The ideology gap...is it really a lack of respect?

I have to admit, I did not really read this article, but I did peruse the first page of comments. Pretty standard fare these days, with the exception that some of this bunch seem to be a little better educated than your average right-wing keyboard-thumper (although in rereading some, I'm considering withdrawing that statement). Don't get me wrong...there are plenty of left-wing idjits out in the netosphere, too.  I will say, though that usually the left-wingers seem to attack substance rather than just hurling the standard epithets at "liberals" like: uneducated, ignorant, stupid, mentally ill, etc.; not to mention using the word "liberal" as a pejorative, much like "leper" or "mother-fucker." (And, in looking over the article, I think what it really means is that conservatives just get wasted more...juuust kidding. I think. ) I think it very telling that conservatives malign progressives almost as much as they do liberals. Think about that for a moment.

I suppose, since I don't fall into their particular definition of "conservative," to them I am a "liberal," with all its nasty connotations. I'm not. I'm not conservative, either, nor moderate.

I think about each issue.

Just to give you an example, I have absolutely no problem at all with drug-testing to get welfare or food stamps, thank you very much. I have no problem with my tax dollars going to help someone who really needs it, but if you're getting my hard-earned money, you won't be spending it on drugs, booze, fast cars, big TVs, or fancy cookware...or cigarettes.

That's a pretty conservative notion.

Contrast it with the fact that I have absolutely no problem with gay marriage. In fact, "gay marriage" is a misnomer as far as I'm concerned. If two people love each other and want to join in a legally sanctioned partnership, I could give a rat's patootie about their sexual orientation.  A friend of mine (well, she's married to a friend—both of them are so ultra-conservative they make GW look like a 60s flower child) posted something about liking an FB page "...in defense of marriage."

In defense of marriage? Whaaaat?

So, if I understand this correctly, Sam and Tom get married, you're suddenly going to run off and get a divorce or start sleeping with goats? How does two guys or two women marrying each other really hurt you?*  Please explain this to me.  I can understand if you really and truly feel homosexuality is wrong (which in and of itself is misguided, because we have scientific proof that almost all gays and lesbians are born that way, for one reason or another; their orientation is not a lifestyle, it's who they are). Fine, don't marry someone of your gender. But, just as in the case of abortion, your beliefs are not someone else's problem—or they shouldn't be.

And therein lies the problem. Conservatives think liberals are all pushy for wanting things like clean air and water, pure food supplies, good education, and healthcare. Things that benefit everyone.* Conservatives seem to think it's okay to push their religion off on you, tell you whom to marry, whom to sleep with, what you can do with your body (particularly if you have the bad luck to have been born female...sucks to be you).

To be fair here, I find some of the idiotic things the far left does to be utterly mind-boggling. Carrying the PC bit to extremes, for instance. Like this little jewel. The NYC Board of Education requested that 50 words be taken out of standardized tests. Words like "dinosaur" and "birthday" and "divorce."  I'm not making this up.  Most of this was based on not wanting to offend certain faiths.  Fortunately, someone got a clue-by-four for their birthday, and the request was withdrawn.  I can only imagine the original request was drawn up by some left-wing committee somewhere.

Back to the comments—and by the way, this whole thing broke my personal rule of not reading the comments (reading the comments erodes my faith in the human species), but it was like a train wreck—here are two that epitomize some of what I'm talking about (the second bullet is in reply to the first):

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  So how does that explain the fact that 90% of under-educated blacks vote Democratic, as do uneducated whites and felons? The people that make this country work and pay the vast majority of taxes and obey the law vote Republican. Go figure.
  
  

  
  

  
  


• Like they said people who are productive and busy (you know actually contributing to society) are conservative and the ones that have all that free time not really doing anything with plenty of time to think about how this world has wronged them or is unfair are liberal.

I would love to know where they get these facts, although I suspect they got them the same place many of these people do: Faux News. I'd be willing to bet that, yes, many blacks, uneducated or otherwise, vote Democratic. Why? Not because they want hand-outs—necessarily—but because they know the Democratic Party is much more likely to protect their rights. In almost everything I've read uneducated whites tend to vote conservative, largely because they tend to be closer to Christian fundamentalism, I would think.  And some people might add racist, as well, but I won't go that far, simply because I don't like to be characterized as being this, that, and the other simply by how I live or vote. And last time I checked, felons lose their right to vote.

So if I'm to believe these paragons of political knowledge, a person, simply by virtue of being liberal, is a lay-about hippie who only votes for people who would give him or her handouts.

Bull. Shit.

