Godless Liberal
Sure you read about me in the media. But I'm not sure you really know me.
Quoth Pete Seeger "I like to say I'm more conservative than Goldwater. He just wanted to turn the clock back to when there was no income tax. I want to turn the clock back to when people lived in small villages and took care of each other." So maybe I'm not really liberal after all.
Got an email the other day from the boss. A little parable about the liberal girl who studied hard and got a 4.0. Her friend partied and got a 2.0. When she started lecturing daddy that the division of wealth should be more equitable, he said, "why don't you give her a point off your GPA so the distribution is more equitable?" Aghast (apparently), she said "I worked hard for those grades and my friend goofed around, we both deserve our grades and that's not fair." Her daddy said, congratulations you are now a Republican.
Imagine another scenario. This time daughter says "I have been drunk most of the semester but some of it has been while partying with my English teacher. I have managed to get straight A's. My friend on the other hand has been studying 24/7, but hasn't managed to get anything better than a C. She's bright and knows the material, but a lot of her questioning of the professors during class has soured them." This time daddy says, "That's fair enough honey, you're a beautiful girl and deserve good things. And I'm leaving your mother to be with your friend, so she will be provided for nonetheless."
The story is flawed. It is premised on a notion of fairness which does not exist either in capitalism or in communism. The premise that effort is rewarded equitably is flawed. The "market" does not operate perfectly, mostly because human beings are one of the variables. Maybe her friend has a job lined up with a relative's Fortune 500 corporation and doesn't need a degree. Maybe she is going to make more money as an artist. Maybe she is going to start her own company and make millions. No matter your preference for how wealth is distributed, it is not distributed fairly. I can't see how people who revere the wealthy for their enterprise are any different than people who condemn the poor for their sloth.
Now the no income taxes thing does present some interesting possibilities. Without income tax, or without any tax for that matter, presumably there would be fewer or no prisons. At least this would allow for the more direct and facile redistribution of wealth. I just am not up for the mass death aspect, which gets me to my next point.
I'm not sure I'm really godless either. I am just philosophically opposed to monotheism. Why? Monotheists are binary. They view the world in black and white. God and salvation or reject god and damnation. Such thinking justifies forcible conversion to "save" the non-believer or even death to the non-believer. The two major religions of the world are starting to polarize today. If history is cyclical, to jump off Seeger's quote, it appears that we are turning the clock back to the crusades. Can't the Christian desire to kill heathens be exhausted? Can't the Muslim trend of killing infidels end? Will Christians and Muslims ever stop killing the Jews on the way to kill Muslims and Christians? Somehow I have memories of halcyon days when the order of the day was helping the poor and downtrodden. And without converting them. What happened to those people? Now it seems like we are more interested in dividing into armed camps. Then we can make kids pray in schools, make women vessels for god's will, and force those who deny god into the shadow of the valley of death.
I think after Tony Dungy's son died someone said he had his priorities in order. Faith, family football. My first thought was that that order has to be wrong. Would you kill your firstborn son or stop associating with your family if they didn't hold your faith? To me that seems wrong. Now as much as I love football, If the lord Jesus asked me to stop watching, I'd at least kick it around. Jesus is afterall Lord over my hometown. At least according to the billboards.
A, B, C. Abstinence, be faithful and condoms. Good Christians leave off the C, but hold that the first two will prevent the spread of STDs. True, but so will a group of 10 sober virgins promising and upholding just to have orgies together forever. Since the church has historically been against sex for anything but procreation (Song of Solomon notwithstanding) and holds celibacy in the highest regard I suggest that Christians remain celibate both before and after marriage. This would bring them closer to god, and perhaps have the beneficial effect of reducing the overall population.
Quoth Pete Seeger "I like to say I'm more conservative than Goldwater. He just wanted to turn the clock back to when there was no income tax. I want to turn the clock back to when people lived in small villages and took care of each other." So maybe I'm not really liberal after all.
Got an email the other day from the boss. A little parable about the liberal girl who studied hard and got a 4.0. Her friend partied and got a 2.0. When she started lecturing daddy that the division of wealth should be more equitable, he said, "why don't you give her a point off your GPA so the distribution is more equitable?" Aghast (apparently), she said "I worked hard for those grades and my friend goofed around, we both deserve our grades and that's not fair." Her daddy said, congratulations you are now a Republican.
Imagine another scenario. This time daughter says "I have been drunk most of the semester but some of it has been while partying with my English teacher. I have managed to get straight A's. My friend on the other hand has been studying 24/7, but hasn't managed to get anything better than a C. She's bright and knows the material, but a lot of her questioning of the professors during class has soured them." This time daddy says, "That's fair enough honey, you're a beautiful girl and deserve good things. And I'm leaving your mother to be with your friend, so she will be provided for nonetheless."
The story is flawed. It is premised on a notion of fairness which does not exist either in capitalism or in communism. The premise that effort is rewarded equitably is flawed. The "market" does not operate perfectly, mostly because human beings are one of the variables. Maybe her friend has a job lined up with a relative's Fortune 500 corporation and doesn't need a degree. Maybe she is going to make more money as an artist. Maybe she is going to start her own company and make millions. No matter your preference for how wealth is distributed, it is not distributed fairly. I can't see how people who revere the wealthy for their enterprise are any different than people who condemn the poor for their sloth.
