The Anti-Blog

Yep, it's true, I promise no political jargon in these set of random thoughts I feel like jotting down.  .

It's true, read for yourself:

1)  Finally got a chance to try some Scottish Ales today, and let me say that they totally rock!

2)  Ok, so I had a thought earlier concerning Christmas and the timing of it all.  It started with the fact that tommorow in my Orthodox Church we are preparing for the Feast of Theophany, when Christ was baptized in the river Jordan.  The reason this got me thinking about Christmas was supposedly back before the late 300s AD the Feast of Christmas wasn't really separated from the Feast of Theophany (and oftentimes was not celebrated at all or considered particularly important).  I could be wrong about this but even when it was celebrated it was either a minor feast or was part of Theophany (with the focus on the baptism rather than the birth).

What I do know however is once they did establish a separate feast day for Christ's birth around the late 300s and into the 400s, it was marked for December 25 according to the old Julian Calendar and not our modern day Gregorian one.

The Julian Calendar is roughly 12-13 days behind ours (at least I think it is, but I don't remember exactly so don't quote me on that), which puts the original day for the Christmas celebration to be around January 6th on our calendar.  In most western societies, I had read that the Gregorian Calendar as we know it didn't come into being until at least the 1600s. 

In addition to being established well after the Winter Solstice, the intentions had nothing to do with either the Solstice or the actual chronological day that Christ was born.  It was meant to be close to Theophany (which in the Orthodox Churches that I have been to is generally considered more important than Christmas) in order to first celebrate the Birth of Christ, but then also as a kind of preparation for Theophany (and in my church I've observed a direct transition from one to another during the course of this past week and a half).

I haven't observed much concern over the chronological order of all this because that was not the purpose.  The purpose of setting the Christmas feast to this time was more or less in relation to the bigger feast of Theophany which had already been established.

Now, I do know that in some Western European Countries there was some references to replacing some of the Saturnalia traditions (among others) with Christian ones roughly around those times but the first references of those that I know of only began in Italy in the 12th century.  I'm not sure how prevalent Saturnalia and other similar celebrations were outside of Western Europe to be honest, but it doesn't seem to be anywhere near the same level as it was in Western Europe. 

In any case, I thought this was an interesting aside to dispell the common myth over the whole setting the original date of Christmas to take over the Solstice or to intentionally coincide with it.  Granted that still kind of happened later in some parts of Western Europe but that was not how it originally came to be.  Also, to this day in Orthodox Churches Theophany is still considered the more important of the two feasts.

As far as how the two dates wound up coinciding I am not sure.  Hopefully someone who is more familiar with the history of the Gregorian Calendar and Western European pagan traditions can answer that .

Here they are, a rundown of my actual views (starting with the most heated):

-  For abortion, I personally do think that this should be primarily a Church issue to handle and not a state one (meaning no laws for or against, no court rulings including Roe v Wade, no constitutional amendments, etc.).  Ideally I would like to see this not be a political issue at all, but since that is not the case this is what I think:

I am against Abortion (I do believe life begins at conception and deliberately taking that life in most cases is wrong and should not be done by anyone) but I am also against outlawing abortion (and thus pretty much every pro-life group currently in existence) mostly on the pragmatic ground of "it won't work!"  I don't buy the usual argument of this belief merely being my own preference, but outlawing abortion will create more problems (and more hatred and lack of compassion) for those who want abortions than it is worth.  Plus, I do believe that as terrible as abortions are, there are exceptions (and it's kinda hard to say when they should be granted but something should be on the books to allow for them anyway), and there always will be on this side of the grave, so that needs to be accounted for and allowed to be legal and covered (and not begrudgingly either).

Of course, what COULD be done is adding more government funding for adoption clinics instead to make it a more viable alternative and give some other financial incentives for it.  The goal would be to make adoption a more viable means than abortion while allowing the choice to have an abortion to remain.  It would hopefully change to the point where abortion rates go down significantly, but either way that change needs to happen gradually and organically.  It ain't like overturning Roe v Wade is gonna do much good at this point in time anyway (though I do think it is a bad ruling that did overstep the bounds of the Supreme Court in my opinion).  The real issue is people really need to understand the nature of Roe v Wade on both sides.  I'll go into that more some other time.

-  On war, similar thinking.  It's human lives we are dealing with, and generally war should be avoided if at all possible.  There are a number of times sadly where it is necessary (*coughs* Darfur), so I don't consider myself a pacifist and consider it a bad idea in this life.  However, I very strongly think that one cannot be strictly pro-life without being strictly pacifist AND strictly anti-Death Penalty as well (I'll explain why soon enough).  War is an unfortunate evil that happens in a fallen world, but I think the quote from Robert E. Lee puts it best:

"It is good that war is terrible, otherwise we would grow too fond of it."

