First Update of 2010
There is a war going on. I was largely unaware of it until just recently, though now I find myself caught in the crossfire. This war lurks between two powerful groups, each convinced of their righteousness and armed to battle the opposition. This is the war of the Theists and Atheists.
I've always been aware of the "converters" growing up. I was raised in a Catholic school for twelve years, afterall. I never knew any of them; I just heard of people going out to try to bring more people into the Flock. As I aged and grew hardened to Catholicism's call, I saw these less as people who went out to spread C.God's Word (This would be Catholic God mind you, not be confused with other Gods that I will write with a capital G to show reverence for others' beliefs. The C is just silent, sort of like in czar. *sagenod) and more crazy people spouting ridiculous claims that fell on flat ears. Flat ears because people who didn't believe in C.God likely chose to not want to believe in C.God or just didn't care and likely wouldn't respond to such conversions.
Recently I made new good acquaintances (the relationship is still too premature to be called friends yet, but I'm hoping it'll go that way. I keep forgetting to dust my old friends, afterall), one of whom introduced me to some new sites, among which is this blog thing.
...in other news, I've been away from LiveJournal for a while. When did they institute an Adult Content field on journal entries?...
After perusing this and a few other sites supplied by new good acquaintance, it seems that the atheists are spewing back at the theists. Here, I naively figured those not interested in religion would ignore those who cared about it, but apparently the proper response is to antagonize them by creating counter-arguments to their claims. And not just any claims mind you. These arguments must be about how the world came to be because that is by far the most important thing to know at this precise day and age! It has ceased to annoy however. Instead, I find it rather amusing how the evolutionists present their arguments on their terms, the creationists present on their terms, and the two don't understand each others' terminology enough to communicate ideas. I don't think communication is the goal, granted; it seems more about proving oneself as the victor than informing others (and declarations of victory can only be made by people who already agree with an individual, of course). Really, they need to go back to the axioms. You can't prove a triangle has 180 degrees in hyperbolic geometry. I particularly like turning one side's arguments back on them to strengthen the other side's case. I do this in my head, of course; I don't need to get involved.
This has been a useful mirror for reflecting on my own spiritual identity (I say spiritual instead of religious because religion in my vocabulary is connected to organized and structured dogma while spirituality deals more with personal experience-again, this is my vocabulary; Merriam and Webster are free to disagree). I can see where atheists draw their animosity; I've been the target of a priest-bashing trying to get one of the Flock back in line with the way he saw the scripture. Then again, I've also personally observed things that support the theory of God (note, I am not claiming the Catholic God here, only the divine).
So what is the result of all of this soul-searching? I worry that Perry v. Schwarzenegger (I did in fact spell that correctly first try, though I still looked it up to be safe) is a bit premature. The plaintiff's case really does hinge upon an equal protection clause, and the lawyers handling it seem to be targeting the advertising in a strategic move to illustrate the law was not defending the traditions of marriage but instead attacking and segregating gays. However, Lawrence v. Texas was decided only seven years ago in 2003, and only one judge who rules in favor of Lawrence consented due to equal protection. It seems the entire case may rely on O'Connor's perception: "O'Connor explicitly noted in her opinion that a law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples would pass the rational scrutiny as long as it was designed to preserve traditional marriage, and not simply based on the state's dislike of homosexual persons." I do not predict a victory for the plaintiffs should this go to the Supreme Court. Bowers v. Hardwick took twenty years to be overruled; I don't have that amount of time for the U.S. to become tolerant if I'm going to be raising any children, and sadly I've seen no positions in Canada open up within my company.
I've always been aware of the "converters" growing up. I was raised in a Catholic school for twelve years, afterall. I never knew any of them; I just heard of people going out to try to bring more people into the Flock. As I aged and grew hardened to Catholicism's call, I saw these less as people who went out to spread C.God's Word (This would be Catholic God mind you, not be confused with other Gods that I will write with a capital G to show reverence for others' beliefs. The C is just silent, sort of like in czar. *sagenod) and more crazy people spouting ridiculous claims that fell on flat ears. Flat ears because people who didn't believe in C.God likely chose to not want to believe in C.God or just didn't care and likely wouldn't respond to such conversions.
Recently I made new good acquaintances (the relationship is still too premature to be called friends yet, but I'm hoping it'll go that way. I keep forgetting to dust my old friends, afterall), one of whom introduced me to some new sites, among which is this blog thing.
...in other news, I've been away from LiveJournal for a while. When did they institute an Adult Content field on journal entries?...
After perusing this and a few other sites supplied by new good acquaintance, it seems that the atheists are spewing back at the theists. Here, I naively figured those not interested in religion would ignore those who cared about it, but apparently the proper response is to antagonize them by creating counter-arguments to their claims. And not just any claims mind you. These arguments must be about how the world came to be because that is by far the most important thing to know at this precise day and age! It has ceased to annoy however. Instead, I find it rather amusing how the evolutionists present their arguments on their terms, the creationists present on their terms, and the two don't understand each others' terminology enough to communicate ideas. I don't think communication is the goal, granted; it seems more about proving oneself as the victor than informing others (and declarations of victory can only be made by people who already agree with an individual, of course). Really, they need to go back to the axioms. You can't prove a triangle has 180 degrees in hyperbolic geometry. I particularly like turning one side's arguments back on them to strengthen the other side's case. I do this in my head, of course; I don't need to get involved.
This has been a useful mirror for reflecting on my own spiritual identity (I say spiritual instead of religious because religion in my vocabulary is connected to organized and structured dogma while spirituality deals more with personal experience-again, this is my vocabulary; Merriam and Webster are free to disagree). I can see where atheists draw their animosity; I've been the target of a priest-bashing trying to get one of the Flock back in line with the way he saw the scripture. Then again, I've also personally observed things that support the theory of God (note, I am not claiming the Catholic God here, only the divine).
So what is the result of all of this soul-searching? I worry that Perry v. Schwarzenegger (I did in fact spell that correctly first try, though I still looked it up to be safe) is a bit premature. The plaintiff's case really does hinge upon an equal protection clause, and the lawyers handling it seem to be targeting the advertising in a strategic move to illustrate the law was not defending the traditions of marriage but instead attacking and segregating gays. However, Lawrence v. Texas was decided only seven years ago in 2003, and only one judge who rules in favor of Lawrence consented due to equal protection. It seems the entire case may rely on O'Connor's perception: "O'Connor explicitly noted in her opinion that a law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples would pass the rational scrutiny as long as it was designed to preserve traditional marriage, and not simply based on the state's dislike of homosexual persons." I do not predict a victory for the plaintiffs should this go to the Supreme Court. Bowers v. Hardwick took twenty years to be overruled; I don't have that amount of time for the U.S. to become tolerant if I'm going to be raising any children, and sadly I've seen no positions in Canada open up within my company.