Now the no income taxes thing does present some interesting possibilities. Without income tax, or without any tax for that matter, presumably there would be fewer or no prisons. At least this would allow for the more direct and facile redistribution of wealth. I just am not up for the mass death aspect, which gets me to my next point.
I'm not sure I'm really godless either. I am just philosophically opposed to monotheism. Why? Monotheists are binary. They view the world in black and white. God and salvation or reject god and damnation. Such thinking justifies forcible conversion to "save" the non-believer or even death to the non-believer. The two major religions of the world are starting to polarize today. If history is cyclical, to jump off Seeger's quote, it appears that we are turning the clock back to the crusades. Can't the Christian desire to kill heathens be exhausted? Can't the Muslim trend of killing infidels end? Will Christians and Muslims ever stop killing the Jews on the way to kill Muslims and Christians? Somehow I have memories of halcyon days when the order of the day was helping the poor and downtrodden. And without converting them. What happened to those people? Now it seems like we are more interested in dividing into armed camps. Then we can make kids pray in schools, make women vessels for god's will, and force those who deny god into the shadow of the valley of death.
I think after Tony Dungy's son died someone said he had his priorities in order. Faith, family football. My first thought was that that order has to be wrong. Would you kill your firstborn son or stop associating with your family if they didn't hold your faith? To me that seems wrong. Now as much as I love football, If the lord Jesus asked me to stop watching, I'd at least kick it around. Jesus is afterall Lord over my hometown. At least according to the billboards.
A, B, C. Abstinence, be faithful and condoms. Good Christians leave off the C, but hold that the first two will prevent the spread of STDs. True, but so will a group of 10 sober virgins promising and upholding just to have orgies together forever. Since the church has historically been against sex for anything but procreation (Song of Solomon notwithstanding) and holds celibacy in the highest regard I suggest that Christians remain celibate both before and after marriage. This would bring them closer to god, and perhaps have the beneficial effect of reducing the overall population.
posted by Ranger | 6:30 AM
23 Comments:
Red 2 is my blog of the week. Is Red 2 going to stay anon?
I think godlessness and godfulness are two sides of the same coin.
Hogs in quiches to my favorite Godless Liberal. Are you going to make t-shirts?
(By the way, turn on your word verification.)
you are swell. michele, wonderful recommendation.
Let's see if we can make Red 2's blog comments all about me! That would be really fun.
Turning the parable around was very clever. Did you send that post around the office?
No, no, no, dr. mosh. I'm supposed to be the subject of the comment thread. Weren't you paying attention?
Your comment should have said, "Gosh, that Voix sure is a clever girl for posting the first comment on Red 2's blog!"
I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself.
You know, I liked this post, except that I don't think that the church believes that sex shouldn't also be pleasurable, the church just believes that it's a pleasure that should be reserved for the confines of marriage.
I live in sin with my boyfrind of 2.5 years who I met on the internet, so obviously I do not prescribe to that belief. But in all the Bible reading I've done, it doesn't say that sex should only be for procreation.
The Catholics believe that procreation is the only point of sex only because they wanted to breed more Catholics. Any priest worth his salt will tell a good Catholic woman to do what she has to do in her life. My mom only has two kids. Do you think she only had sex twice?
If you don't talk about "it" you didn't do "it."
Just ask Bill Clinton.
And by the way, Jess -- this is supposed to be all about me until Red 2 (a lovely star wars ref) posts something new....
For some reason, Monty Python's "Every Sperm Is Sacred" Is now running through my head...
Why is "liberal" a bad word in North America?
y'know, I turned off Jerry's word verification, because I can never tell the i from the j and I always get words with v and w smooshed together. The word I got for this comment is pretty cool, though, fatttth
Catholics reject the concept that sex is only for procreation; instead, the catechism teaches that it is inherently good very plainly.
But only within a very controlled context. So the message really is, it isn't good, unless you meet the following 36 criteria....
Meh, that's a non-complaint. You aren't supposed to cheat on tests - does that mean teachers secretly disapprove of tests?
Let me repeat: Catholics don't and have never suggested sex is only for procreation. They do say it is fun, good, and to be enjoyed.
In the context of the sacarament of marriage. Which is limiting if you are not Christian, not married, not able to get married, not interested in getting married, and then there are the prohbitions on what you can and can't do, which we all know will result in those who look upon them being turned into a pillar of salt.
If you aren't Christian, what do you care?
Seriously, I get sooooo many comments along the line of "I am not Catholic, but why do you guys hate sex?!?!?!"
Um, we don't. We believe that certain actions are immoral, that's all, so we avoid them. You disagree with us? Fine, disagree.
Well, I care because of the condemnation attendent with the rules.
And I think people mean that Catholics hate other people having sex, not that Catholics hate having sex with eachother within the sanctity of marriage.
I support your right to avoid actions which you judge immoral. I just don't support a right to impose your morality on others.