The more I read those two comments, the angrier I get. Either because I identify with some liberal tenets, I'm a lazy lay-about or because I DO work hard for a living, I'm a conservative? How neat and simple. Why bother with going to school, when these folks have it all figured out for us? You know, it's quite okay to disagree with me, I'll honor that, but when you think you know me, categorize me, and can vilify me all because I think women should have control of their own bodies, anyone should be able to marry, your religion has no place in my child's school, or that I think you should prove to me you're not spending my money frivolously, then I draw the line. I'm not evil, ignorant, mentally deranged, or lazy simply because of my ideologies (whether I might or might not be otherwise is for another post).

The thing we lack in today's world is respect. And the internet aids and abets the lack of respect. Instead of sitting down and carefully crafting a letter to an author or the editor, any individual with internet access can just fire off what they're thinking at the time, usually proving their lack of knowledge, spelling, and respect. Back when Johnson and Goldwater were running for president—and of course I was a lot younger—I just don't remember the level of nasty that people rise to today. Laughable as it seems to one of my generation, Goldwater, who was about as conservative as you could get in American politics in his day, wouldn't get his foot in the door of the tight-ass right-wingers club of good ol' boys of today.

I respect your right to disagree with me. I might not understand where you're coming from or how you can read things differently, but I'll shrug and agree to disagree. I probably won't have much respect for you if call me stupid (I'm not), uneducated (I most certainly am not), ignorant (I could probably read more, but if you mean I don't listen slavishly to Faux News, ah, well...you might have a point), or mentally ill (I might be, but it has nothing to do with my politics). I won't have any respect for you at all if you tell me my rights are less than yours simply because of my gender.

And I won't have much respect—or patience—if you come on my blog and rant at me. My place. You go rant at your place.

 

*I have my own theories about conservatives being married to the bottom line being the real reason they don't want gay marriage or controls that cut into the profit margin.

And then again...

I had some brilliant discussion going in my head (I won't tell you where I was, but I've heard it said 'tis the seat of all brilliant thought) and had no paper suitable for writing, so of course, now hours later, I can't recall it. Something to do with questioning the authority of That Book.

There are many misbeliefs concerning religion, spirituality, and religion vs. spirituality. The best definition I heard--I'd credit it, but I can't remember where I read it, although I'm pretty sure it was Dianne Sylvan's preliminary intro for her maybe new non-fic work, but she's taken the link down, so I can't check it--is that religion is public, what you do in a group, it's the trappings, the ritual, the building (if any), codified thought, etc. Whereas spirituality is private, between you and your deity(ies). It could, therefore, be argued that an Atheist has a religion: public "averrance" (is that a word? Apparently, a lot of people think so on the 'nets, but in fact, it's not) that there is no god, goddess, higher being, deity, divine one, insert euphemism of your choice, and that by the very nature of that faith, there can be no spiritual side to Atheism. On the other hand, I suppose it could follow that spiritually, the Atheist believes there's no god, that is his/her personal belief and because there is no god, there cannot be a religion because there's no church, no dogma, ritual or buildings....except that they DO have dogma, trappings, a library...so it fits the requirements of a religion.

I have no issues with Atheism, it's as valid a belief system as any out there. And just as filled with misinformation, hatred, and misunderstanding as the next set of beliefs. I think the funniest thing I've seen on their "official" site is "religion is ridiculous." *snorts* Well...you've just said your belief system is ridiculous. Like it or not, if you believe "religion" is a belief system, then Atheism does in fact fall into the category of religion, although etymologically, I'm incorrect. I will continue to think of a faith in the absence of [euphemism of choice] and the public trappings of that faith constitute a religion, a religion without spirituality.

It would be amusing, if it weren't so scary, to watch the two sides, the RTCs* and the Atheists slug it out, metaphorically speaking of course. And...the RTCs wouldn't be alone. There would be the RTMs, the  RTJs, the RTPs** to name a few, all against the Atheists, and then when the As had been suitably reprogrammed, the RTXs would start on each other. I think we Pagans would just kind of roll our eyes at all of them and hare off to the woods to have a bit of fun, letting everyone else self-destruct.

