I was reading someone else's blog earlier today and she was talking about David. You know...the guy from the Old Testament. She was talking about how David is always referred to as "a man after God's own heart" and how, as Christians, we all can and should be Davids. I agree of course.What I've always loved about David, though, is how human he seems. Maybe it's because we're told more about him, but he seems to come to life more and seem more human than most of the other figures in the Bible. I've always loved in general how, when we're told about the lives of the great men in the Old Testament, there's almost always a story of sin included too. David had his soldier killed so he could steal the man's wife, Moses doubted God and struck the rock, Abraham lied and said his wife was his sister, and Noah got drunk and acted like an idiot. While we see them doing great, amazing things for God, we also see them being human and screwing up. That's always meant a lot to me. Some days I don't feel like dancing in the street or fighting giants. Some days I don't feel like I'll ever be a strong leader or a good father. Some days I don't have the courage to follow God when no one else is. But I lust and I sell out my friends. I doubt God. I lie. I act like an idiot. So if I'm just like David and Noah on their worst days, then I can be just like David and Noah on their best days. Because it has nothing to do with me. It's God in me. Just like it was God in them.
Sunday, July 9, 2006
Monday, July 3, 2006
a colossal waste of time
I've been meaning to finish my rant on "the one," but I keep getting distracted. This is another one of those distractions.
Every few years (usually in an election year, coincedentally), congress decides they'd like to once again discuss the possibility of creating an ammendment that prohibits flag burning. And every time I hear about the discussion, it pisses me off. I mean, it's obviously neccessary. You know...'cause people burn flags all the time. To paraphrase an Eddie Vedder rant I heard years ago, I can't even go to get a cup of coffee and a paper in the morning without running into a flag burning. I took for granted that most clear-thinking, intelligent people would see the idiocy and inherent contradiction behind the proposed ammendment, but apparently not. Apparently, some of my otherwise rational friends are all for the ban. So I figured I should come here and tell you all why they're very, very wrong.
When I was discussing the issue in my living room last night and mentioned that I thought congress was wasting time by even discussing the bill since flag burning happens so rarely, my Limbaugh-loving roommate immediately responded with, "Well then they should stop discussing and pass it." Obviously, that's not the way our legislature works. Even if everyone was unanimous about wanting a bill, there would still be a ton of nuances to discuss and it would take time to figure out the proper wording among other issues. Beyond that, since the law would be going against the previously established Bill of Rights, it would have to be an ammendment rather than just a federal law. If I still remember my ninth grade civics correctly, all new ammendments have to be voted on by the American public before they can be ratified. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like holding a vote on that or adding it to the ballot would cost quite a bit of money. So there's your first argument: it's a huge waste of time and money to create a law prohibiting something that, in this country at least, is an extremely rare occurence.
But even if our legislature could instantly create a suitable new ammendment for free, it would still be a horrible idea. First of all, it's not in the government's job description to create a law like that. The government's job is to protect its citizens from physical harm and loss of property. You can debate about the existance of social programs and whether they fall under that category or not, but either way, it's not the government's job to legislate morality and/or keep people from being offended. "Well maybe it should be," my friend responded. Sure. That sounds lovely, doesn't it? We'll have niceness police patroling, making sure nobody swears at old ladies or lies to their mother or gets drunk and acts like an idiot. We'll create our own little Utopia. Problem is, who decides what's moral? While people with similar moral beliefs as you may be in power right now, who's to say they will be in the future? What if one day, someone decides that your behavior is immoral? My friend chrisbaker pointed out that, if we have a liberal president and/or legislature sometime soon, it's very possible that they could pass a "hate speech" law. Again, it sounds nice, but it could be trouble for the conservative Republicans who are all behind the flag burning law. Preachers who tell their congregation that homosexuality is biblically wrong could find themselves in jail. People who protest abortions could be accused of hate crimes. Doesn't sound like a world most conservative Christians would want to live in.