There are scholars in the world that believe 12 year olds should be "legal" as sexual partners for adults. Do you agree?
If not, are you imposing your morals on those poor, poor people?
Besides, the Church isn't agitating for laws on sexual behavior at this time. I have Jehovah's Witnesses telling me I am an agent of world destruction because I am Catholic. Being secure in my own knowledge, I ignore them. If you are secure in your belief that what you do is moral, *should* you be bothered?
That's a good question. I have a hard time distinguishing my life from that of a Catholic. And most of my friends are Catholic and I suspect they would say the same.
The big difference to them is faith. The big difference to me is that I generally don't have the same kind of anxieties about how other people live, and certainly not about how they think.
Now I'll admit we've kind of entered a social pact against child abuse and murder and those types of things. But there are other types of behavior that we part ways on controlling, like eating meat on Fridays. And things significant like sexual behavior.
Really its the desire to control thought and not action that bothers me.
Catholics aren't agitating to ban the eating of meat on Fridays. Heck, its only a Lenten thing these last 40 years, anyway.
So your opposition to child abuse is merely a "social pact"? Would you find it acceptable if it was a element of a foreign culture?
Moral relativity is no morals at all. Catholic, Objectivist, and the primary Enlightment philosophies are all absolutist - some things are always bad, inherently - some things are always good, inherently.
In a similar vein, do you support capital punishment? Denial of welfare benefits to the "undeserving poor"? White supremacy theories? Well, some people do. If you are working to oppose them, *you* are trying to control how others think, too, aren't you? It is obvious that a majority of citizens in America oppose same-sex marriage; if you advocate it, aren't you imposing your morality on others?
Of course you are. To point at someone you disagree with them and claim they are trying to impose on you, control you, or change the way you think is to misunderstand how society works.
well, that or you are a Taoist master.
Good questions.
Well my personal opposition to child abuse is based on reason, I hope. Mostly due to the fact that I cannot see a way where the global benefits outweight the global costs and the non-consensual nature. The fact that it's illegal I think is based on a social pact, with most everyone else reasoning that it is wrong. However they decided to come to the same conclusion is fine with me.
Would I find it acceptable if it was an element of a foreign culture? Probably not. But I would likewise be leary of any value system that told me my non-acceptance of such a culture necessitated my destruction of that culture.
Generally against state capital punishment. Generally against denial of welfare benefits to the poor. Opposed to white supremacy.
I would work to control actions and not thoughts. I understand why people are in favor of all three of those things, although with the last, I am less sympathetic.
And with regard to same-sex marriage it really depends on how you look at it. But since you bait, I'll bite. I know the straw man argument is you could poll the citizens of the CSA in 1862 and they would be in favor of slavery. That doesn't make it right.
But my argument would be that I am not sure the majority of Americans are really in favor of marriage. Or perhaps I should limit that to the christian idea of marriage. I mean, you're absolutely right, they will vote to say they are, they will tell you they are, but they really aren't. Americans are less christian than ever, a plurality if not a majority of marriages end in divorce. A ton of people cheat on their spouses. So they will vote and vote and vote to tell you that they are wonderful and everyone else should be as wonderful as they are, but they really aren't wonderful. Not just in thought but in deed.
Like porn. Everyone hates porn and wants less of it. Yet its a multimillion dollar industry and I think everyone is pretty clear that its not just a handful of guys buying Playboy.
In addition to that. I would say that the majority of Amercians are right on target voting that they don't want be in a gay marriage. Hell I'd vote for that. But if they are voting that they don't want other people to be in gay marriages I'm still not convinced how they think the costs and benefits of that play out to them.
But I have some ideas about the solution. I recognize that marriage is a Christian sacrament, and I have no intention of taking that away. Therefore, I would give control of marriage back to the church exclusively. No more marriages of gays, non-christians, or people who the church doesn't want to marry. I'd be fine with that. Because I think Christian marriages can be essentially a good thing, I'd also let the state recognize them as a legal union and provide some benefits.
Then I'd set up something for everyone else. It wouldn't entitle you to get into heaven. It wouldn't qualify as a marriage in the eyes of god. But it would be legally binding and be a good start for people who wanted to try and work together, perhaps raise kids or do something else important. It might allow you to inherit from the other person, share control over finances, adopt kids or have them, control medical decision making in the event the other person is incapacitated, etc. etc. etc.
Does that impose morality? I don't know. No one has to think the other system is moral, good or anything. But I think that everyone should be able to agree that you shouldn't discriminate against either group. If no one could agree on that, then I guess discrimination against both groups would be fair game.
I don't think society works to control thoughts. Well some societies may work that way, but I wouldn't want to live there. I mean I could put up subliminal messages to control the thoughts of people reading my blog, but I think that would be wrong, whether I was telling them to not kill people or to wear more revealing clothing. Society debates issues, but controls action and not thoughts.
If you accept your own arguments, then how are conservatives/religious/whoever attempting to control thought? After all, even the pro-life crowd is about changes tot he law.
[The exception might be those Liberals attempting to use Lakoff's framing theory to alter how Conservatives think. But I digress]
By their own admissions.
Post a Comment
<< Home