-  So, with death penalty, again an unfortunate thing that the state needs to be able to do in a fallen world.  I would like to NOT see it be necessary.  We are not to be judge and jury to who "deserves" to die and who does not.  There are some who out of necessity would need to be put to death (though I don't have an answer as to how to discern that), but it is not up to us to decide that, it is up to the state governments to decide (as they do now).

So the usual argument that "they deserve to die while unborn babies do not".  Well, unborn babies DO NOT deserve to die, but really no man should really deserve to die regardless.  It does not excuse their actions, but it does mean that we should be focusing on ourselves rather than being moralistic about all of this and focusing on making such sharp distinctions of who "deserves" life.

-  Ok, to tackle this rough topic of gay marriage and such.  Yeah...I blame both sides for making this into a political issue in the first place (this is also a Church thing to take care of so I'd keep the state out of it if I had my way)...

With that said, before I go into my take on this, my premise is that we have a huge clash between gay rights and religious rights.  First amendment freedoms are at stake in both cases.  There should be NO laws or constituional amendments that favor either side of this debate.  The state should stop imposing "solutions" that one side or the other is against and stop forcing religions (either from the homosexual side or the religious side) on others.

Second premise:  I firmly think that both sides of this are questions of culture, religion, and LIFESTYLES.  IT IS NOT A RACIAL ISSUE!  Stop arguing as if it is.  To those who do, no one who may otherwise consider your viewpoints who don't already fully agree with you are not going to be swayed.  It just comes off like you wanna ram this down people's throats using an argument that doesn't fit.

Alright, so if I haven't pissed someone off already, my take on the whole thing is a compromise.  On the frontend, in the legal sense, heck, just call both licenses civil unions.  Yes, it is a major change to call a heterosexual marriage a civil union, but to me it's worth the price to pay to come up with a common term that we can both agree on.  Give the same civil benefits and whatnot, and let the definition or marriage be defined by the Church on the backend (which is where resolving this issue belongs anyway).

It allows for everyone to be the same so no "separate but equal" arguments.  It shows a willingness on the part of those who do not believe that homosexuality is perfectly ok to try to meet gay rights advocates halfway on this, and also allows for real freedom of choice.  Without this, we basically continue the whole two way war where one side wants to deport and kill all gay people (without any love, mercy, or understanding) and the other wants to deport and (maybe) kill all religious people who do not agree with their re-definition (yes, I do believe it would be a redefining) of marriage (without any love, mercy, or understanding).

Yeah, it's a big exaggeration which I know there are a fair number of people on both sides that do not do this, but right now it hasn't gotten better, it has gotten worse in a number of ways I think.

Also, for gay rights people, historically, Sparta and Rome had a fairly sizable homosexual population, and in Rome there were also Christians too, but this controversy didn't seem to be anywhere near as big a problem as it is now.  This new controversy is unique to our times, and really very few felt the need to make a point of whether or not it was called "marriage" or not, so why do we do that now?

Traditionally, even my own view aside, there should NEVER be a federal law or constitutional amendment for this, since marriage laws are strictly a state's right issue and it is said that THEY determine the laws.

Do I believe it is a sin?  Well, I'm not answering that here simply cause of the connotation this question usually has behind it that I do not agree with anyway.  Which I shall explain more now...

Assuming I have not angered people too much, let's keep going:

-  Why I think the Republicans are NOT conservatives, period and need to crumble:  There are many reasons such as Abraham Lincoln being nothing like modern day Bushies, historically being disconnected with REAL conservatives such as Edmund Burke (an awesome writer btw) to name a few.  But the embracing of the "Moral Majority" type of "religious" right is the big one.  The worst part is, regardless of how people feel about this fundamentalist/NeoConservative (I'm speaking of general politics btw, not to be associated with the other meaning that implies Jewish Neo-Conservatives) movement, both those who agree and disagree never solve the REAL problem at the root:

The fact that these guys have "defined" themselves as the mainstream definition of "Christianity" and they know it.  They have a powerful voting block, and they know it (and are not afraid to throw it around).  Those who sympathize with these guys AND those who argue against them perpetuate this grave error.  Either way, if you argue against it (by saying things like "this is why I don't like 'religion'" and "it is better if it isn't a Christian group") you basically make the association in your mind of "Christianity" with these right wing religious nuts.  It feeds right into the whole premise that these guys are just as "valid" as any other christian group, and thus it simply makes the problem worse, not better.  Making these very statements gives these people like Dr. Dobson, 1950's idolizers, and Benny Hinn type guys legitimacy.  You are saying in essence "this is what Christianity is", which is what they are saying too.