Above everything else, there's one reason to denounce the proposed flag burning law that seems so obvious to me that it amazes me that anyone could ignore it. Clearly, any law that prohibited burning the flag would be a huge violation of the first ammendment. Not only do Americans have freedom of speech (which includes nonverbal communication), but we also have the right to protest. Those rights have been guaranteed to all of us since pretty close to the beginning of this "grand experiment." Generally, I hate it when people tell me that America is this or America stands for that. America is flawed, just like every other country, and our founding fathers weren't the perfect heroes we sometimes make them out to be. But if there's one thing that this country has always stood for at least at its heart, it's that freedom of speech. This country was built by protestors. People like Thomas Payne and Samuel Adams took to the public squares and made their opinions about the British government known. They didn't let some misplaced idea of patriotism stop them from seeking changes and eventually seeking a new government all together. Telling people that they can't speak out, that they can't protest in whatever way they see fit, as long as it doesn't harm someone else, goes against the spirit this country was founded on. Outlawing flag burning would be in direct opposition the very things the flag is supposed to stand for.
And you know what? A flag is just a piece of cloth. It's a symbol. And that's what people do with symbols. They use them to make a point. The few people in this country who burn flags generally do so because they're trying to make a point, because they have something to say and want attention for their cause. Maybe you don't think it's the best way for them to make their statement, but so what? Stupidity isn't illegal. My previously mentioned friend asked me if I'd feel the same way if people were out there burning Bibles or crosses. I told her that yes, I would in fact feel the exact same way. If someone was burning a cross in my lawn, I'd call the cops and get them to leave. But if they want to do so on their own property or in a public place with a permit, then they're more than welcome to as far as I'm concerned. What people choose to do with pieces of wood, paper and leather that they bought and paid for is none of my business and honestly doesn't concern me. There's nothing magical about a Bible or a cross. They're just symbols and symbols only have power if you allow them to. That doesn't mean that I don't understand why people are offended by stuff like that and it doesn't mean I don't understand why people are offended by flag burning. It doesn't mean I think the people who burn flags or Bibles or crosses or whatever else are right or clever for doing so. What it does mean is that I know that my opinion on whether their causes are just or their methods are the best doesn't matter at all. It doesn't matter whether they're burning a flag to protest a war, support the draft, or celebrate a world cup victory. It doesn't matter how much or little thier actions offend me or anyone else. I may not agree with every protestor out there, but I have to support their freedom of speech if I expect anybody to support mine.
Every few years (usually in an election year, coincedentally), congress decides they'd like to once again discuss the possibility of creating an ammendment that prohibits flag burning. And every time I hear about the discussion, it pisses me off. I mean, it's obviously neccessary. You know...'cause people burn flags all the time. To paraphrase an Eddie Vedder rant I heard years ago, I can't even go to get a cup of coffee and a paper in the morning without running into a flag burning. I took for granted that most clear-thinking, intelligent people would see the idiocy and inherent contradiction behind the proposed ammendment, but apparently not. Apparently, some of my otherwise rational friends are all for the ban. So I figured I should come here and tell you all why they're very, very wrong.
When I was discussing the issue in my living room last night and mentioned that I thought congress was wasting time by even discussing the bill since flag burning happens so rarely, my Limbaugh-loving roommate immediately responded with, "Well then they should stop discussing and pass it." Obviously, that's not the way our legislature works. Even if everyone was unanimous about wanting a bill, there would still be a ton of nuances to discuss and it would take time to figure out the proper wording among other issues. Beyond that, since the law would be going against the previously established Bill of Rights, it would have to be an ammendment rather than just a federal law. If I still remember my ninth grade civics correctly, all new ammendments have to be voted on by the American public before they can be ratified. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like holding a vote on that or adding it to the ballot would cost quite a bit of money. So there's your first argument: it's a huge waste of time and money to create a law prohibiting something that, in this country at least, is an extremely rare occurence.
