No reason why this can't become a regular feature. There are always so many possibilities.
On Monday, Sean Hannity of Fox "News" did a segment on the recent Tea Party rally in Washington on Capitol Hill, organized by right-wing extremist loon (I'm being generous) Michelle Bachmann. Hannity cheated on the coverage by splicing in video of a different rally, from September 12, which was much better attended, thereby deliberately misleading his audience into thinking that attendance was higher than it actually was.
The clever folks at The Daily Show noticed the shenanigans and skewered Fox, pointing out that the weather had changed in the middle of Hannity's segment, and several websites picked up on it.
Hannity then responded by apologizing during his show:
Although it pains me to say this, Jon Stewart, Comedy Central, he was right. Now on his program last night he mentioned that we had played some incorrect video on this program last week while talking about the Republican health care rally on Capitol Hill. He was correct. We screwed up. We aired some video of a rally in September, along with the video from the actual event. It was an inadvertent mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. So Mr. Stewart, you were right. We apologize. But by the way, I wanna thank you and all your writers for watching. [emphasis added]
Inadvertent mistake my ass. If the Republicans have taught us anything, it is this: Never tell the truth when a lie will serve better. Even when you are caught in a lie, just make up another one.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Sunday, November 8, 2009
This Week's Republican Stupidity
So much Republican awfulness to choose from, as always, but this was really sad. Republicans used town hall tea partier tactics to interrupt Democrats while they were speaking about the health reform bill in the House of Representatives, while John Dingell, looking about 90 years old, tried to tell them that their behavior was childish. Just disgusting, and frankly frightening that our second-largest political party is resorting to goon tactics on a regular basis.
Every Republican but one voted against the bill, including my own Republican representative. Democrats did not even come close to voting in a single bloc, with 39 of them voting against, but Republicans stuck to the party line rather than represent their constituents or their country. Anyone who thinks these clowns are doing their best to govern is delusional. They vote as one because it gives them more power, and power for it's own sake is their only goal.
Every Republican but one voted against the bill, including my own Republican representative. Democrats did not even come close to voting in a single bloc, with 39 of them voting against, but Republicans stuck to the party line rather than represent their constituents or their country. Anyone who thinks these clowns are doing their best to govern is delusional. They vote as one because it gives them more power, and power for it's own sake is their only goal.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
An Improved Model for Heaven
I have decided that the Christian model for salvation is fundamentally flawed, so I have reworked it. As the Christian model was presumably worked out by God and Jesus, I offer my suggestions to them, and I hope they will feel free to borrow from me as they see fit.
Arrogant of me to imply that perhaps I know better than God? Yes, but I suppose it's that same pride that makes me think that I can work out right and wrong using my own mind, without help from religion. I can live with that.
The Christian model, as it is commonly practiced and explained, is this: Each of us is a sinner. Anything short of perfection creates a wedge between you and God, and you can never achieve perfection. To overcome this gap, you must repent, atone for your sins, and try to do better. However, you should never be proud enough to believe that you will succeed.
Just to make it more difficult, Christians have original sin. You are born sinful. And in case you get past that, they created sins of the mind. You may do everything you can to act in an honorable manner, but you think sinful thoughts, and those too are sins. Of the seven deadly sins, at least three -- envy, lust, and pride -- are simply thoughts that no one can ever purge completely. In fact, humans probably could not function without these emotions, but never mind that right now.
One analogy I have heard is that God's relationship with us is similar to my relationship with my children. He loves us, but like a good parent, he tries to correct us when we go astray and to lead us in a better direction.
But the more I think about that, the more I think that my relationship with my boys is almost the opposite of this Christian model. Yes, I love them and try to help them improve their behavior. However, for me to reject them and no longer love them, their behavior would have to be really horrendous; they would have to grow up to be drug lords, axe murderers, or Nazis. Short of something like that, I will accept them and will always be there for them. On the continuum of human behavior, only the very worst choices can cause them to fall from grace.
In Christianity, on the same continuum of behavior, there is not one spot that is good enough for God. The very best possible life is not sufficient. Oh yes, God will still let you into Heaven, but you essentially have to make up the shortfall between your behavior and the unreachable standard of perfection by atoning, repenting, trying harder. This chance for redemption is freely given, but is it really free? You have to admit your errors, try to change, make up for your shortcomings. Nothing you can do will ever be enough to avoid this. You are always beholden to the church and to God/Jesus.
