A Charmed Life

I was just reading an(other) article about a school shooting, this one at Florida State University. In this case only the shooter was killed, at least as of this writing. The perpetrator had been posting about things religious and also about his theory that the government is reading our minds, etc., which begs the question: If the government is reading your mind, don't you suppose they'd know you were about to go full Postal and shoot up a library? (Assuming we're still allowed to reference "going postal.")

But here's what really stuck with me:

According to a USA Today piece on the shooting, Jason Derfuss, assumed to be a student at FSU, was near the shooter when he opened fire, not realizing until later that one of his books took a bullet for him.

 "He was about five feet from me, but he hit my books. I assumed I wasn't a target, I assumed I was fine. The truth is I was almost killed tonight and God intervened."

Or maybe it was Tolstoy's wordiness.

We've all heard sports figures thanking their deity when they perform well, and we kind of shrug it off, even if we aren't religiously inclined. It seems harmless enough, even funny. As if a god that supposedly lets us live our lives unhindered while exercising our him-given free will would step in now and again to help some dipshit throw a ball, catch a ball, hit a ball, etc., but not to stop millions from starving, dying of disease, or being murdered.

But then somebody makes the kind of statement that Mr. Derfuss made and people kind of nod. "I can see that. God must have special plans for this kid. It just wasn't his time."

No whammies, no whammies, no whammies...

Bullshit. I call shenanigans. I understand the feeling of a charmed existence, as I too have had near misses in my life. There was the car accident, there were the two times I had guns pointed at me, there was the time at the mall when someone started shooting only twenty or so feet from me, bullets going all over the damn place. I felt lucky, charmed, maybe even blessed. But I grew out of those feelings, as the problems with such sentiments are many: Please go tell the parents of the Sandy Hook victims that God just didn't see the benefit in intervening on behalf of their children. Tell the spouses and children of all the military casualties that God was too busy honing a child-beating Adrian Petersen's running skills to stop the slaughter.

You see the problem with being "blessed?" The law of opposites comes into play. If you're blessed, then necessarily all the people who didn't survive the (fill-in-the-blank) shooting were damned. "That was their purpose here on Earth, to die a dog's death at the hands of some crazed asshole." Doesn't sound very nice when you put it that way. How about: "Your child/spouse/parent simply wasn't that important." Still kind of nasty. "God's plan involved them only peripherally. Hope you hadn't gotten too attached."

None of those are really any good. So maybe we should just fall back on the old stand-by:

"Your puny human mind couldn't possibly fathom the vast greatness of His plan."

Right. Got it.



 

Newsflash: President Thinks All Americans Should Have Rights

We've all heard the phrase "I don't have any skin in the game," and I'm tempted to use it here, in reference to President Obama's revelation that he believes gay folks should be allowed to marry here in the Land of the Free.  However, my recent decision to run for my local district's seat in the Michigan House makes it a bit tougher to do.  People expect their elected officials to have opinions on everything, regardless of the bearing on local issues.  Upon closer scrutiny, I have come to the conclusion that we all have some skin in this one, but not for the reasons that some might think.

I like you too Old Ironsides, but you are not relevant to this post.

Allow me to elaborate.  I am a fan of the U.S. Constitution, and I'm not referring to Old Ironsides. That would require another "S."  I will address gay marriage first as a matter of law, since that is the tack most states are taking in attempting to modify their own individual constitutions to ban the practice.  We all know that State Constitutions are subordinate to THE Constitution.  We also all know that our founding document guarantees equal rights for all, even if it did take some amending to get there (women, black folks).  So, what on Earth makes anyone think they can deny another group the same rights they enjoy?  Apparently, it's the Bible.  I'd like at this point to refer the reader to the infamous "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment.  Rick Santorum, you may feel free to vomit now.  Bags for such have been provided for those of weaker constitutions.*  No offense, but a religious basis for creating laws, especially exclusionary ones, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Now, as far as I'm concerned that should be the end of the discussion.  You are free to have your own opinions on whether things are right, moral, etc., but you are not allowed to deny someone else their rights because of your religious beliefs or tomes.  Simple.  Some of the same people who would march on Washington, rifles in hand, should anyone suggest altering the Second Amendment to exclude, say assault rifles, will stand there with a perfectly straight face and sense of moral superiority and in cavalier fashion talk about trampling the First Amendment - because they disagree with what it guarantees ALL Americans.

