I am now a proud member of a 2 parent 2 kids at home nuclear family. Teen daughter decided, after 15 years with younger brothers, to head to the Canadian university that is second-farthest from home; UBC.
Pluses I anticipated: less laundry, one bedroom that remains tidy.
Pluses not materializing: cleaner bathrooms. Turns out it's bad aim from the boys that makes my weekend cleaning routine revolting.
The minus is missing my lovely, intelligent and funny daughter, and of course I was expecting that. But I also ignored it, as I didn't want to spend my summer being sad she was leaving.
I was feeling sorry for myself as I headed out to the Vancouver airport, then I saw an older guy tell his son they were at their stop. He wheeled his middle-aged son off the Skytrain, and I realized how enormously lucky I am to be able to drop my child off at university. Privilege can be invisible if you don't look for it, or recognize it as privilege when you see others who are less fortunate.
Now I am feeling lucky, and broke, and ready for a school year with only 2 kids at home. I'm going to blog more, now that this network actually works with an iPad! Maybe I'll even blog about the raging sexism in the atheist blogosphere, which is the part of the internet I spend much of my online time visiting. Although apparently saying guys, don't do that is likely to result in substantial abuse. Ah well, that assumes anyone reads this!
Happy end of summer, imaginary readers.
Showing posts with label atheist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label atheist. Show all posts
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
...and another thing that irritates me about religion
I'm an atheist. This means I don't believe in any of the gods humankind has proposed to explain the world. None of 'em.
In all honesty, I'm trying to be all liberal and accomodating about religion, but really I think if you're religious, you aren't thinking hard enough. I think I'm right, and if you disagree, well, you must be wrong. One of my favourite bloggers, slacktivist, is religious. But his non-religious thinking is brilliant (mostly), and I love reading his blog. It's helped me understand that you can be religious, and think profoundly about your religion, and not be a bigot, and be a most excellent person. But I still think religion has some major issues and not enough religious people are willing to discuss them.
My point? I do have one. I just can't segue into it nicely. I dislike the conservatism of religion. I dislike the misogyny that goes along with that conservatism. The current pope, Benedict, has said it's sinful to rape kids and to ordain women, and they are in the same level of sin. Being ignorant of the finer points of Catholic dogma, I don't know if he really means they are equally wrong, but he did make it clear both are seriously bad.
So he runs an institution that says women can't have employment equity. That this is wrong, a sin, and a big one. Yet the church gets charitable status, so we are, with our tax dollars, supporting an institution that says it doesn't have to follow the law. This is wrong. If an organization wants to apply for tax-exempt status, it should be required to follow all laws. If it does not wish to follow these laws, it should have to file tax returns and pay tax, if there is income after expenses, on that income.
Our wimpy politicians are afraid of insulting religion. Asking people who claim to be moral authorities to follow the law doesn't seem insulting to me. Failing to do so? I'm insulted. Enough that it makes me suspicious of all religous people. Even though I'm trying to be tolerant.
In all honesty, I'm trying to be all liberal and accomodating about religion, but really I think if you're religious, you aren't thinking hard enough. I think I'm right, and if you disagree, well, you must be wrong. One of my favourite bloggers, slacktivist, is religious. But his non-religious thinking is brilliant (mostly), and I love reading his blog. It's helped me understand that you can be religious, and think profoundly about your religion, and not be a bigot, and be a most excellent person. But I still think religion has some major issues and not enough religious people are willing to discuss them.
My point? I do have one. I just can't segue into it nicely. I dislike the conservatism of religion. I dislike the misogyny that goes along with that conservatism. The current pope, Benedict, has said it's sinful to rape kids and to ordain women, and they are in the same level of sin. Being ignorant of the finer points of Catholic dogma, I don't know if he really means they are equally wrong, but he did make it clear both are seriously bad.
So he runs an institution that says women can't have employment equity. That this is wrong, a sin, and a big one. Yet the church gets charitable status, so we are, with our tax dollars, supporting an institution that says it doesn't have to follow the law. This is wrong. If an organization wants to apply for tax-exempt status, it should be required to follow all laws. If it does not wish to follow these laws, it should have to file tax returns and pay tax, if there is income after expenses, on that income.
Our wimpy politicians are afraid of insulting religion. Asking people who claim to be moral authorities to follow the law doesn't seem insulting to me. Failing to do so? I'm insulted. Enough that it makes me suspicious of all religous people. Even though I'm trying to be tolerant.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Ritual without religion
I am a fan of blogs. Mostly science & skeptical blogs, and one that is more philosophical and political - Greta Christina's blog. Her writing is as exceptional as her thinking.