My issues with those guys are mostly theological and spiritual in nature so I will not go into it here.  My advice is simply for both sides to STOP.  For those who are against, change what you think about, feel about and ultimately define as "Christianity" in your minds and hearts, THEN decide what you think of it.  To be blunt I get quite tired of being lumped in with these John Hagee type people or being talked to as if I was.  "Traditional values" and "religion" have very different meanings and lifestyles depending on which religion you are talking about and how people apply and live out these traditions.  Look em up and THEN decide .  It isn't "religion"

For those who disagree thinking that I am being too hard on these guys or sympathise or adhere to them in some way, well ok maybe I am being too harsh to some degree, but it doesn't mean you guys should give them "legitimacy" that they should not have either.  I am assuming that if you disagree with me you don't subscribe to the idea that "all religions are equally valid".  So based on that, there is that real possibility that maybe not all groups that claim to be "christian" are not created equal either.  Again, look up the history of your own faith, then decide .


Ok that's enough for now, I need to go to bed and I've probably said too much already.  We'll see how many times I will be putting my foot in my mouth later but until then, I will make another post to list the second half of my nuanced views (haven't even covered drugs, teen pregnancy, energy, environment, or education yet, lol).

Night

Well, my friends, family and I were right, Factcheck.org has had a field day today with the many fumbles from last night's debate.  For those who didn't bother to watch you missed out on a good show actually.  Jim Lehrer didn't beat around the bush, and it was quite entertaining to watch both of them get so testy about things.

Anyway, so I was sitting there watching the whole thing with my Participation Lager in hand (yes, there was a beer my sister's boyfriend brought over last night named Participation Lager and it tasted pretty good too, lol), and I figured with all the times both Obama and McCain kept contradicting and refuting each other (and going at each other's throats in general) that it's time to seek out a fact check.

I'm not copying everything from FactCheck.org as you can read the whole thing at:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_1.html

But I will give the rundown, and one very interesting highlight.  All I'm asking people to do, whether you agree or disagree, are big on political debates/discussions or not, is simply TO CARE about the following information and consider it.  I can't make anyone care but I can express that I sure would LIKE people to care about how accurate these candidates are considering this is our country's future we're talking about (I'm basically saying yes, it DOES affect you).  So all I am asking is please take a look at this rather than perpetuating (and/or contributing to) the willful mass ignorance currently plaguing our society .

So with my blunt opinions aside, here are the fact flubs:

• Obama said McCain adviser Henry Kissinger backs talks with Iran “without preconditions,” but McCain disputed that. In fact, Kissinger did recently call for “high level” talks with Iran starting at the secretary of state level and said, “I do not believe that we can make conditions.” After the debate the McCain campaign issued a statement quoting Kissinger as saying he didn’t favor presidential talks with Iran.

I am taking a brief aside for this one to also display the Henry Kissinger quotes that were being so fiercly contested last night:

The set of quotes being disputed during the debate:

    Kissinger Sept. 20: Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put
    before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a
    high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the
    secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic...

     CNN's Frank Sesno: Put at a very high level right out of the box?

     Kissinger: Initially, yes.But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of
    negotiations.


And then he says this AFTER hearing last night's debate:

    Kissinger: Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in
    talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my
    friend Senator John McCain.


Now let's continue with other facts:

• Obama denied voting for a bill that called for increased taxes on “people” making as little as $42,000 a year, as McCain accused him of doing. McCain was right, though only for single taxpayers. A married couple would have had to make $83,000 to be affected by the vote, and anyway no such increase is in Obama’s tax plan.

• McCain and Obama contradicted each other on what Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen said about troop withdrawals. Mullen said a time line for withdrawal could be “very dangerous” but was not talking specifically about “Obama’s plan,” as McCain maintained.

• McCain tripped up on one of his signature issues – special appropriation “earmarks.” He said they had “tripled in the last five years,” when in fact they have decreased sharply.

• Obama claimed Iraq “has” a $79 billion surplus. It once was projected to be as high as that. It’s now down to less than $60 billion.

• McCain repeated his overstated claim that the U.S. pays $700 billion a year for oil to hostile nations. Imports are running at about $536 billion this year, and a third of it comes from Canada, Mexico and the U.K.

• Obama said 95 percent of “the American people” would see a tax cut under his proposal. The actual figure is 81 percent of households.

• Obama mischaracterized an aspect of McCain’s health care plan, saying “employers” would be taxed on the value of health benefits provided to workers. Employers wouldn’t, but the workers would. McCain also would grant workers up to a $5,000 tax credit per family to cover health insurance.
  
  
• McCain misrepresented Obama's plan by claiming he'd be "handing the health care system over to the federal government." Obama would expand some government programs but would allow people to keep their current plans or chose from private ones, as well.
  

• McCain claimed Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower had drafted a letter of resignation from the Army to be sent in case the 1944 D-Day landing at Normandy turned out to be a failure. Ike prepared a letter taking responsibility, but he didn’t mention resigning.

So there we have it, a nice preview of all the flubs from last night's debate.  Check the FactCheck.org article for more details.

Good fight, good night (even though it is now early evening).

As for me, back to work...