Jade's Blog

Friday, 10 April 2009

A Cold Medicine Mellow.
Topic: Life
Lack of sleep and cold medicine has made me a little fuzzy around the edges, so try and bear with me if I seem to wander off-topic.

I've been giving some thought to Paganism and Neo-paganism in regards to how it applies to polytheism. Is it a collection of earth-based/nature-based religions, a collection of altering spiritualism, or is it a combination of these things? In truth, there are arguments that could support or disprove any one of these ideas depending on your personal view or belief.

For me, personally, Celtic Witta, which falls under the umbrella of Paganism, is more of a spirituality than a religion. I find myself often referring to myself as "spiritual" rather than "religious". The most likely reason for this is that the word "religious" still holds negative connotations for me, as I automatically relate it to "organized religion" and Christianity.

However, from society's point of view, Paganism and Neo-paganism is deemed generally as a religion (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religion).

That being said, I recently ran across a video on YouTube entitled "Religion Breeds Mediocrity" where an Atheist friend of mine addresses a Christian who accused Atheism for being responsible for the mundanity that exists in our society. Feel free to watch the video below:

Given that he is an Atheist, I understand and accept his stance on religion in general. However, I found myself somewhat offended at his assertion that all religion is responsible for the mediocrity that exists. This is painting with a very broad brush, in my honest opinion.

The subject that 'nathanforst' addresses specifically in this video is 'accountability'. In the video he states, "I am accountable to myself and I am accountable to the people my actions have harmed". Hmmm.... does this idea resonate with any Pagans reading this? If you follow the 'Wiccan Rede', it should echo within you.

[‘An ye harm none, do what ye will.]

This is at the core of our beliefs and spirituality. It is this very final line of the 'Wiccan Rede' that we attach what is known as "The Three Fold Law", a three fold response to the energy/magick we effectually send forth both positively and negatively, which is also attributed to our actions towards others and is similar to the Karmic law of Hinduism. In the most simplistic of terms, within the boundries of the three fold law, that which you do either positively or negatively will come back to you either magnifed times three or on three separate occasions.

It is the golden rule among most Pagans, and holds us ultimately and solely responsible for our actions and there is no counter way out of this inevibility. There are and should be consequences for our actions.

Given that his argument was directed towards a Christian point of view, perhaps he should have entitled his video "Christianity breeds mediocrity" or even "[user name here] breeds mediocrity". I believe it would have been certainly a more fair statement than to generalize all religions as inclusive in this one Christian's opinions of Atheism.

Finally I would like to share with you the most important line in the 'Wiccan Rede' for me personally and what it means to me:

[Live and let live, fairly take and fairly give.]

Exist within the boundaries of your conscience and what you know instinctively to be right and to be wrong, and respect the truth as it exists for others without malice or selfish desire to change their truth. Receive, unselfishly, that which is shared with you whether it be tangible or intangible and be prepared to give the same in kind, without regret.

Brightest blessings.

Posted by spiritiger at 9:17 AM
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post

Wednesday, 8 April 2009

Freedom of Speech Revisited.
Topic: Religion and Philosophy
As many of you probably already know, Creationism is the belief that the God of Abraham of Judaism created life, the earth and the universe as described in the book of Genesis. Because Creationism is not a scientific theory, but rather a theory based almost exclusively on religious belief it is not taught in state funded schools in respect to the 'Establishment Clause' of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

Creationism, however, has done anything but fade into obscurity. It has but transformed itself into new entities such as 'Intelligent Design' and 'Young Earth Creationism'.

Unlike Intelligent Design (the belief that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." - Intelligent Design Network) which claims to be scientific theory and desires to redefine science to include supernatural explanations, Young Earth Creationism is sort of the dumb cousin of Creationism.

Young Earth Creationism is the belief that the life on earth, the universe and beyond was created by the Judaic God between 6000 - 10,000 years ago in accordance to the literal interpretation of the Hebrew text of the book of Genesis (the God of Abraham created the earth in 6 24-hour days). It asserts that dinosaurs and homo sapiens existed together at the same time.

One of the most outspoken, and probably best well known supporters of Young Earth Creationism is Kent Hovind. He has gained fame through his 'Creation Science' seminars, his amusement park 'Dinosaur Adventure Land' in Pensacola, Florida (in which dioramas of dinosaurs co-existing with man are displayed), and his literary work entitled "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution". However, infamously, Mr. Hovind is known to have been found guilty of federal tax offenses and related charges, for which he is currently serving a 10-year sentence and has been ordered to pay the federal government restitution of over $600,000.

These theories, as well as the more scientifically supported and universally accepted theory of Evolution which is part of the present-day educational curriculum, have recently been the subject of much debate on 'YouTube' between Evangelical Christians and Atheists.

However, there has been an attempt recently to silence the voices of Atheists who have voiced criticism with Christianity on 'YouTube' in a phenomenon known as 'Votebots' (a program that spams the vote feature on videos either positively or negatively) and the false 'Flagging' (complaints of inappropriate material objectionable to 'YouTube's rules and regulations) of videos. Flagging can lead to removal of a video and potentially lead to the suspension of a 'YouTube' user account.