We all know we can't have this discussion without addressing the Bible specifically, even though that should NOT BE THE CASE.  So I will address it.  Christianity is the religion based on the teachings of Christ.  The teachings of Christ are contained exclusively in the New Testament.  We've adopted the Old Testament as a  preamble of sorts to the New, but Jesus wasn't alive for any of that.  Jesus didn't hate anyone, he didn't exclude anyone from His salvation, and he was not judge and jury for anyone.  He preferred to leave those things between God the Father and the person in question.  Nowhere does He personally address homosexuality, nor does He ever condemn anyone for anything.

Religious talking heads will scrape about for any sign that Jesus condemned homosexuality, but the proof just isn't there.  Jesus didn't endorse the law of Moses, He just said that if someone wasn't religious, or didn't believe the law of Moses, how would they believe Him, as He was speaking from the standpoint of the religious-minded.  For such an important topic, one would think the Son of God might make specific mention of it.  Of course, we as mere mortals cannot truly know what the divine mind thinks, but all evidence suggests that He was not the type to single out a group for derision or exclusion, and it's getting a little old listening to people who want to put such words into His mouth and thoughts into His mind.  As if you could possibly fathom the motives of God.  "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is one of my favorite sayings of His.  He also excoriated us to follow His example - to love our neighbors and treat them as we would like to be treated.  End of discussion. Seriously.  Now get on with making your own life reflect that of Christ's as He asked you to do.  That is the commitment you make when you call yourself Christian.

If none of this has convinced you that you have no business in other people's business, then you are not the type that changes their mind based on valid argument, but that is not going to stop me from taking one last stab at it.  If marriage is an institution of religion, and you think the church should have a say in matters of the state (outlawing gay marriage) then what gives you the right to tell churches they cannot marry gays?  Sounds to me like you're okay with infringing not just on the rights of a whole class of Americans, but also on the churches that do accept and welcome them.  Something's rotten in Denmark, I say.

On the side of the Constitution yet?  One last try:  Suppose a whole mosque-load of Americans got together and voted to institute Sharia Law in their state.  Since the people voted "yes" would it be okay, even though to do so would directly contradict the principles of equal rights, not to mention the establishment of religion clause of ...here it is again, the Constitution?  Methinks an ugly double standard would rear it's head here because of the insertion of a non-Christian religion's beliefs into the equation.  Take a long, hard look in the mirror, and ask yourselves, WWJD (What would Jefferson do?)™
*pun fully intended.

Tolerance

I was going to try and post something funny, but funny isn't what's on my mind lately. It seems to me that things are awry in the world, and some things need pointed out. So I'm going on a rant. And don't forget to follow the links, in orange, or you're missing the full HD-Extreme experience of these blog posts.

"Showoff." they tittered to each other.

First of all, there is the Occupy Movement, which really needs a new moniker - perhaps one that doesn't sound like a Legendary Stool. The Tea Party didn't do much better, hi-jacking a name from history that now sounds more like an obscene colloquialism, whose wiki page I won't be linking to, due to the fact that my parents may read this.

The actual Boston Tea Party, of course, was primarily a protest against taxation without representation. The colonists felt that they should be helping elect the people passing taxes on them, and since they had no seat in Parliament... well, you can go read up on it if you'd like. But that's the gist.

Now, since most of our politicians are being bought in one way or another, and the people (and Corporation People) with the most money get to influence the laws being passed, both by funding election campaigns and by lobbying, then it seems to me that the people being under-represented in this country are the poor and the middle class. And I mean the real middle class, not the middle class that eats out (at a real restaurant) every night and has a three car garage.

