A topic I really don't feel qualified to talk about. Honestly, I only have my own experiences to fall back on, and I've only been alive for 44 years. Not a lot of time to figure out such a grand emotion. But today one of my Facebook friends posted a quote on the subject of love and I participated in a bit of a discussion. Deep philosophical subject, love is.
One thing pertaining to love is the notion of unconditional love. It's something I've always found deeply puzzling. A noble concept, but how realistic is it? Really. Stop and think about it. Personally, my love has conditions. It is often said of pets, and of dogs in particular, that we experience unconditional love from them. I've heard stories of abused dogs licking the hand that beats them and it breaks my heart. But I like to think that I am a bit more evolved than dogs. I'm a survivor of an abusive relationship and it was only when I scraped up enough of a smidgen of love and respect for myself that I was able to walk away. Because my love has conditions and one of them is that if you want me to love you, you will not abuse me. An extreme example perhaps, but it makes sense. And quite frankly, the older I get, the more practical I get, even in matters of the heart.
And people have what I think are unrealistic romantic notions of the concept of love. The kind of love that lasts forever. And yes, there are such examples, most notably when you are talking about the love you feel for a child. There is no emotion that quite touches that. But life in general is transitory, therefore all that life encompasses must also be transitory. And why not love as well? And if the love you once felt for someone has faded, that makes it no less real. It was real and important at one point in your life, and that's good enough for me. After all, love is generally a good thing and the more times you experience it, the more enriched is your life.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Too Angry For Words...
I just read this article a few minutes ago. I am spitting mad.
The article is about a young woman, Afshan Azad. She has played the role of Padma Patil in some of the Harry Potter films. Her older brother has beaten her, and both him and this woman's father have threatened to kill her. Why? For the "sin" of dating a Hindu.
I am so incredibly sick and tired of reading about these misogynistic cretinous bastards who beat, maim and kill women in the name of their god and their religion. I am sickened to death by their presumption that women are their property. And I am sitting here trying to figure out what else I have to say on the subject, but the best I can come up with at this time is a very loud, "Fuck you!!"
Sigh.
The article is about a young woman, Afshan Azad. She has played the role of Padma Patil in some of the Harry Potter films. Her older brother has beaten her, and both him and this woman's father have threatened to kill her. Why? For the "sin" of dating a Hindu.
I am so incredibly sick and tired of reading about these misogynistic cretinous bastards who beat, maim and kill women in the name of their god and their religion. I am sickened to death by their presumption that women are their property. And I am sitting here trying to figure out what else I have to say on the subject, but the best I can come up with at this time is a very loud, "Fuck you!!"
Sigh.
Monday, June 21, 2010
The Self-Deception of Creationism
A few days ago I started watching a series of youtube videos in which Richard Dawkins interviewed Wendy Wright, president for Concerned Women of America. There are seven parts to this interview and let me tell you, it was a trial to get through them all. Part 1 can be found here, if you want to have a gander.
I have spent the past couple of days trying to wrap my mind around how this woman thinks. The most immediate and obvious conclusion I can come up with is that she isn't thinking. She has an infuriating tendency to say the same things over and over, making her sound like a tape machine being rewound and replayed.
The primary argument being discussed is the teaching of creationism in schools. Wright wants creationism taught alongside the theory of evolution in science classes. Creationists seem to have the notion that creationism is a valid idea. It is based on the biblical myth of the creation of the world and all life on it, and it is supposed to have happened less than 10,000 years ago. Of course this is utter nonsense, but it is amazing how many people actually believe this.
However, what particularly bothered me about this interview is Wright's assertion that there is no valid proof to support evolution. She insists there is no evidence. Dawkins gives her several examples, telling her she can look at the evidence in books and museums. He tells her there is a tremendous amount of physical evidence that proves evolution is correct. She refuses to see it. And what's really ironic is that several times she accuses scientists of being close-minded.
How much of a closed mind must one have to be incapable of seeing something that is right in front of you? I am not sure I'll ever be able to understand this. It seems a form of madness to me. But this morning I watched the clip below and it does help me to begin to have an understanding of this mindset. Apparently, humans have evolved to think that way.
Well, that figures.
I have spent the past couple of days trying to wrap my mind around how this woman thinks. The most immediate and obvious conclusion I can come up with is that she isn't thinking. She has an infuriating tendency to say the same things over and over, making her sound like a tape machine being rewound and replayed.