Literally hundreds of Atheist's videos have been attacked in this way in the past few months, leading to multiple suspensions, instant rating drops within a space as little as an hour and bannings of many Atheist vlogs. This is a clear attack on their Freedom of Speech, as none of the users that were targeted disobeyed 'YouTube' Terms of Service. Those responsible were clearly only interested in eliminating an opposing point of view in a faceless and cowardly manner.

The following are videos that have been posted recently in regards to the 'votebot' and false flagging that have occurred. I urge you to please watch them in their entirity:

We learn nothing and cease to grow in our own personal beliefs, be they spiritual, cultural, or evidential, when we silence those who voice opposition to that belief. There is no strength in our convictions to our individual principles or opinions without the counterbalance of adversity.

Yes, I am Pagan. Yes, I believe the theory of Evolution. But, I am none of these at the exclusion of any other view that might differ from my own. I have no wish to be an island unto myself and silence the voices I disagree with. I am not nearly so spineless.

Thank you for reading this.

Brightest blessings.

Posted by spiritiger at 11:47 AM
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post

Tuesday, 7 April 2009

I'm Published!
Topic: Web, HTML, Tech
As some of you may or may not know, I have been a freelance graphics designer for a number of years now. Meaning, I don't make money at what I do. Mostly what I create is for fun and not for profit.

As of yesterday afternoon, a few of my designs became published and available on 'Mozilla Labs Personas'.

For those of you who may be unfamiliar with Personas, it is a fun add-on feature for Mozilla Firefox that allows you to 'skin' your browser. You can get this add-on (if you have Mozilla Firefox) at https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/10900

There are three in total skin designs that are available from me on 'Mozilla Labs Personas', and here they are:

1. Fenced Yard (http://www.getpersonas.com/persona/2909)
2. Natural Wonder (http://www.getpersonas.com/persona/2889)
3. Poolside (http://www.getpersonas.com/persona/2933)

Since I am a huge nature lover, I try to give all of my skins an 'organic' appearance while still maintaining a professional feel.

All of my graphics are created using Corel Paint Shop Professional, as I have never been a particular fan of Adobe Photo Shop. PSP is what I started out with and am more comfortable with.

I hope you enjoy these skins and will use and share them.

Brightest blessings.

Posted by spiritiger at 11:37 AM
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post

Monday, 6 April 2009

The Rain Inspires Deep Thoughts.
Topic: Life
Warning: The content and subject matter is of a sexual nature. Adult discretion is advised.

About a week or so ago, I posted a video by 'Jesusophile' entitled "Why Atheist Arguments Don't Work" and my response to it. For those unfamiliar with this individual, below is a link to his YouTube video channel, in case you need a frame of reference.
https://www.youtube.com/user/jesusophile

There has been a sort of video blog war between Atheists and Christians for sometime now on YouTube, arguing creation vs. evolution, the bible vs. human behavior and the list literally goes on and on. I often have the misfortune of tripping across these videos, as I frequently search the YouTube category 'Nonprofits & Activism' for the latest information regarding animal rights, the environment, and related issues. Since there is no 'Religion & Spirituality' category on YouTube, individuals espousing either religious or anti-religious opinions regularly post in the afore mentioned category. This is how I discovered my first video blog of 'Jesusophile'.

I have spent some time, probably too much time to be honest, trying to discern if this young man sincerely believes in the opinions he publicizes, if his opinions are merely satire of the social absurdity, or if he is a "troll" (someone who knowingly creates controversy to generate activity on his website/channel -or- to derive entertainment from comments (video or other) from viewers who object to same said controversy).

There are valid reasons for my confusion. One example of this is that his videos are not listed in the 'Comedy' category on YouTube, but rather a section associated with activism. If the subject matter of his videos are intended as a form of comedy or satire, then why wouldn't the videos be posted to an area reserved for humor?

Another example, is the fact that he provides no disclaimer that the material in his videos are intended as satire either in the video itself, the description, or the tags. This type of warning is common for most satirists so that their material is not misinterpreted or misconstrued as actual opinion.

If you take the previous examples into account you are left with the choices that he either truly believes his opinions, or he is a troll.

Given that the videos he lists as his favorites are mostly those that have expressed passionate disagreement with his opinions, it is far easier to conclude that Jesusophile is nothing more than a troll. This may seem harmless on the surface, but can potentially reap hazardous results.

When you consider the struggle that the gay community as a whole has in being accepted as equal members of our often intolerant society, the self identity struggles of women and the roles expected of them, and the silent confusion and shame that puberty suffers upon teens discovering their bodies for the first time, the unconscionable ideas that Jesusophile espouses publicly are hurtful and demeaning to what ought to be a civilized, socially and intellectually evolved society, in my opinion.

Whether satire or fast held personal belief, it is irresponsible to broadcast to an audience of teen - adult, possibly younger, that, "Anal sex is wrong ... pain is a sign from God in saying, Hey, gay people, stop doing that.", "Sex is not something that is supposed to be pleasurable for the female, it is primarily something the man will enjoy ... the woman was created for the man's pleasure.", or "Men shouldn't do that sort of thing [masturbate] ... because that's wasted sperm ... that's potential civilizations flushed down the toilet." (These are quotes directly from one of his videos posted on YouTube entitled "Why it is okay for sex to hurt...").