But even if our legislature could instantly create a suitable new ammendment for free, it would still be a horrible idea. First of all, it's not in the government's job description to create a law like that. The government's job is to protect its citizens from physical harm and loss of property. You can debate about the existance of social programs and whether they fall under that category or not, but either way, it's not the government's job to legislate morality and/or keep people from being offended. "Well maybe it should be," my friend responded. Sure. That sounds lovely, doesn't it? We'll have niceness police patroling, making sure nobody swears at old ladies or lies to their mother or gets drunk and acts like an idiot. We'll create our own little Utopia. Problem is, who decides what's moral? While people with similar moral beliefs as you may be in power right now, who's to say they will be in the future? What if one day, someone decides that your behavior is immoral? My friend chrisbaker pointed out that, if we have a liberal president and/or legislature sometime soon, it's very possible that they could pass a "hate speech" law. Again, it sounds nice, but it could be trouble for the conservative Republicans who are all behind the flag burning law. Preachers who tell their congregation that homosexuality is biblically wrong could find themselves in jail. People who protest abortions could be accused of hate crimes. Doesn't sound like a world most conservative Christians would want to live in.
Above everything else, there's one reason to denounce the proposed flag burning law that seems so obvious to me that it amazes me that anyone could ignore it. Clearly, any law that prohibited burning the flag would be a huge violation of the first ammendment. Not only do Americans have freedom of speech (which includes nonverbal communication), but we also have the right to protest. Those rights have been guaranteed to all of us since pretty close to the beginning of this "grand experiment." Generally, I hate it when people tell me that America is this or America stands for that. America is flawed, just like every other country, and our founding fathers weren't the perfect heroes we sometimes make them out to be. But if there's one thing that this country has always stood for at least at its heart, it's that freedom of speech. This country was built by protestors. People like Thomas Payne and Samuel Adams took to the public squares and made their opinions about the British government known. They didn't let some misplaced idea of patriotism stop them from seeking changes and eventually seeking a new government all together. Telling people that they can't speak out, that they can't protest in whatever way they see fit, as long as it doesn't harm someone else, goes against the spirit this country was founded on. Outlawing flag burning would be in direct opposition the very things the flag is supposed to stand for.
And you know what? A flag is just a piece of cloth. It's a symbol. And that's what people do with symbols. They use them to make a point. The few people in this country who burn flags generally do so because they're trying to make a point, because they have something to say and want attention for their cause. Maybe you don't think it's the best way for them to make their statement, but so what? Stupidity isn't illegal. My previously mentioned friend asked me if I'd feel the same way if people were out there burning Bibles or crosses. I told her that yes, I would in fact feel the exact same way. If someone was burning a cross in my lawn, I'd call the cops and get them to leave. But if they want to do so on their own property or in a public place with a permit, then they're more than welcome to as far as I'm concerned. What people choose to do with pieces of wood, paper and leather that they bought and paid for is none of my business and honestly doesn't concern me. There's nothing magical about a Bible or a cross. They're just symbols and symbols only have power if you allow them to. That doesn't mean that I don't understand why people are offended by stuff like that and it doesn't mean I don't understand why people are offended by flag burning. It doesn't mean I think the people who burn flags or Bibles or crosses or whatever else are right or clever for doing so. What it does mean is that I know that my opinion on whether their causes are just or their methods are the best doesn't matter at all. It doesn't matter whether they're burning a flag to protest a war, support the draft, or celebrate a world cup victory. It doesn't matter how much or little thier actions offend me or anyone else. I may not agree with every protestor out there, but I have to support their freedom of speech if I expect anybody to support mine.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
punk bands don't like Jesus
I was present at the Raleigh stop of the Warped Tour today. I must say that despite the rain, I had a good time. I was a little miffed by a couple of the bands though. First, I was checking out The Casualties, a sort of gutter punk band, ie dayglow mohawks and liberties and yelling over melodic three chord riffs. You get the idea. At any rate, towards the end of their set, they pointed over to the other main stage, where Underoath (a Christian screamo band) was preparing to go on next and said something to the affect of, "When you leave here, let's go give those Christians hell." Then, an hour after Underoath finished, NOFX played. I wasn't there for the beginning of the set, but, according to my roommate, they said all the Christians could leave when they started. I was there later on when Fat Mike, the lead singer, said the following (again, it's a paraphrase):
"You know North Carolina is the best state in the country, right? Haha. I'm just saying that to get you to buy our cd's...actually, dont' buy our cd's. Buy the Underoath cd because you get to go to Heaven. Our cd's won't get you anything."
