To bumpo the previous entry-o, an observation

[shalanna]

You know what? I think maybe sometimes people make icons that seem funny to them at the time, but are actually kind of . . . y'know, not so wise to make. I have had to look twice at some of the userpics (icons) that I've considered using, because sometimes there's a view of it that never occurred to me, and that view doesn't represent me. Like those optical illusion dealies that look like a vase at first, but then you realize it's really two faces sticking out their tongues at one another. Take a look at those icons again. I should go through mine.

The Happy Tooobin Hello Kitty Flyin'By Hearts Love Rockin' Beach Cat in my current icon DOES represent me perfectly. Except my butt might be a smidgen bigger.

At any rate. You know what else? I get kinda tired of people who don't hold with religion feeling that it is super-cool to constantly put down religion and insult God. Do they have any idea what they are REALLY doing? Do I? (You aren't really following me, and neither am I, but I think it is terribly dangerous to curse God when you say you aren't sure whether God exists or not. It seems kind of dangerous to say more than just you aren't sure.) More to the point, when someone constantly goes around talking about how religion is this or that, it starts seeming like an obsession, AND it's hurtful to those who ARE of a religion. I don't care whether your religion is Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Baha'i, paganism, neopaganism, Satanism, or whatever . . . it is valid. You are entitled to worship as you wish and you are worthy to hold those beliefs. No one should put you down because of it. If you want to seriously tell me that if enough people believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then he'll become real like Tinkerbell, then I will nod and respect your beliefs. Who is to say that there are not fairies? You can only say that you have never SEEN a fairy, which is an entirely different thing.

(For that matter: Who can say that we do not create the world moment by moment simply by looking at it? BTW, I wish some of y'all would close your eyes. *grin*)

Readers of this blog may have noted that I pretty much just don't put down people who are agnostics or atheists. I think it would be sensible for LJ overall to agree that it does not make you less of a person to believe OR not to believe, and end this sort of Continental Divide With Sniping. I mean, it's pretty much assumed by some of the people on my friendslist that "everyone who says God cares is an airheaded fool who couldn't possibly know anything about science, and we should all mock them" is the default position . . . but the fact is that it ISN'T the default position. In fact, I believe I've seen studies that indicate that MOST residents of the USA say they worship in some way or observe their spirituality--it's something like 80% in some studies. I don't agree that to be an intellectual requires that you not be a Christian/devout hedonist and follower of Bacchus/practicing whatever.

So, anyway. Just thought I would like to say that.

(Probably I'll wish I hadn't, but at least now the top blog entry won't be about poly-ticks.)

Comments

[buddhamike.livejournal.com]

Sorry, but I gotta ask...

Would you have made the last post if Hilary had won the nomination?

[shalanna.livejournal.com]

. . . I wouldn't have had to, if you see what I mean. But let me re-parse the question. Did you really mean, would I have posted info for the Obama supporters if the shoe were on the other foot and they had created a "hell no we won't go" PAC? Yes! Although I doubt they would have needed to, as I sense that he would have been offered the VP spot almost immediately and the "Dream Ticket" would be well on its way. However, it would make sense that they (because they are also in great number) would have needed to make themselves heard, and who's gonna publicize these types of sites? Not the national media. I have been on the "Hillary now, Barack later" boat for some time for many reasons. But I don't really wanna get into all of that here . . . I just know of so many women who would be happy at that site, and I wanted to publicize it to them. I don't think that the fat lady has sung quite yet.

For What It's Worth

[neo-prodigy.livejournal.com]

I've been a diehard fan of all of the Clintons for many years and i was ecstatic when I heard Hillary was going to run. I was also impressed with Obama and for the life of me I couldn't decide which candidate to vote for.

In fact I it was my hope that the two would team up whether she was the president and he was the VP or vice versa. I thought the two would be the premiere combo.

However! What turned me off to Clinton (and I suspect others) was how she ran her campaign. She allowed her campaign managers to paint her as the power hungry Sherry Palmer like dragon lady that her critics often accused her of being. Whether it was the constant mudslinging, the Robert Kennedy crack, it was just one drama after another with her. Is Obama perfect, hardly but Clinton proved to be a liability. Clinton is better than that and the Clinton who I know and love is not the same woman who ran for president.

Clinton lost this primary because she basically played the role of the ruthless Republican and Obama came off as the idealistic new guy whose looking to change Washington. Had Clinton simply stuck to the facts and out-debated Obama, she probably would've mopped the floor with him. Or at the very least, it would've been a much closer fight.

Personally, I hope Obama chooses a female VP. I know there were a few names mentioned. Especially if McCain is going to play the minority/gender card and chooses Rice as his running mate.

But none of this would've been an issue if Oprah had went ahead and ran for president.

[neo-prodigy.livejournal.com]

You might find these posts of interests:

http://neo-prodigy.livejournal.com/512558.html

http://neo-prodigy.livejournal.com/512792.html

[shalanna.livejournal.com]

Oh, I know, as I read your stuff as it happens on my friendslist! You are one of the few people who "gets it" and understands that we are not at war, believers VS nonbelievers. I just get weary when I am scanning down a row of posts (very often those of respected SF/F writers!) and I see all of this angst directed towards "those religious types" without really having any sort of filter. Everyone tarred with the worst brush, as if we are all Inquisitionists or whatnot. It's just as bad to dismiss Group A entirely as it is to dismiss Group B out of hand. As Grandpa used to say, "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day." *Grin* In other words, we can learn even from people we don't think we can learn from . . . I must have a Ph. D. in that.

[pameladean]

Hey, when Presidents of the United States stop saying that they don't think atheists are really U.S. citizens or patriots, maybe I'll feel I need to be polite to religion.

I've also never understood how one can insult God. I suppose that, if he exists, one can look like an idiot in front of God, but I don't see why God isn't way above that kind of nonsense. It seems very silly to me for an all-knowing and all-powerful being to feel insulted, and to bellow around taking revenge for it.

P.

[heleninwales.livejournal.com]

something like 80% in some studies

I think the last statistics I saw for the US gave a figure in the low 50s, but that was regular attenders. Britain hasn't had that number of regular worshippers (of whatever brand of Christianity) since 1851 and it's been in steady decline since. I think it's about 6% now.

Having said that, we don't have the strident atheists that you seem to have over there and religion is generally considered to be a purely personal matter so people are left to quietly worship or not worship as they see fit.

[newport2newport.livejournal.com]

Have you read Susan Jacoby's latest book, THE AGE OF AMERICAN UNREASON? I think you'd enjoy her chapter on fundamentalism.