The primary argument being discussed is the teaching of creationism in schools. Wright wants creationism taught alongside the theory of evolution in science classes. Creationists seem to have the notion that creationism is a valid idea. It is based on the biblical myth of the creation of the world and all life on it, and it is supposed to have happened less than 10,000 years ago. Of course this is utter nonsense, but it is amazing how many people actually believe this.
However, what particularly bothered me about this interview is Wright's assertion that there is no valid proof to support evolution. She insists there is no evidence. Dawkins gives her several examples, telling her she can look at the evidence in books and museums. He tells her there is a tremendous amount of physical evidence that proves evolution is correct. She refuses to see it. And what's really ironic is that several times she accuses scientists of being close-minded.
How much of a closed mind must one have to be incapable of seeing something that is right in front of you? I am not sure I'll ever be able to understand this. It seems a form of madness to me. But this morning I watched the clip below and it does help me to begin to have an understanding of this mindset. Apparently, humans have evolved to think that way.
Well, that figures.
Monday, June 7, 2010
12 Step Fuckery
Hi. My name is Brigitte and I'm a former member of Alcoholics Anonymous.
In a nutshell, about 15 years ago I was a single mother on welfare who had suffered from depression and anxiety for most of my life and who had no feeling of hope for my future. I was in the midst of a severe depression and was considering suicide. I drank far too much because it numbed me to the point where I could ignore the feelings of despair and hopelessness I felt on a regular basis. In short, I had a lot of problems, and drinking was one of them.
One day I decided that I would either have to do something about my problems, or kill myself. Having a five year old daughter gave me a reason to decide to choose the former option. I knew that I was addicted to alcohol and that I didn't stand a chance of solving any of my problems unless I stopped drinking. Not knowing how to go about this and knowing that I would need some sort of outside help, I went to Alcoholics Anonymous. Because that is the only option I knew about. It's where the courts send you when they recognize you have a drinking problem, it's where employers send employees who have drinking problems. It's the place everyone knows about when dealing with alcohol dependence.
To be fair, since joining AA I made profound changes in my life. I went back to school and got a job. I became capable of dealing of life as life happened to me. I made friends and met a lovely man whom I'm still with today. I became a better mother, daughter, sister and all-around better human being. I don't think I could have done any of this without first addressing my alcohol addiction, and I dealt with it through AA.
But...and it's a big but. I was at no time allowed to take credit for the transformation of my life. That particular privilege belonged to God. It had nothing to do with me. Because according to the philosophy of AA, we as alcoholics are completely powerless over our own lives. We are told that we are sick individuals suffering from an incurable disease that can only be managed by following the 12 steps as outlined in the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous. We are told that we are powerless over not just alcohol, but over our very lives. That we have no control over what we do or think or feel, and that we must turn over control to a Higher Power. And that Higher Power is God, "may you find Him now."
The longer I stayed sober in AA, the more I started to think about it, and more importantly, the more I started to question it. I would come across ideas as put forth in the Big Book and think to myself, "Hmm, that doesn't really seem right." At first, I would tell myself that it must just be wrong thinking on my part, because AA must be right. Millions of sober alcoholics can't be wrong after all. Meanwhile, I was participating in a ritual known as "fake it till you make it". Which means that if you don't have a concept of God, you should get down on your knees and pray until you actually do.
Now, there are atheists and agnostics in AA. I have personally met a few of them at an international AA convention I attended five years ago in Toronto. Here in Montreal I know of one atheist AA member besides me. He happens to be my boyfriend. Thank gawd for small favours. In any case, my main problem with the whole AA philosophy is the whole idea that in AA, I am not allowed to take credit for my sobriety and success in life. I am not in charge of my life. I am powerless. Over everything. Everything in my life is to be attributed to a “Higher Power” of my own choosing. I had nothing to do with any of it. When I started to question this philosophy during my time in AA, I was often treated in a patronizing matter. One of the last meetings I attended I was invited as the guest speaker to share my experience, strength and hope with this particular group. It was at that particular meeting that I “came out” to AA as an atheist and it did not go over well. A member of the group that was asked to “thank” me for my share stated that I was miserable in my life because I did not have a higher power in my life. And she said a bunch of other dumbass bullshit that was completely unrelated to anything I said. That was pretty much the end of my relationship with AA.
In a nutshell, about 15 years ago I was a single mother on welfare who had suffered from depression and anxiety for most of my life and who had no feeling of hope for my future. I was in the midst of a severe depression and was considering suicide. I drank far too much because it numbed me to the point where I could ignore the feelings of despair and hopelessness I felt on a regular basis. In short, I had a lot of problems, and drinking was one of them.
