Electronic Writer

I understand the dilemmas with Christianity–the hatred and killing that goes on in the name of “the Lord” is terrible.

My personal belief is not very dogmatic. Even after 12 years of Catholic education, and courses in Medieval Philosophy (1000 years of Catholic-dominated Theology), I believe that the Lord does not follow our individual lives. I think that He created the choices and consequences system of the world and our existence. We make our choices (say, pick what’s behind door number three), and then another set of choices are presented to us. And, we must make another set of choices (okay, this time, I’ll take door number two).

But, this isn’t the only place I disagree with the Church. For example, I don’t think that we should be forced to choose between Pro-life and Pro-Choice. There is actually a logical fallacy there—the concepts are unfairly dichotomized. And, the worst thing of it all is that the Christian idiots don’t know that the first premise of their entire argument (that God breathes life into the a fetus at the point of conception) was written as a trailer bill to a longer philosophical treatise. Or, if they know it, they are not letting on . . . .

In the Middle Ages (mid 1400’s), there was a Philosophical battle between St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine. The Church (all Christians at the time–they had not split yet) had originally adopted St. Augustine’s philosophies around 300AD, and those theories dominated Church Theology unchallenged until the Mid-1400’s. St. Thomas Aquinas crafted an alternative philosophy that ultimately won favor and replaced St. Augustine’s philosophy as the official perspective of the Church.

To make his theories align with the book of Genesis, St. Thomas Aquinas arbitrarily chose the point of conception as the moment when God animated a baby. In China, and in the Middle East (and ancient Greece, for that matter), doctors were already aware that a baby’s heart did not start beating until later in the pregnancy. But, in medieval Europe, that information was not available. Perhaps he made his decisions based upon the currently available medical knowledge. At the time, the Church was also hanging people who did not publicly agree with their philosophy. Aquinas was already treading on thin ground publishing his works. So, fear could have been involved with his decision-making process, as well.

The reality is that St. Thomas Aquinas selected that moment as part of his philosophy. He could have easily chosen the first breath, the first heart beat, and if the information we have now was available, the moment a fetus is “viable outside of the womb.” Consequently, all of the major church schisms in the church (with the exception of some Orthodox Christian churches) occurred after this event, and the archetypal modern Christian inherited his or her Pro-Life values from this nearly 600 year old attached legislation.

So, while I believe in God, I know the entire Pro-Life stance to be a farce based upon personal beliefs. If everyone were to say that they believe this to be true, there really wouldn’t be any substance for their legislation. But, alas, that is not what we have. Instead, we have millions of people masquerading that they know the truth about God and Life, and everything else they profess to KNOW. In actuality, they are mere puppets to a handful of medieval church Theologians.

Last night, I did some research. I wandered the Internet for quite some time–skipping from Blog to Blog and reading random thoughts and ideas. I discovered a really interesting collective batch of people, thoughts, and writing. I stumbled across a handful of personal Websites, a nice collection of Liberal blogs, and a few college collectives.

The most notable of all fo the Websites that I discovered in my short journey was the Website: www.rightwingnews.com. First, and most importantly, the writing was good. It was focused, succinct, and had a very specific audience. The language was clear, and the author employed language in a powerful and exemplary manner.

In addition to the writing and the structure itself, the content was actually quite noteworthy. It is extremely conservative, but it exemplifies the constituency that we (the Democratic party) supposedly could not reach. In addition, they actually have several entries (including one on the homepage) addressed specifically to Progressive thinkers. It is a recipe (from their perspective) for how to reach middle America. Of course, their analogies are filled with stereotypes, but whenever you use persuasion in your writing, you SHOULD have some bias embedded within your language.

The other thing that impressed me about the writing was that they addressed the President directly. The authors are distinctly aware of their position as the power base of President Bush, and they demand that he address their specific wants–which are not altogether too far from my own desires for government. They, in fact, demand that he align his policies with their ideals: get the spending under control, diminish the size of the government (not increase it), and control the influx of immigrants. All three of their points are good in my opinion.

Although some people may not agree, I have added them as a link on the blog. Diversity of opinion, viewpoint, and beliefs are important to the Democracy that I support and love. So, I am going to practice that right here in my teensy, little corner of the Blog-o-sphere.

I feel bad for the conservatives that I know. They are (in general, there are exceptions, of course) inflicted with a terrible disease. I call it apathy. Often times, they call it the “if-it-ain’t-broke, don’t fix it” way. Like that mantra is a life choice, or a biological pre-disposition that characterizes your mental space, or perhaps a path that one chooses and cannot return.