My writing is as muddy as mine, so thanks for your patience in slogging through ye olde silly blog.
But she had a thought that made me think, which is better than just thoughts I agree with. Thinking is fun. Honest. I just don't do enough of it.
She mentioned that she thought some people might be tied to the rituals, not the beliefs, of their faith, and that it was possible to be a secular Jew or Catholic.
I agree that you can be a secular Jew. By my definition, of course, which means someone who sees their Judaism as a cultural and not merely religious heritage.
Catholic I had more trouble with. Maybe because I can't see something I used to be associated with as particularly meaningful. I mean, they spend years going on about how much communion rocks, then you finally get your first communion, and it's a gummy wafer. It's tasteless, it adheres to the roof of your mouth (or retainer, if you forget to take it out), and it better not be the body of christ cause he's been dead, for, like, 2000 years, eh, so it'd, be, like, gross.
OK, so clearly by ritual she means more than ritualistic pseudo cannibalism, my favourite phrase for communion. And with Judaism the holy bits are associated with a history of persecution. Insane persecution. I mean, it's amazing anyone lasted as a Jew.
I just don't see that same history with Catholicism. Yeah, a few early Christians made excellent lion food. But it's not like the Romans were nice to everyone else, and Constantine made it the norm once he converted, I think in AD 333. Or so. And how much systematic repression against Catholics has there been since? Some, sure, the Irish would have a few stories, and certainly it was an issue for JFK. But in Canada? Not so much.
I realize a ritual is not simply meaningful cause your relatives got killed for it. Meaning I have yet to form a coherent thought. One may yet arrive, don't hold your breath.
Dropping the religious bits of Catholicism leaves guilt. Ask any former Catholic. Not much else. Christmas? The tree and gifts were adopted from the pagans. Easter? What? Did Jesus hide chocolate eggs as he staggered towards his execution carrying a cross? Maybe they left that bit out. I don't know where the chocolate egg hiding or bunny delivering them comes from, but it ain't Catholicism. What else? White dresses? Odd hats? Men wearing red dresses? The chants of a mass that come back verbatim at every funeral I sit through? I don't find it comforting, though - I find it depersonalizes the funeral.
So I don't think that there's any meaningful ritual that ties a former Catholic to Catholicism similar to those that would create a secular Jew. Am I wrong? For some people, absolutely. For me, not so much.
My writing is as muddy as mine, so thanks for your patience in slogging through ye olde silly blog.
But she had a thought that made me think, which is better than just thoughts I agree with. Thinking is fun. Honest. I just don't do enough of it.
She mentioned that she thought some people might be tied to the rituals, not the beliefs, of their faith, and that it was possible to be a secular Jew or Catholic.
I agree that you can be a secular Jew. By my definition, of course, which means someone who sees their Judaism as a cultural and not merely religious heritage.
Catholic I had more trouble with. Maybe because I can't see something I used to be associated with as particularly meaningful. I mean, they spend years going on about how much communion rocks, then you finally get your first communion, and it's a gummy wafer. It's tasteless, it adheres to the roof of your mouth (or retainer, if you forget to take it out), and it better not be the body of christ cause he's been dead, for, like, 2000 years, eh, so it'd, be, like, gross.
OK, so clearly by ritual she means more than ritualistic pseudo cannibalism, my favourite phrase for communion. And with Judaism the holy bits are associated with a history of persecution. Insane persecution. I mean, it's amazing anyone lasted as a Jew.
I just don't see that same history with Catholicism. Yeah, a few early Christians made excellent lion food. But it's not like the Romans were nice to everyone else, and Constantine made it the norm once he converted, I think in AD 333. Or so. And how much systematic repression against Catholics has there been since? Some, sure, the Irish would have a few stories, and certainly it was an issue for JFK. But in Canada? Not so much.
I realize a ritual is not simply meaningful cause your relatives got killed for it. Meaning I have yet to form a coherent thought. One may yet arrive, don't hold your breath.
Dropping the religious bits of Catholicism leaves guilt. Ask any former Catholic. Not much else. Christmas? The tree and gifts were adopted from the pagans. Easter? What? Did Jesus hide chocolate eggs as he staggered towards his execution carrying a cross? Maybe they left that bit out. I don't know where the chocolate egg hiding or bunny delivering them comes from, but it ain't Catholicism. What else? White dresses? Odd hats? Men wearing red dresses? The chants of a mass that come back verbatim at every funeral I sit through? I don't find it comforting, though - I find it depersonalizes the funeral.
