Grandmother's Lessons

tomatoes ripen by moonlight-

you get your biggest harvest

when it's full, in august.

water in the evening

(soak the ground,

not the plants)

pick the fruit in the morning.

-and they are a fruit-

so are the beans, cucumbers,

corn, squash and peppers;

so, eat your greens too.

give freely to friends,

neighbors, family, and

can or freeze what remains.

Doctor Laura and the First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

Image via Wikipedia

The inspiration for this was a “rant” by Dr. Laura Schlessinger, the typical backlash and her response, which led to a second backlash. All along the predictable, liberal v. conservative dispute over political correctness v. common sense. In this era, there were countless reactions online, on television, in print- it's just the way of things.

My feelings on this: she was [mostly] right, while being terribly wrong on a couple points.

To begin, nigger is just a word. Contextually it can be an inflammatory, derogatory, hateful, dreadful, despicable, deplorable, no-good word. Her use of it, altho questionable was ultimately justifiable, whether or not you agree with her reason for using it. Some of her other remarks during the rant were [borderline] racist. End of the day, right or wrong, her gaff should have been cause for discussion, not condemnation.

Dr. Laura, herself, attempted to tie this back to The First Amendment to Our Constitution, but she made a second gaff in her attempt to do so.

“With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility”
-Stan Lee
With any right given explicit provision in Our Constitution, there are implicit responsibilities. We have freedom of speech and freedom of the press, guaranteed to us. The typical reaction to anyone making claims similar to Dr Laura's (about the repression of those rights) is that Our Constitution does not guarantee the right to be heard or the right to earn money from speech.

The thing is, these freedoms are utterly meaningless if we, as an audience, don't put the necessary effort into understanding what's been said and the context in which it was said. That is our responsibility and our challenge, in the era of the sound bite and instant, online publication.

We undermine our values and ultimately our country when we don't step-back, sit-down and figure out what has been said and (perhaps more importantly) what was meant by it, before reacting. This is because, we close the door on important dialogues, we insulate ourselves and our ideologies, undermining our ability to participate, cooperate and realize our potential.

Remember, the punditry within the old-school press, the majority of the blogosphere, talk-show hosts on TV and radio earn a living from having an opinion. They aren't paid to be informative, they aren't paid to be right. They are paid to draw an audience, to sell opinion and to incite controversy. There is not much money in being earnest and rational, so we, the audience, need to be.

Hear.
Understand.
Think.
React.

My Atheism

Image Via Wikipedia

You worship 1 god that is 3 gods; not as water has 3 states, because your god is Father, Son and Ghost simultaneously. And you offer me a choice of 2 gods, that may be 3.

The first is a god that is love, compassion, benevolence, beneficence, understanding ─ this god is my reward, if I believe, worship, sacrifice, abstain all just right, as you proscribe.

The second god is vengeful, ireful, capricious, vindictive, ego driven ─ this god is my punishment for not believing, worshiping, sacrificing, abstaining all just right, as you proscribe.

If the second god is the God, then god is a tyrant undeserving of worship. If those 2 gods are truly 1 god, then your one god is a schizophrenic tyrant, undeserving of even a passing thought.

If the first god is the God and there is truly one god, and I am a product of her creation, an integral piece within her ineffable plan, then we have issue.

I have to question why you're attempting to alter my thoughts, my beliefs by converting me to your ways. There are so many of you, with so many differing practices and beliefs. Which alone gives me pause to doubt, at the very least, that you're worshiping the right god in the right way. Which in turn inspires doubt that there is a god. I suppose the difference is, you focus on the commonalities, but I would suggest, that only makes god and religion banal concepts.

I have to wonder, too, if there is a god, of whose plan we are all part, why you see fit to tinker in it. A mortal, a sinful creature of limited capacity. Can you really know god's will? You shrug pain and suffering off as unfortunately necessary but ultimately mysterious parts of the plan, while claiming that you know the plan well enough to know that I need to believe and behave as you do, because it is in the plan for me to do so, altho I may have freewill in the matter and my atheism may, in fact, be part of the plan.

I think, the god I could believe in, would care more about my character ─ that I am fair, just, rational, skeptical, compassionate, actively living, pursuing some purpose, experiencing the marvels of creation, and enjoying this life and this world which was created for us, than that I worship the correct way or even that I simply believe.

This is an essential fact, I believe you've missed: appreciating and embracing life celebrates your god's creation and thereby your god, more than the platitudes of prayer or prostrations of faith.

As to hell and heaven. If hell exists, the schizophrenic-tyrant god is the God and I would prefer the freedom of hell. If the god of love and compassionate-understanding is the God, I will have my place in heaven, because I will have lived a good and just life, I will have been marveled and humbled by all that exists and all that I have experienced. God being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent would know the truth of my soul and being a god of love and compassionate-understanding, could not deny me entry for my atheism. This last god then, is not your god, but a product of my mind.

We end with the truth. I am an atheist. I am content with naturalistic explanations for existence, while my morality is defined by beneficence, liberty and equality. I have read your bible; I could defend my atheism from scripture. I could defend my atheism from scientific literature. I do not write in order to dismiss you or your belief, but share my perspective and hopefully foster understanding.