He was joking obviously and I laughed. But the fact that two bands took shots at their tourmates just for being Christian bothered me. I don't know a lot about the Casualties, but I'm assuming they're at least somewhat political. And I know the guys in NOFX are political. Fat Mike founded punkvoter.org and released two anti-bush compliation albums on his label, Fat Wreck Chords. So here's my question: aren't liberals supposed to be all about tolerance and diversity? I mean, I understand that most of them hate Bush and feel like he's brought his faith into the job too much. That's fine. I'm not a Bush fan either and I have no desire to live in a theocracy. And I realize that the majority of practicing Christians are conservatives also. I'm not saying I don't understand why they're at odds sometimes. But how does juvenile humor and unprovoked attacks solve anything? Every other band I saw today had nothing but nice things to say about the other bands on the tour. They spent their limited time complimenting the other bands and encouraging the crowd to check out their friends and heroes. And NOFX did some of that too. But for some reason they felt the need to take shots at the Christians in attendance while they were at it. That's okay though. They/we can take it. I just think it's silly and immature and I wish I could expect better from men in their thirties with a bunch of impressionable kids listening to them. Most of all, I just think it's another symptom of the fact that, while no one's allowed to make fun of any other political, social, or racial group in the country, Christians are fair game. I'm usually up for any time of humor and I rarely get offended. I just hate that there's such a double-standard. I'll stop ranting now though.
"You know North Carolina is the best state in the country, right? Haha. I'm just saying that to get you to buy our cd's...actually, dont' buy our cd's. Buy the Underoath cd because you get to go to Heaven. Our cd's won't get you anything."
He was joking obviously and I laughed. But the fact that two bands took shots at their tourmates just for being Christian bothered me. I don't know a lot about the Casualties, but I'm assuming they're at least somewhat political. And I know the guys in NOFX are political. Fat Mike founded punkvoter.org and released two anti-bush compliation albums on his label, Fat Wreck Chords. So here's my question: aren't liberals supposed to be all about tolerance and diversity? I mean, I understand that most of them hate Bush and feel like he's brought his faith into the job too much. That's fine. I'm not a Bush fan either and I have no desire to live in a theocracy. And I realize that the majority of practicing Christians are conservatives also. I'm not saying I don't understand why they're at odds sometimes. But how does juvenile humor and unprovoked attacks solve anything? Every other band I saw today had nothing but nice things to say about the other bands on the tour. They spent their limited time complimenting the other bands and encouraging the crowd to check out their friends and heroes. And NOFX did some of that too. But for some reason they felt the need to take shots at the Christians in attendance while they were at it. That's okay though. They/we can take it. I just think it's silly and immature and I wish I could expect better from men in their thirties with a bunch of impressionable kids listening to them. Most of all, I just think it's another symptom of the fact that, while no one's allowed to make fun of any other political, social, or racial group in the country, Christians are fair game. I'm usually up for any time of humor and I rarely get offended. I just hate that there's such a double-standard. I'll stop ranting now though.
Monday, June 19, 2006
it's theoretical, not personal
I wanted to clarify my last blog entry since the elder Miss Crosswhite seems to have been upset by it.
I didn't mean to say that I think girls are evil. I didn't mean that I don't believe in love or happiness. The entry wasn't even about me at all really. I just think that instead of one special person and only one person that you are destined for, there could be multiple people out there that you're compatible with and that you'd be equally happy dating or married to. I don't see that as a negative thing.
While we're on the subject though, it bothers me when people tell me that they know I'm going to find someone. I realize they're just trying to be encouraging, but I don't agree. After years of watching movies and reading fairytales, Americans have developed this nothing that everyone has someone out there waiting for them. The Christian community has co-opted that idea, turning it into a faith issue. "Don't worry. God has someone special for you." I guess that's a nice thought, but I don't remember the passage of the Bible where God promises everyone a mate. Lots of wonderful people, both Christian and nonChristian, go their whole lives without ever finding someone. I'm not saying that I'll neccessarily be one of those people, but I don't think you or anyone else has any evidence to the contrary. I may meet some amazing girl and fall in love tomorrow. And I may die at eighty-five without ever having been married. I don't think there's anything pessimistic about considering both possibilities.