So I don't think that there's any meaningful ritual that ties a former Catholic to Catholicism similar to those that would create a secular Jew. Am I wrong? For some people, absolutely. For me, not so much.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Gobble gobble
I have just eaten an enormous quantity of food, accompanied by wine.
I have also just lost the button on my pants.
You might think they exploded. Assploded? No. This is not the case. They fit OK. A bit large, actually, but I am one of those many not quite a size 8 but a 6 doesn't work after turkey girls.
The button came off as I tried to remove it. This sounds like a classic cake of overturkeyitis, but I'd like to state for the record that it was a classic case of impatience. As in, holy crap, I have drunk too much wine and must pee, why do women's pants have two clasps and a button, oh never mind about the button.
So I must resew the button. And finish the wine. I am in mourning, so it's allowed. My bicycle suffered a traumatic injury. I approached it after work, with the uncharitable thought of gee, hope that isn't mine. It was. A back tire so flat, Arnold's abs are a keg in comparison. I now have 3 flat tires to fix this weekend - one on beater bike, 2 on awesome bike. So I had to trade in $5 for $3 in coins so I could take the crappy bus home, through horrific traffic. I am now paying for a bus pass I don't use, and a bus ride I loathed. Tomorrow is Friday payday long weekend. I suspect I will be a wee mite teed at myself for finishing off the red wine. But for now, I am enjoying it.
Goals for weekend. Fix bikes. Ride like maniac in amazing fall weather, with fabulous leaf colours, just like this morning - which was so beautiful it shouldn't be legal. Watch lunar crash. Realize again the universe is awesome, as is earth, and free of gods. Hug kids.
Friday, July 31, 2009
My own scarlet A!
I noticed a few atheist blogs had a scarlet A on them, and, in a desire to spend my limited time on earth in a highly valuable and productive way, clicked on one.
Now I have my very own A!
Click on it if you, too, wish to learn more about the A; the link is to the out campaign. Not out, as it outing someone for their sexual preferences when they'd prefer not to have those publicly known, but out as in the truth is out! I'm an atheist!
Not exactly a point of pride with me. I'm an atheist because I don't believe there is a god. The more I learn about the world, the more I realize my previously unthinking atheism sure seems a better fit than some "I can do everything but won't because, um, free will" living up in the sky not intervening. Never intervening. Letting the wee children die.
Enough of that - it's Friday afternoon before a long weekend with a decent weather forecast.
I will be gardening.
I probably won't be driving the new Lexus much - like all of Hugh's cars, it's comfortable with a terrific suspension and all the excitement of a warm bath. Alone.
I also plan on cycling. Finally, my bicycle is not stuck to the garage wall, but on the ground, where I can tinker until the brakes work and then hop on.
Life is good. I plan on living it as well as I can for as long as I can, and hope that when I die, people say that I was fun to be with. There's enough serious crap in the world that we really need to grab every chance at fun we can. With the usual responsibilities first caveat...so I might attack the old couch with a crowbar, but I will be responsible (deep sigh) and try to give it away first.
If you think you want my couch, it's really crappy, and it would be much better to let me trash it, OK?
Now I have my very own A!
Click on it if you, too, wish to learn more about the A; the link is to the out campaign. Not out, as it outing someone for their sexual preferences when they'd prefer not to have those publicly known, but out as in the truth is out! I'm an atheist!
Not exactly a point of pride with me. I'm an atheist because I don't believe there is a god. The more I learn about the world, the more I realize my previously unthinking atheism sure seems a better fit than some "I can do everything but won't because, um, free will" living up in the sky not intervening. Never intervening. Letting the wee children die.
Enough of that - it's Friday afternoon before a long weekend with a decent weather forecast.
I will be gardening.
I probably won't be driving the new Lexus much - like all of Hugh's cars, it's comfortable with a terrific suspension and all the excitement of a warm bath. Alone.
I also plan on cycling. Finally, my bicycle is not stuck to the garage wall, but on the ground, where I can tinker until the brakes work and then hop on.
Life is good. I plan on living it as well as I can for as long as I can, and hope that when I die, people say that I was fun to be with. There's enough serious crap in the world that we really need to grab every chance at fun we can. With the usual responsibilities first caveat...so I might attack the old couch with a crowbar, but I will be responsible (deep sigh) and try to give it away first.
If you think you want my couch, it's really crappy, and it would be much better to let me trash it, OK?