So people are less than perfect, every one of us, especially me. In Christianity, the glass is never quite full. But why look at it that way? Yes, we are all sinners, but aren't all people also good? Can't we focus on that?
So I suggest a better way. Everyone gets into Heaven unless they earn their way into Hell. Sort of like the justice system -- you are good until proven bad. If you live a really despicable life, fine, you go to Hell. The rest of us -- most of us -- go to Heaven. That's what I would do. Isn't that what anyone would do if they made the rules?
My plan has some obvious advantages. People of all religions, who presumably are doing the best they can to lead good lives, could get into Heaven. So could atheists. All children would get in automatically -- no more of the notion that we are all born inadequate. Also, you wouldn't have to do anything special to get in. Just lead a decent life. No apologies, no atonement unless you do something pretty bad. No need to believe.
I presume God has already read this before I typed it, or is reading it as I type, or will get around to it soon. And given how wise and all-knowing they say He is, I think He'll give it a fair reading and consider it, and He'll realize that this model is a clear improvement over the one I always hear about, and He'll want to implement the change right away. So with any luck, the rules are about to get a lot fairer.
Arrogant of me to imply that perhaps I know better than God? Yes, but I suppose it's that same pride that makes me think that I can work out right and wrong using my own mind, without help from religion. I can live with that.
The Christian model, as it is commonly practiced and explained, is this: Each of us is a sinner. Anything short of perfection creates a wedge between you and God, and you can never achieve perfection. To overcome this gap, you must repent, atone for your sins, and try to do better. However, you should never be proud enough to believe that you will succeed.
Just to make it more difficult, Christians have original sin. You are born sinful. And in case you get past that, they created sins of the mind. You may do everything you can to act in an honorable manner, but you think sinful thoughts, and those too are sins. Of the seven deadly sins, at least three -- envy, lust, and pride -- are simply thoughts that no one can ever purge completely. In fact, humans probably could not function without these emotions, but never mind that right now.
One analogy I have heard is that God's relationship with us is similar to my relationship with my children. He loves us, but like a good parent, he tries to correct us when we go astray and to lead us in a better direction.
But the more I think about that, the more I think that my relationship with my boys is almost the opposite of this Christian model. Yes, I love them and try to help them improve their behavior. However, for me to reject them and no longer love them, their behavior would have to be really horrendous; they would have to grow up to be drug lords, axe murderers, or Nazis. Short of something like that, I will accept them and will always be there for them. On the continuum of human behavior, only the very worst choices can cause them to fall from grace.
In Christianity, on the same continuum of behavior, there is not one spot that is good enough for God. The very best possible life is not sufficient. Oh yes, God will still let you into Heaven, but you essentially have to make up the shortfall between your behavior and the unreachable standard of perfection by atoning, repenting, trying harder. This chance for redemption is freely given, but is it really free? You have to admit your errors, try to change, make up for your shortcomings. Nothing you can do will ever be enough to avoid this. You are always beholden to the church and to God/Jesus.
So people are less than perfect, every one of us, especially me. In Christianity, the glass is never quite full. But why look at it that way? Yes, we are all sinners, but aren't all people also good? Can't we focus on that?
So I suggest a better way. Everyone gets into Heaven unless they earn their way into Hell. Sort of like the justice system -- you are good until proven bad. If you live a really despicable life, fine, you go to Hell. The rest of us -- most of us -- go to Heaven. That's what I would do. Isn't that what anyone would do if they made the rules?
My plan has some obvious advantages. People of all religions, who presumably are doing the best they can to lead good lives, could get into Heaven. So could atheists. All children would get in automatically -- no more of the notion that we are all born inadequate. Also, you wouldn't have to do anything special to get in. Just lead a decent life. No apologies, no atonement unless you do something pretty bad. No need to believe.
I presume God has already read this before I typed it, or is reading it as I type, or will get around to it soon. And given how wise and all-knowing they say He is, I think He'll give it a fair reading and consider it, and He'll realize that this model is a clear improvement over the one I always hear about, and He'll want to implement the change right away. So with any luck, the rules are about to get a lot fairer.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