One day I decided that I would either have to do something about my problems, or kill myself. Having a five year old daughter gave me a reason to decide to choose the former option. I knew that I was addicted to alcohol and that I didn't stand a chance of solving any of my problems unless I stopped drinking. Not knowing how to go about this and knowing that I would need some sort of outside help, I went to Alcoholics Anonymous. Because that is the only option I knew about. It's where the courts send you when they recognize you have a drinking problem, it's where employers send employees who have drinking problems. It's the place everyone knows about when dealing with alcohol dependence.
To be fair, since joining AA I made profound changes in my life. I went back to school and got a job. I became capable of dealing of life as life happened to me. I made friends and met a lovely man whom I'm still with today. I became a better mother, daughter, sister and all-around better human being. I don't think I could have done any of this without first addressing my alcohol addiction, and I dealt with it through AA.
But...and it's a big but. I was at no time allowed to take credit for the transformation of my life. That particular privilege belonged to God. It had nothing to do with me. Because according to the philosophy of AA, we as alcoholics are completely powerless over our own lives. We are told that we are sick individuals suffering from an incurable disease that can only be managed by following the 12 steps as outlined in the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous. We are told that we are powerless over not just alcohol, but over our very lives. That we have no control over what we do or think or feel, and that we must turn over control to a Higher Power. And that Higher Power is God, "may you find Him now."
The longer I stayed sober in AA, the more I started to think about it, and more importantly, the more I started to question it. I would come across ideas as put forth in the Big Book and think to myself, "Hmm, that doesn't really seem right." At first, I would tell myself that it must just be wrong thinking on my part, because AA must be right. Millions of sober alcoholics can't be wrong after all. Meanwhile, I was participating in a ritual known as "fake it till you make it". Which means that if you don't have a concept of God, you should get down on your knees and pray until you actually do.
Now, there are atheists and agnostics in AA. I have personally met a few of them at an international AA convention I attended five years ago in Toronto. Here in Montreal I know of one atheist AA member besides me. He happens to be my boyfriend. Thank gawd for small favours. In any case, my main problem with the whole AA philosophy is the whole idea that in AA, I am not allowed to take credit for my sobriety and success in life. I am not in charge of my life. I am powerless. Over everything. Everything in my life is to be attributed to a “Higher Power” of my own choosing. I had nothing to do with any of it. When I started to question this philosophy during my time in AA, I was often treated in a patronizing matter. One of the last meetings I attended I was invited as the guest speaker to share my experience, strength and hope with this particular group. It was at that particular meeting that I “came out” to AA as an atheist and it did not go over well. A member of the group that was asked to “thank” me for my share stated that I was miserable in my life because I did not have a higher power in my life. And she said a bunch of other dumbass bullshit that was completely unrelated to anything I said. That was pretty much the end of my relationship with AA.
I’m bringing this up because addiction in all its forms is a big problem for society in general. The main solution seems to be 12 step programs. These programs tell people that they are not good enough as human beings to help themselves and each other to solve their problems. That they are sick, insane people that will never be cured and that the only way out is a reliance on the 12 step program and god. The success rate of AA, according to AA’s own statistics, is roughly 5%. The success rate for people that get sober without AA? Roughly 5%. And yet, a large proportion of treatment facilities for drug and alcohol addictions rely on 12 step programs.
You have no idea how fucking angry this makes me.
I've included here a link to the Penn & Teller Bullshit episode on AA. I don't entirely agree with absolutely everything they say. I don't believe that AA is a cult. My personal opinion is that AA is a religious program with cult-like tendencies. But I do believe that it is bullshit.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Oops...
It seems I got a couple facts from my previous post wrong. Today I read another story about the woman who had to have an abortion to save her own life here. I am still not clear if that woman was excommunicated, but the nun involved in the decision was. The story I linked to goes into more detail. It makes clear that the woman involved had a risk of mortality close to 100 percent, and the fetus would have died as well. The article also brings up the fact that no pedophile priest has been excommunicated.
Yup, makes absolutely no bloody sense whatsoever.
Yup, makes absolutely no bloody sense whatsoever.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Moral Authority?
This past weekend I read about a nun who was instrumental in the saving of a woman's life. For her trouble she was rebuked and reassigned by the local bishop.