I didn't mean to say that I think girls are evil. I didn't mean that I don't believe in love or happiness. The entry wasn't even about me at all really. I just think that instead of one special person and only one person that you are destined for, there could be multiple people out there that you're compatible with and that you'd be equally happy dating or married to. I don't see that as a negative thing.
While we're on the subject though, it bothers me when people tell me that they know I'm going to find someone. I realize they're just trying to be encouraging, but I don't agree. After years of watching movies and reading fairytales, Americans have developed this nothing that everyone has someone out there waiting for them. The Christian community has co-opted that idea, turning it into a faith issue. "Don't worry. God has someone special for you." I guess that's a nice thought, but I don't remember the passage of the Bible where God promises everyone a mate. Lots of wonderful people, both Christian and nonChristian, go their whole lives without ever finding someone. I'm not saying that I'll neccessarily be one of those people, but I don't think you or anyone else has any evidence to the contrary. I may meet some amazing girl and fall in love tomorrow. And I may die at eighty-five without ever having been married. I don't think there's anything pessimistic about considering both possibilities.
there is no Neo, said the spoon
I don't believe in "the one." I didn't before my last relationship and I certainly don't now. I guess I've never been a big believer in fate or determinism or predestination or whatever you want to call it. Our lives are, without a doubt, influenced by outside forces, but we're still logical creatures that make decisions and choices. You can certainly find a one, but the? That one person you were meant to be with from birth? The only person you could ever truly be happy with? I don't think that exists.
That's not to say you shouldn't believe the one you're with is "the one," if that makes you happy. But I'm against the concept for a few major reasons:
1) It gives to much credit to fate. So many girls think they can just sit back and wait for their prince to come, for some guy to fall into their lap. They don't want any guy who doesn't come out swinging, who doesn't attempt to woo them. And too many of them won't give a guy a chance if he doesn't fit that ideal in their head.
2) If someone's "perfect for you," then you expect things to be perfect. Successful relationships take a lot of work and a lot of right choices and it's easy to forget that when you're caught up in emotion. It's easy to rest on your laurels, confident that you've finally found that special someone and let things fall apart right in front of your eyes. And when things aren't perfect, when there are problems and work that has to be done, too many people cut and run, secure in the knowledge that it must have not been "meant to be" if things were so hard.
3) On the other side of things, people sometimes cling to a relationship that's obviously not working because they had some feeling, some premonition that this one was going to last and they don't want to let that go. We've all seen it, that friend who puts up with constant abuse, who soldiers on through fight after fight, through numerous metaphorical or literal slaps in the face because their emotions tell them that they have to. Because, from the beginning, they knew. They "just knew."
So call me a cynic if you want to. Tell me I don't have enough experience to make statements like that. Tell me that I'll find her someday and then understand. That's fine. I know I can't change anyone's mind about something they've probably believed their whole life. Just promise me you'll be careful.
That's not to say you shouldn't believe the one you're with is "the one," if that makes you happy. But I'm against the concept for a few major reasons:
1) It gives to much credit to fate. So many girls think they can just sit back and wait for their prince to come, for some guy to fall into their lap. They don't want any guy who doesn't come out swinging, who doesn't attempt to woo them. And too many of them won't give a guy a chance if he doesn't fit that ideal in their head.
2) If someone's "perfect for you," then you expect things to be perfect. Successful relationships take a lot of work and a lot of right choices and it's easy to forget that when you're caught up in emotion. It's easy to rest on your laurels, confident that you've finally found that special someone and let things fall apart right in front of your eyes. And when things aren't perfect, when there are problems and work that has to be done, too many people cut and run, secure in the knowledge that it must have not been "meant to be" if things were so hard.
3) On the other side of things, people sometimes cling to a relationship that's obviously not working because they had some feeling, some premonition that this one was going to last and they don't want to let that go. We've all seen it, that friend who puts up with constant abuse, who soldiers on through fight after fight, through numerous metaphorical or literal slaps in the face because their emotions tell them that they have to. Because, from the beginning, they knew. They "just knew."