Ah, such fancies I amuse myself with. Where was I? Oh yes, That Book. I don't knock That Book (TB), it has some rather worthwhile things in it, neither do I think it's a record of who hung the moon and stars...well, perhaps Who, but not how.  I do not see TB as the be-all, end-all, definitive authority on AEU*** Objectively, how can it be? I mean really, if the RTCs would get their collective heads out of their collective asses, they'd realize this.  Hey, far be it from me to try and convince them...as long as they return the favor. I think that's my take on almost all religions. As long as you aren't sacrificing small children or animals, do whatever the fargle you want to do, just don't try to push your twaddle off on me. If I'm...whoa...I just had a lightbulb moment...If I'm destined to be one with X-faith, I will find it.  Someone correct me, but I believe that the Xtians are the only religious bunch who proselytize...everyone else takes the stand that you can come seek us out. Pagans don't, Muslims don't, I know Baha'i don't... Jews don't, neither do Hindus, Buddhists... The lunatic fringe groups don't count, btw...being lunatic fringe by definition requires you to seek out adherents and then suck them in by whatever means. I would list those I consider dangles in that fringe, but lunatic trolls are not my faves.

As  you can tell, none of this is very intellectual, or researched; really more just ramblings about the absurdities in the world. Why is religion so important? Why have so many died in the name of religion, yet we keep coming back to it? I can't dismiss the idea of the Whole being greater that the sum of its parts. The Divine is that which ever was, is, and ever will be....everything, every neutrino, atom, molecule, person, place, or thing.  Throughout the Universe, not just in our tiny speck of a galaxy, let alone this microscopic rock we tenuously hold onto. That solidarity makes me connected to the RTCs, the As, the Agnostics, the lunatic fringe...the whole lot of them, here and on planet Xenon. My atoms are filled with the Energy that became the Universe, whether you believe it just banged into existence, was created in six days by a curious Old Man with a Beard, or carefully orchestrated into a dynamic,self-supporting mystery by a Source so unimaginably vast that the Universe just giggles every time we state "By God! This is the Way It Happened!"

*Real True Christians as out-lined in Slacktivist.
**Muslims, Jews, and Pagans, respectively (pardon me while I omit the other 90 kabillion recognized faiths of the world)
***Absolutely Everything in the Universe

To Kid or Not to Kid.

Somehow or other I ended up reading this blog post about the Duggars.

Leaving aside my opinions on their religious views, because in the end, unless you’re sacrificing children or animals, using children in sex rituals, or marrying teenaged girls (or boys) and having sex with them, I don’t really care what you believe. To a point. The problem with the Duggars and others who think it’s okay to litter the earth with their spawn is that they are hurting others.

It should be fairly obvious why, but not one person who commented on that blog post got it, not one mentioned the reason having so many kids is bad. Sure, if Michelle Duggar (who reminds me eerily of Karen Allen) wants to be a broodmare just to let Jim-Bob prove his masculinity, fine. Personally, I think it’s warped, but it’s her choice. And I have no problem with the older kids helping to raise the younger ones. Folks, that’s the way it’s always been done in larger families, and the way it should be. The older kids learn, then teach, and by teaching and taking care of their younger siblings, they learn to take care of their future kids (or decide, hell no, I don’t want any). My opinion always used to be, if you can afford ‘em, have ‘em—nothing worse than poor people popping out one kid after another when they can’t afford to clothe and feed them. It’s rumored the only reason they can afford all those spuds is because of the deal they made with TLC, but if that is true, then I suppose they get kudos for figuring out how to fund their tiny army.

I don’t criticize Michelle and Jim-Bob for Josie’s premature birth. That could happen with a first child or any one of them. I don’t even condemn them for giving every last munchkin a name starting with J. But really, what the heck is up with that? And why all Js? Why not every other one an M for Michelle? All Js is proof positive of Jim-Bob’s infatuation with his own genitals, but, as they say, I digress.

Anyone out there remember the basic cycle of life, the one that allows us to live on this rock? Very simply put, it’s respiration. We breathe in oxygen (and a few other gases) and breathe out carbon dioxide. We cannot breathe that air back in until it’s “cleaned.” It’s why you suffocate if you put a plastic bag over your head. We always say, they ran out of air. That’s not strictly true. There’s air, alright, but we’ve poisoned it by using it. There’s a rather complicated process in which our lungs convert oxygen (O₂)-rich air into CO₂-rich air. We can’t use CO₂. Enter plants. Plants, very simply put once again, turn CO₂-rich air (which is toxic to us) into O₂-rich air.  It’s a deal made in heaven…or wherever you’d like.

Plants, and in particular, trees, are the Earth’s lungs.  Whether you believe in the six-day, Bada-Bing theory in which God pulls a rabbit out of his hat (along with a boatload or two of other creatures), lights all the stars in the sky and then ruins it all by making Man from a lump of clay (that should have told God right there what dirty bastards we’d be); or you believe in a godless universe that lit itself on fire; or somewhere in between, the symbiosis between living beings, mammals, rodents, birds, etc., and plant life is brilliant. And crucial.