Sister Margaret McBride was an administrator of a Catholic hospital in Phoenix, Arizona. She sat on the hospital's ethics committee and was involved in the decision to terminate the pregnancy of a patient of the hospital. The decision was made by the woman involved, her family, her physicians and the ethics committee. Why? Because she had a medical condition known as pulmonary hypertension which limits the ability of the heart and lungs to function. This condition worsens with pregnancy. It was highly probable that the pregnancy would have resulted in her death. Thus, the decision was made to abort the fetus at eleven weeks. As a result of this decision, the woman was automatically excommunicated.
The head of the Phoenix diocese, Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, had this to say: "While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother's life, the means by which they do so can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means."
The ends do not justify the means. Which end has the most importance? Yes, one can argue about the sanctity of life, but who's life has more value? In this particular case, priority was given by the bishop to a fetus incapable of surviving outside of it's mother's womb, who's life had not yet begun. Priority was given over the life of an already established human being. A woman who's death would presumably cause great suffering to her family and friends. A woman who's life already had meaning and value. Unless of course, a woman's primary value is as a breeder of children.
And really, how can the Catholic church continue to present itself as a moral authority when it has been a source of a great evil, the sexual abuse and torture of helpless children. How can they continue to dictate people's morality when it has been engaged in the perpetration of what is arguably one of the most immoral of acts? An evil it has desperately tried to cover up for years.
And in today's news I hear about another example of the the Catholic view on abortion. In my home province of Quebec, Cardinal Marc Ouellet has stated that abortion is never justified, even if the pregnancy is the result of rape.
Really? So, it's all about the right to life of an unborn fetus. Never mind the rights of the woman involved. Never mind if she is the victim of sexual assault. Never mind if the pregnancy could result in her death. This means that women do not have control over their own bodies or their own lives. This reduces a woman's body to a mere incubator.
Add in the fact that the Catholic church does not condone the use of contraception. I suppose the Phoenix woman's only choice should have been celibacy. And we all know how well celibacy has worked out for the Catholic church. If I was being extremely cynical, I might start to think the reason they are so adamant about preserving the lives of unborn babies is to ensure a continued supply of kids to rape. But of course, I'm not quite that cynical...
Sister Margaret McBride was an administrator of a Catholic hospital in Phoenix, Arizona. She sat on the hospital's ethics committee and was involved in the decision to terminate the pregnancy of a patient of the hospital. The decision was made by the woman involved, her family, her physicians and the ethics committee. Why? Because she had a medical condition known as pulmonary hypertension which limits the ability of the heart and lungs to function. This condition worsens with pregnancy. It was highly probable that the pregnancy would have resulted in her death. Thus, the decision was made to abort the fetus at eleven weeks. As a result of this decision, the woman was automatically excommunicated.
The head of the Phoenix diocese, Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, had this to say: "While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother's life, the means by which they do so can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means."
The ends do not justify the means. Which end has the most importance? Yes, one can argue about the sanctity of life, but who's life has more value? In this particular case, priority was given by the bishop to a fetus incapable of surviving outside of it's mother's womb, who's life had not yet begun. Priority was given over the life of an already established human being. A woman who's death would presumably cause great suffering to her family and friends. A woman who's life already had meaning and value. Unless of course, a woman's primary value is as a breeder of children.
And really, how can the Catholic church continue to present itself as a moral authority when it has been a source of a great evil, the sexual abuse and torture of helpless children. How can they continue to dictate people's morality when it has been engaged in the perpetration of what is arguably one of the most immoral of acts? An evil it has desperately tried to cover up for years.
And in today's news I hear about another example of the the Catholic view on abortion. In my home province of Quebec, Cardinal Marc Ouellet has stated that abortion is never justified, even if the pregnancy is the result of rape.
Really? So, it's all about the right to life of an unborn fetus. Never mind the rights of the woman involved. Never mind if she is the victim of sexual assault. Never mind if the pregnancy could result in her death. This means that women do not have control over their own bodies or their own lives. This reduces a woman's body to a mere incubator.
Add in the fact that the Catholic church does not condone the use of contraception. I suppose the Phoenix woman's only choice should have been celibacy. And we all know how well celibacy has worked out for the Catholic church. If I was being extremely cynical, I might start to think the reason they are so adamant about preserving the lives of unborn babies is to ensure a continued supply of kids to rape. But of course, I'm not quite that cynical...
Thursday, May 13, 2010
The Internet: Where religions come to die
Found this today and thought it went well with yesterday's post.
I feel horrible about those children....
I feel horrible about those children....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