Yes, it appears as though a three car garage boosts your status considerably from the two car. It's not as big a jump from a one to a two, but when you get to three, by God, you've finally made it. Unless your three car garage looks like this:

The slums just aren't what they used to be.

At any rate, if you have one of the aforementioned nice three car garages, then you are not being under-represented in your governance. You are the governance.

On a new, if titular note, I'm tired of hearing the word "tolerance" as it relates to Religious Tolerance, Racial Tolerance, etc. It just seems presumptuous. Like, the best we can do as Americans is to tolerate each other. I understand the message, and it's better than intolerance, but what about acceptance? Why do we even need the delineation? I am not defined by my color, by my appearance, my religious views, or my politics, or even by all those things put together. I'm talking about nuance. We are all capable of sameness, but we are not the same.

On that note, the other day I was talking to my Dad, who I disagree with politically on some fundamental levels, and I told him that I would love to have him as my speech writer, should I ever decide to run for office. It was too bad, I said, that he and I weren't more on the same page. He replied that I would be surprised to find out how many things we did agree on. So, why can't we focus on the things we have in common? Or claim to have in common, as a Nation?

Abortion. Yep, I'm hitting this topic tonight as well. I'm not going to get into what my views on the subject are, but I am going to address practicality. This is a two-pronged argument, so bear with me.

Prong 1) No one believes that people want to get abortions, or even that they should get abortions, just that the option should be available in case that is what a woman decides she wants. What a horrible spot to be put in. It's a shame we put our fairer sex in the position to have to make that kind of call so often. But I digress.

Prong 2) There are a lot of folks in the anti-abortion camp that also feel as though contraception is wrong. Some believe this because of their religious affiliation. Some think that encouraging the use of contraception is tantamount to endorsing promiscuity. In either case, The birth control pill has to be a better alternative than the "morning after" pill.

I submit to you that people are going to have sex. I could offer evidence to back that up (pun noticed), but I don't think you need any convincing. So, if we all agree that it's going to happen - not that we necessarily want it to, or encourage it, but that it is GOING TO HAPPEN - and we all agree that an unwanted pregnancy is the worst possible outcome, then why can't we agree to supply the proper sexual education and FREE CONTRACEPTION to everyone?

It would be a hell of a lot less expensive than the alternatives, and before you get all prudish on me...  you don't have to use it, and you may have your children excluded from the classes, should you be one of those types.

Is that her "grindin' axe?"

But you can't say it's all or nothing. Every day you say that, more abortions occur that could have been avoided. No, it's not the change to Roe v. Wade that you want, but if your goal is truly to stop abortions, then be practical. You take the wins where you can get them. Truth is, the more the number of abortions declines, the more likely you are to get that decision overturned. Think about it.

Back to tolerance. I don't imagine that some people consider themselves the ones that need to be tolerated. These people are often the same ones doing all the Tolerating. I have to tolerate bad drivers, ignorance, idiocy, stinky people, dirty people, stinky-dirty people, rudeness, my neighbors' busted up fence, butt-inskis, busybodies, nosy Nellies, the local evangelicals, the national evangelicals, and work. "So what?" you say. Exactly.

Mind your own damn business. If someone isn't infringing on someone else's rights, leave them the hell alone. Don't you have anything better to do? We're in the middle of a recession and the only laws I hear being proposed that have any legs involve infringing upon some other group of peoples' rights. Like the judge in Cali said, you don't get to vote on that. It's embarrassing.

Here's my problem with the evangelical Jesus Jones Fan Club: Did you really think I may not have heard of Jesus Jones? And if I want my children to know about Jesus Jones, I will tell them about Jesus Jones. How dare you hand my kids literature at a fair, on the playground, or any damned where else. I don't know you, and I have NOT given you my consent to approach my child with your... anything; literature, beliefs, ignorance, arrogance, or otherwise. That's the kind of thing that you don't do. That's the kind of thing that riles a man up.

You stay away from my kids.

I can't begin to imagine how incensed you would be if someone went around handing your kids (or even kids that weren't yours) the Quran. Holy Moses, but there would be laws on the books against such things so quick it'd make your head spin.