We are killing trees and other green things as fast as we possibly can. And in return, their absence is killing us.

The average American, regardless of income, puts out about 20 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year (as compared with a world average of about 4 metric tons per person, per year.¹ Twenty.Metric.Tons. And yet we’re cutting down the forests and plowing up the fields faster than they can be replaced.

So, let’s do some wildly off-the-cuff math and say the Duggars finally figure out after the birth of wee Josie, that if Michelle pops one more puppy out, she’ll have to have a zipper installed, so they stop spawning (I have this sneaky suspicion that Jim-Bob would have to be made a eunuch first, but I digress again).  That still leaves 21 people in the household (let’s just say for a moment that the one daughter who’s already married and starting a tiny army of her own is still at home and not yet had any babies). 21 x 20. That’s 420 metric tons of carbon dioxide into the air, every year, as opposed to the “average” family of, for the sake of simplicity, four, or 16 metric tons.

Let’s take Michelle and ol’ JB out of the picture, because they’ve been around for awhile.  That leaves 19.  And we’ll be generous and take the 2 kids that the “average” family has from the equation, too.  That leaves 17.

That’s 340 metric tons of extra CO₂ in an already burdened atmosphere. Add to it the space taken by let’s say, to be conservative, 1/3 of them, 5.67, to build new homes.  Another third moves into new apartment buildings, and the last third, bless them, move into existing homes (either apartments, semi-detached, or detached housing).

The average new home size in the U.S. in 2009 was 2,135 square feet.² Fortunately it was showing a down trend from a high in 2007 of 2,277 square feet.  Let’s give those 5.67 Little Duggars the benefit of the doubt and say their yearly income, combined with a down-trend in new home size puts them at roughly 1800 square feet per Duggar. That’s 10,206 square feet, not counting concrete patios and driveways, that are not producing O₂ anymore (not to mention the reflected heat sending the temperature of the atmosphere even higher). Combined with whatever square footage the apartments the second third is living in. Let’s be generous and place the area at half what the first third is taking up, so 5,030 square feet. Total 15, 090 square feet, or roughly .42 suburban acre.

That certainly doesn’t seem like a lot, does it? However, by the time you figure in the square footage of new places to shop, work, worship, and learn, plus the parking lots, the square footage of greenspace—The Earth’s lungs, remember—lost is daunting.  Add water used, run-off, sewage and trash produced, lawn chemicals used, not to mention landscapes irrevocably lost or changed, and suddenly those extra Duggars, and the extra kids of any family that doesn’t seem to know what the words birth control mean, add up to a bigger threat than just the demise of Michelle Duggar's beleaguered uterus.

The right-wing Christian contingent (notice I do not say all Christians, because I know many who are horrified at what we are doing to our planet) seems to think that caring about the Earth is somehow or other evil, anti-God, and a liberal plot. That somehow, Jesus says it’s okay to piss on Mother Earth, to plunder her riches, to tear up her green mantle until there’s nothing left. That it’s okay to have one kid after another, without regard to where they will live and work, and what they will eat once we’ve paved over all the farms to make room for sloburbia.

Wow. Those are not the lessons I learned in Sunday School.

I don’t know about you, but I learned God created the Earth, making it sacred. We are stewards of the Earth. Good stewards do not rape or plunder that which has been placed in their care. Even if you don’t place any authority in the Bible, it’s just plain, practical sense to not destroy that which gives you life and that which will support your progeny.  In effect, people like the Duggars (i.e. Quiverfull) are not only selfish, but are also cutting off their noses to spite their faces. The more children they have, the harder it will be for those kids to survive, and even harder still for their kids to survive.

Things like verses 3-5 of Psalm 127 were written in a time when very few people, relatively speaking, inhabited the Earth, and the Jews in particular, needed more people to fight the growing number of enemies they were amassing.  Of course they’re going to tell you to have a bunch of kids, especially when over half of them would probably not reach adolescence, let alone adulthood. This is the problem with fundamentalism, it fails to place the Bible within its historical context. It’s nigh onto impossible to take something written for the illiterate who lived over two thousand years ago, before humankind advanced enough to delve into our past and into the very nature of life itself, and apply it to modern-day life. Of course, if you ignore all we know about the authors of the Bible and insist it was written by the Divine Hand, then all bets are off.

So, yes, your uncontrolled reproduction is hurting me, and worse, it’s hurting my children. I have a right to be angry about that and to let you know about it. Not that I think for a moment you care about anyone’s opinion but your own.

Related sites:

http://www.nrdc.org/cities/smartgrowth/rpave.asp