But, I want to properly name that dragon. Apathy is too abstract. There is not enough research and fact checking going on within the conservative circles. There is not enough independent verification. And, it is apathetic on the part of the conservatives. At least the conservatives that I know.

There used to be a time when the population could have a great deal of faith in what was being given to us by the Media, our leaders, and public figures. The Ethos that a person had just for being on Television or on the radio was great enough to allow us to believe it as a credible source. No more! As special interest money has understood the value of that implied legitimacy, they have appropriated that as a medium for distributing deceitful messages disguised as truth. And, the partisan news sources that use the medium to influence the opinions of apathetic Americans has nearly reached epic proportions.

Jon Stewart attempted to make that very point in his appearance on Crossfire, and in his book I presume (It is on my reading list–I haven’t got there, yet.). He appeared on the show for an opportunity to promote his book, and because he was a comedian (and Jon Stewart), he was by himself. His intentions for appearing on Crossfire were clear seconds after the opening statements. He attacked the hosts for providing biased information disguised as non-partisan debate. He went on to appeal to their sense of moral responsibility as journalists–that it is their ethical obligation to shift the values of their show to be more consistent with the truth than with their particular partisan politics–OR, (he gave them another option) correctly identify your show as theatre and not news.

This is just one example of the former credibility–the Ethos–that has evaporated from American politics. The closer the politics aligns itself with politics, the more that ethos is going to evaporate. When politics is related to the bottom-line of a corporation, deceptive practices will be used. Ever met a used car salesman?

My point is that the people (and news sources) vying for the conservative support are manipulating the conservatives. And, everyone that I know in that conservative boat still have a blanket faith in the credibility of the person and/or news source. It’s like Captain Ahab telling the crew that we are not looking for the white whale, and thinking, “Well, he’s the Captain–he must be telling the truth.”

Health Textbooks in Texas to Change Wording About Marriage

Published: November 6, 2004 (NYTimes Online)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/national/06texts.html?th

There is a door in Texas, and it has been slightly ajar. There has traditionally been the tiniest space for free thinking–even in Texas. The reddest of the red states. But, that door has been slammed shut, and locked from the outside.

The language in the textbooks of Middle and High Schools have had to use something to describe marriages. And, now, thanks to the close-minded adults running that state (and spineless book editors), two major book publishers have replaced the open-ended language with closed terms. Specifically, the text books must replace any slippery language with specific terms like “man and a a woman,” and “marriage.” It is as if the lawmakers believe that they have the right to control how we think–whether they understand it that way or not.

My real issue here returns to language. We think within the constructs of our language. So, right now there is this construct called “civil unions.” Just the very concept of civil unions allow some discussion of same-sex marriages in the classroom, or an internal dialogue about difference. But, that construct is being eradicated from the minds of Texan children. I thought that the institution had banned the same-sex relationships–not give law-makers the authority to ban the right to talk about same sex marriages, or acknowledge that 39 states (at last count) recognize or might possibly recognize the institution, or that there is an entire segment of the American population that wants to be in a civil union.

In their defense, the editors that made the decision to alter their textbooks did not lose their contracts with the State of Texas.

Texas has been a sore spot for this country for quite some time–a bastion of self-determnation, racism, and close-minded-ness. There is a photo from the early 1900’s that shows a Texas ranger sitting proudly on a horse posing before a whole slew of dead Mexicans. It was part of the Texas Ranger’s infamous purging of Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, and newly naturalized Americans that was the agreement in the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. It is a sickening photograph that rekindles my own memories of the pics as a kid where I would hold up a stringer of fish after a long day in the boat. The problem is that these are PEOPLE! And, an even bigger problem is that this was on ONE such photograph.

Then, we have the lovely tale of the three Texans who tied the African-American man up to the bumper of their truck and drug him down the road to his death. All of the people who sat on their front porch and watched a HUMAN-BEING tied to the bumper of a truck and drug down the street to his death should be held accountable for crimes against civilization. How do you keep sipping your lemonade and rocking in your chair after you witness something like that?

But, perhaps I have answered my own problem. How is that people can continue a terrible string of abuse, not value even basic freedoms, and openly practice racism? The answer very well could lie in language. By controlling the langauge of young thinkers, you can shape or control the very ideas of the future generations. You can control how the next wave of thinkers will behave. Hitler used a lot of language control, and his youth organization was extremely pro-active. In one swoop, the lawmakers that “encouraged” this to happen, and the spineless editors (who earned their Christmas bonuses for saving the contract) have allowed future generations of Texan children to go on believing that civil unions may actually be “crimes against nature,” “unnatural,” or “just, plain wrong”– three very appropriate terms for controlling the language and the thoughts of children.