Friday, February 20, 2009
ding dong the strike is gone
It's Friday afternoon, and glancing out the window shows my favourite winter precipitation - snow. I'm looking forward to reading on the bus on the way home, far preferable to driving in crappy traffic. Thanks, oh Ottawa bus drivers, for not being on strike anymore.
I'm reading Ever Since Darwin, a collection of Stephen Jay Gould essays. He's beaten up a bit for his NOMA ideas, stating that religion and science do not overlap. I think his rational was that religion is the department of the unknowable, and science is concerned with what's knowable, ergo no overlap. Too bad the fundies think religion is everything, so nothing's outside its irrational reach.
Ergo is a great word. So is ergot. A rye disease, ergot is, that made many mad. It's also used to make LSD. We had a stray cat, briefly, named ergot. It did not eat rye. We also had 2 cats that loved catnip. Is getting cats stoned bad? I'd have unambiguously said no before learning of the links between schizophrenia and marijuana. I realize correlation is not causation, but it's worth knowing that there is a link and letting your kids know, so they can decide whether a toke is worth it. Poor Michael Phelps. He won 8 gold medals - let him party in peace!
Back to NOMA. I think he was trying to find a way forwards, to let religious people focus on their needs so that science could progress, and particularly so science education could progress, without diverting time and resources into fighting idiocy. Or IDiocy, if you're talking intelligent design crap. But as religious followers have failed to embrace NOMA, it's not really a useful concept. Unless you're a religious scientist, in which case it makes compartmentalization easier.
All religions seem to have some loopy ideas, like ritualistic pseudo cannibalism, or eternal life, or reincarnation as another life form. Eternal life's a pretty good marketing ploy, though - follow us and you'll never die! Hard to beat that spiel. Think for yourself and, um, you'll, um, have self respect! Or not. I wish religion was a force for good. I think most people are good, including most religious people, but I don't see anything that convinces me that religion promotes goodness.
Here's my idea to reduce deficits. Stop giving religious organizations tax exempt status. If they have a charitable foundation, that can qualify, but they should otherwise be treated as businesses. Why should Scientology not pay tax on the sale of their de-thetanizing machines or whatever they're called? Or the Vatican on their incredible wealth? If the primary objective of a religion is charitable, then this shouldn't be an issue at all. But I suspect a lot of the income supports activities that shouldn't qualify as tax-exempt. And that includes the mainstream religions as well as the truly wingnut ones, like Scientology.
Vonnegut poked fun so well. The Church of Jesus Christ the Kidnapped is still my favourite mock faith. I must read Slapstick again. And also Catch-22. I realize that's Heller and not Vonnegut, but they both wrote brilliant satire. I wonder what Swift would have thought of fundamentalism? I bet it would have been fun to read.
I'm reading Ever Since Darwin, a collection of Stephen Jay Gould essays. He's beaten up a bit for his NOMA ideas, stating that religion and science do not overlap. I think his rational was that religion is the department of the unknowable, and science is concerned with what's knowable, ergo no overlap. Too bad the fundies think religion is everything, so nothing's outside its irrational reach.
Ergo is a great word. So is ergot. A rye disease, ergot is, that made many mad. It's also used to make LSD. We had a stray cat, briefly, named ergot. It did not eat rye. We also had 2 cats that loved catnip. Is getting cats stoned bad? I'd have unambiguously said no before learning of the links between schizophrenia and marijuana. I realize correlation is not causation, but it's worth knowing that there is a link and letting your kids know, so they can decide whether a toke is worth it. Poor Michael Phelps. He won 8 gold medals - let him party in peace!
Back to NOMA. I think he was trying to find a way forwards, to let religious people focus on their needs so that science could progress, and particularly so science education could progress, without diverting time and resources into fighting idiocy. Or IDiocy, if you're talking intelligent design crap. But as religious followers have failed to embrace NOMA, it's not really a useful concept. Unless you're a religious scientist, in which case it makes compartmentalization easier.
All religions seem to have some loopy ideas, like ritualistic pseudo cannibalism, or eternal life, or reincarnation as another life form. Eternal life's a pretty good marketing ploy, though - follow us and you'll never die! Hard to beat that spiel. Think for yourself and, um, you'll, um, have self respect! Or not. I wish religion was a force for good. I think most people are good, including most religious people, but I don't see anything that convinces me that religion promotes goodness.
Here's my idea to reduce deficits. Stop giving religious organizations tax exempt status. If they have a charitable foundation, that can qualify, but they should otherwise be treated as businesses. Why should Scientology not pay tax on the sale of their de-thetanizing machines or whatever they're called? Or the Vatican on their incredible wealth? If the primary objective of a religion is charitable, then this shouldn't be an issue at all. But I suspect a lot of the income supports activities that shouldn't qualify as tax-exempt. And that includes the mainstream religions as well as the truly wingnut ones, like Scientology.
