What would people fight over if they weren’t fighting over their gods? The wars over land are pretty much over at this point.
October 23rd, 2009 5:38 pm
Lance – you are very right. There are countless horrible things done in the name of religion, and violent things (ironically) done in the name of a pacifist named Jesus. Having studied church history I’m ashamed at many of the atrocities I read about. May I submit; however, that to blame religion as a whole in an isolated vacuum is a bit unfair. Not letting religious institutions off the hook, many if not most religious affiliated atrocities have been just as much politically motivated if not originated.
People have plenty to fight over that doesn’t involve God in the slightest (thinking about various genocides stemming from racism). I hate that people use religion to continue to oppress women and homosexuals, but I dare say that that oppression would exist regardless of the church.
As far as finding truth in religion, I’m personally searching for meaning. Truth is a means to this end to be utilized to the fullest and not at all ignored.
I’m not sure where exactly I’m going with all this. I just wanted to comment. Folks such as Richard Dawkins and Bill Meyer who point at religion as the root of all the worlds problems and are on a mission to end religion seem to be as narrow minded as the religious fanatics who blow up abortion clinics. The institution of religion needs to be changed drastically in many aspects, and it can’t happen soon enough. But I think it’s naive to think that doing away with it all together will fix things or simply make them better.
Good conversation. Thanks for indulging. I hope i’m not being narrow-minded, if so please let me know. It was fun seeing you guys last weekend.
October 24th, 2009 7:38 am
in practice, there has never been religion without a large portion of its practicioners abusing it to oppress and hurt others. you can’t say the same about science or atheism. i have no problem with the utopian ideal of all getting along – it just doesn’t seem to be practical or ever witnessed in human history, whereas there is a constant stream of religious nutcases killing others.
richard dawkins and bill maier aren’t doing anything other than criticizing an institution that’s gotten way too much of a free pass. why is no one allowed to ever question religion without someone getting offended? it’s okay for fox news to openly mock atheists, despite the fact that atheists never hurt anyone, don’t have a particular political agenda (other than perhaps separation of church and state), and have more basis for what they (don’t) believe. it basically is just being a bully and picking on a small group because they have the power in numbers of their audience. it has nothing to do with the soundness of anyone’s actual stance.
again, my only general point is that you can’t choose to bury your head in the sand about the ACTUAL (not utopian or theoretically what should happen) consequences of things you participate in. you can’t pretend religious belief is a cozy “fiction” or that it could be better if only… personally, i feel a responsibility to all of humankind to take decisions and stances a bit more seriously when there’s so much at stake. you can’t get away from this and pretend it’s just a harmless personal choice.
October 24th, 2009 9:27 am
well said, I, myself, am definitely not offended by your comments
but I understand the frustration when others are. We can’t ignore the evils
of religion, and I want to do my best not to do so. I’m not in support of anything the church does to
further any kind of oppression, I’m working against that. But does that mean
we should due away with the church altogether? Throw the baby out with
the bath water? Maybe we should, I can’t argue too much on this one; at least the institutionalized part of the church which because its a large institution can get away with having negative
consequences. But I am committed to my personal belief/faith system, and
I must disagree with Dawkins and Maier when they lambaste even that and call
for its end. After all before the church became institutionalized in the 4th
century things were very different concerning its social impact, and for the
better I might add.
As far as church and state separation go, the current state of things is
again regrettable, how muddled the two are together. Funny though, it was
Christians who fought so hard a few hundred years ago for the 2nd
amendment. Funny how things have changed.
I watched appallingly when Fox news made fun of atheists a while back, and it
did seem like a bully picking on the fewer in numbers. I have no defense
for them, not that I would want to.
When we were still in Chapel Hill, I’m glad to say that our church was very
open and affirming of everyone we encountered (women, homosexuals, etc.). The
pastor was adamant about this. I want to think that there are individual
churches out there that do not fall under the same oppressive label as the capital “C”
Church. And these are the kind of groups of people I plan on finding as I
go on to work in the church. So I hope to walk that thin line between holding up what’s good about the church and actively challenging and trying to change/fix what is bad. At least that’s where I’m at right now.
Thanks for the very thought provoking comments.