So call me a cynic if you want to. Tell me I don't have enough experience to make statements like that. Tell me that I'll find her someday and then understand. That's fine. I know I can't change anyone's mind about something they've probably believed their whole life. Just promise me you'll be careful.
there goes the sun
For those of you that don't know, I work part time at Toys [backwards]R Us. It doesn't pay hardly anything and it gets insane around Christmas and boring the rest of the year, but it's not a horrible job to have, all things considered.
When I first started working there, I immediately hated the music. It was Christmas time, so, of course all the songs were Christmas songs. I hate most Christmas songs anyway and the fact that all of them were Disneyfied didn't help. There was even (horror of horrors) a Macarena Christmas mix. I wanted to shoot myself.
Things got better after Christmas ended though. The songs were still mostly really bad, but they would rotate every day, so it was bearable. Then, after I'd been there a while, the satellite music system we used broke somehow. The first day, there was weird static coming through the speakers periodically and we couldn't use the intercom at all. Then, it stopped working completely and we went without music for a while. It was peaceful and I have to say I enjoyed it.
Unfortunately, we all knew it couldn't last. The music would return. Instead of getting the satellite system fixed, the managers simply switched back to the old system, a tape player that only plays special tapes we get from corporate. So now, instead of the music rotating and being different every day, the same songs play day after day until we get a new tape. The tapes are longer than normal tapes, but short enough that you can hear the same songs at least five or six times, if not more, in an average shift. It doesn't take long to get sick of songs when you hear them that often and it doesn't help when they're stuff like the "Tail Spin" theme or a Kids Bop version of a Hillary Duff song.
I provided all this back story just to say that we got a new tape yesterday. Along with the usual annoying crap (much of it repeats from earlier tapes that I already loathe), there's a couple of decent songs on there. Only I never know how to feel about good songs being on the tapes. On the one hand, it's better than the tape being full of all kids songs, but, on the other hand, I know I'm going to wind up hating songs that I previously enjoyed. I've already gotten sick of such classics as Modern English's "I Melt With You," The Monkees' "Last Train to Clarksville," and Lisa Loeb's, "I Do." Now, "Here Comes the Sun," which is an excellent Beatles song is doomed to follow the same path. After a two or three months of hearing it fifteen to twenty times per week, I'll never be able to hear it again without thinking of Bratz Dolls and The Nintendo DS. Sad.
When I first started working there, I immediately hated the music. It was Christmas time, so, of course all the songs were Christmas songs. I hate most Christmas songs anyway and the fact that all of them were Disneyfied didn't help. There was even (horror of horrors) a Macarena Christmas mix. I wanted to shoot myself.
Things got better after Christmas ended though. The songs were still mostly really bad, but they would rotate every day, so it was bearable. Then, after I'd been there a while, the satellite music system we used broke somehow. The first day, there was weird static coming through the speakers periodically and we couldn't use the intercom at all. Then, it stopped working completely and we went without music for a while. It was peaceful and I have to say I enjoyed it.
Unfortunately, we all knew it couldn't last. The music would return. Instead of getting the satellite system fixed, the managers simply switched back to the old system, a tape player that only plays special tapes we get from corporate. So now, instead of the music rotating and being different every day, the same songs play day after day until we get a new tape. The tapes are longer than normal tapes, but short enough that you can hear the same songs at least five or six times, if not more, in an average shift. It doesn't take long to get sick of songs when you hear them that often and it doesn't help when they're stuff like the "Tail Spin" theme or a Kids Bop version of a Hillary Duff song.
I provided all this back story just to say that we got a new tape yesterday. Along with the usual annoying crap (much of it repeats from earlier tapes that I already loathe), there's a couple of decent songs on there. Only I never know how to feel about good songs being on the tapes. On the one hand, it's better than the tape being full of all kids songs, but, on the other hand, I know I'm going to wind up hating songs that I previously enjoyed. I've already gotten sick of such classics as Modern English's "I Melt With You," The Monkees' "Last Train to Clarksville," and Lisa Loeb's, "I Do." Now, "Here Comes the Sun," which is an excellent Beatles song is doomed to follow the same path. After a two or three months of hearing it fifteen to twenty times per week, I'll never be able to hear it again without thinking of Bratz Dolls and The Nintendo DS. Sad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)