Vonnegut poked fun so well. The Church of Jesus Christ the Kidnapped is still my favourite mock faith. I must read Slapstick again. And also Catch-22. I realize that's Heller and not Vonnegut, but they both wrote brilliant satire. I wonder what Swift would have thought of fundamentalism? I bet it would have been fun to read.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Much ado about nothing
I've been reading far too many blogs, chiefly on the topic of atheism.
I'm not a great thinker. I do know when something bugs me, when I agree and when I disagree. And I was having trouble finding arguments from atheists dealing with religion that resonated. Just saying so and so did a bad thing in the name of religion so religion is bad doesn't cut it. Neither do examples like the failure of abstinence-only sex education to prevent STDs, pregnancy or premarital sex. People can do dumb things in the name of religion, but does that make religion wrong?
I don't mean wrong in the sense of factually wrong, I mean in the sense of morally wrong. Is religion morally wrong?
This is not a silly question, so it isn't really on-topic for this blog. How can I make this silly? Well, I tried with the title.
Much ado about nothing is how I see the whole religious fussing about atheism, defining it in ways that show they don't understand it's not a belief system, it's nothing. I don't believe that giant pink fuzzy slippers will terrorize the universe. I hope nobody does. But that doesn't define anything about me any more than not believing there's an invisible entity who controls everything but does nothing does. It doesn't make me bad. It doesn't make me amoral or immoral. It just means that my sense of right and wrong don't come from a set of religious rules.
I agree with Christopher Hitchens on this. Actually, I love his writing and am inclined to agree with much, although not all, of his writings. I strongly suspect that "don't kill" wasn't a revelation after Moses announced it - it was already a cultural norm. A lot of right and wrong come from the golden rule, which in turn likely comes from our ability to empathize.
Please don't ask me if empathy is a genetic trait. I think so, and I think that its absence in people we call sociopaths is incurable, but I doubt it's as simple as finding the empathy gene. How would it help us survive? Far more knowledgeable and capable writers have already discussed group survival as compatible with evolutionary theory.
To sum up: atheism isn't anti-anything, it's just an absence of belief in deities. So fussing about atheism is much ado about nothing, literally.
And thanks to the many bloggers I've read who have really funny comments about some religious silliness, like abstinence only education. I've had far too much fun reading your blogs! For a list, go to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula, he has the top 30 and a few are truly brilliant.
I'm not a great thinker. I do know when something bugs me, when I agree and when I disagree. And I was having trouble finding arguments from atheists dealing with religion that resonated. Just saying so and so did a bad thing in the name of religion so religion is bad doesn't cut it. Neither do examples like the failure of abstinence-only sex education to prevent STDs, pregnancy or premarital sex. People can do dumb things in the name of religion, but does that make religion wrong?
I don't mean wrong in the sense of factually wrong, I mean in the sense of morally wrong. Is religion morally wrong?
This is not a silly question, so it isn't really on-topic for this blog. How can I make this silly? Well, I tried with the title.
Much ado about nothing is how I see the whole religious fussing about atheism, defining it in ways that show they don't understand it's not a belief system, it's nothing. I don't believe that giant pink fuzzy slippers will terrorize the universe. I hope nobody does. But that doesn't define anything about me any more than not believing there's an invisible entity who controls everything but does nothing does. It doesn't make me bad. It doesn't make me amoral or immoral. It just means that my sense of right and wrong don't come from a set of religious rules.
I agree with Christopher Hitchens on this. Actually, I love his writing and am inclined to agree with much, although not all, of his writings. I strongly suspect that "don't kill" wasn't a revelation after Moses announced it - it was already a cultural norm. A lot of right and wrong come from the golden rule, which in turn likely comes from our ability to empathize.
Please don't ask me if empathy is a genetic trait. I think so, and I think that its absence in people we call sociopaths is incurable, but I doubt it's as simple as finding the empathy gene. How would it help us survive? Far more knowledgeable and capable writers have already discussed group survival as compatible with evolutionary theory.
To sum up: atheism isn't anti-anything, it's just an absence of belief in deities. So fussing about atheism is much ado about nothing, literally.
And thanks to the many bloggers I've read who have really funny comments about some religious silliness, like abstinence only education. I've had far too much fun reading your blogs! For a list, go to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula, he has the top 30 and a few are truly brilliant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