These uneducated and intolerant statements, which are devoid of any trace of humor aside from perhaps inane stupidity, are dangerous in their potential to motivate prejudice within impressionable minds. It sends a message, in my opinion, that hate mongering and bigotry is funny or an acceptable behavior to endeavor in, and exploits the fear motivated contempt that already exists within the narrow-minded who share similar, if not identical, beliefs.

I don't deny Jesusophile the right to say whatever he wishes, no matter what the motivation... or the lack thereof. However, I strongly disagree with the content of his videos, satire or no. They are insensitive, divisive, injurious, and reckless.

My opinion is my own self proclamation of free speech.

By the way? WAY TO GO IOWA!!! (The Meaning of Iowa's Gay-Marriage Decision).

Brightest blessings.

Posted by spiritiger at 9:17 AM
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post

Saturday, 4 April 2009

Ken and I: Looking Back.
Topic: Romance and Relationships

It's hard to believe that it's been twenty-two years, but that's how long Ken and I have been a part of each other's lives. Sometimes close. Sometimes distant. Always a constant. Never out of each other's heart or thoughts.

#1 Song of 1987: George Michael - Faith

#3 Top Grossing Movie: Moonstruck (Three Men & a Baby was #1)

Since the night we met, there has always been an indescribable bond that has drawn us together, a sense of comfort, familiarity, and trust that I cannot explain.

Looking back, I can't imagine what he saw in me. I was 19 years old then, alarmingly close to my son's age. Not a child anymore, and not quite an adult either. A restless time, as I recall, that I seemed to feel a sense of urgency in being free of my parents and creating my own future.

When Ken met me, I was sitting at a table with a couple of people demonstrating a party trick that I had learned in high school. The trick is as follows (you will need a soft bread stick for this trick):
1) Cut a bread stick in half.
2) Drill a hold in one half of the bread stick with a straw.
3) Tear a napkin in half, ball it up in your hand, straighten, then roll into a tight the form of a.... er.... hand rolled cigarette.
4) Insert into the hole drilled into the bread stick and cut tip off other end of bread stick.
5) Light end with napkin, light and smoke.

Yes, this trick is completely juvenile and utterly pointless, which is why I was surprised when Ken came over and introduced himself. But, from that moment on, he and I quickly became the best of friends. Whether at my apartment, or at gaming club meetings, or just on the phone, we seemed to be able to talk about anything and everything for hours at a time... and we're still that way.

We have a history that spans two decades in which we have shared laughter, joy, anger and tears. Even when times were rough, which were happily rare, I don't think I would have changed a moment. All of our experiences have given us the wisdom and the strength in our relationship with one another.

Ken is the earth that gives my airy aquarian life foundation and balance. He is the anchor that keeps me tithed when the storms of chaos in this life roll in. I love him more than any word, in any language, could ever express.

People have asked us, "How have you managed to stay together for so long?". I wish I could answer that. Every couple is different, and so too is their relationship's history. I think it would be impossible to find one simple answer. The basics, I suppose, come down to this; 1) Be honest, and don't be afraid to wear your heart on your sleeve, 2) All couples argue, just remember that's its not important to be in the right, just important to express your point of view, and finally 3) Accept and love your mate for who they are, not who you want them to be. The only person you can change is yourself.

Ken and I were never looking for someone when we had the luck of finding one another, and we were friends for three years before we became lovers. In the rush I see now of couples analyzing their compatibility online, people searching out Mr. or Ms. Right in bars, clubs and parties for "hook-ups" with hopes it will last more than the night, and all these ideas of instant gratification in an instant access world, I thank the Goddess that Ken and I came together in the way that we did. I believe our friendship is the core of our overall relationship.

Shortly after our relationship became romantic, I had to move away to another state in 1989. Our last goodbye was heartbreaking and painful. We were apart for six years, after living together through that summer. We kept in touch, sporadically, at first. However, we eventually lost contact. Through that time, I never stopped thinking about him or loving him.

When I returned, I found that after six years we were still as in love as we were all those years before. We also had one more thing in common. A favorite song. A song that while we were apart made us think about the other. It has now become our song. Here it is...

Happy Anniversary, baby. I loved you then, I love you now, and I will love you until my last breath.
Forever yours, Jade

Posted by spiritiger at 8:31 AM
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post

Friday, 3 April 2009

RIAA Lawsuit & Monty Trek
Topic: Music
Okay, admittedly, I haven't exactly been keeping up with the lawsuit against 'Project Playlist'. Although I do care about the situation, it doesn't rule my life. I have too much to get done most of the time to let any one topic be my sole focus. I do have other layers, after all!

Anyway, as I was looking through Google News for topics that have been a past interest to me, I decided to enter "riaa, project playlist" in the little search box and found out that there had been some new developments in the suit.

Apparently back in mid March (yeah, I know. I'm not exactly on the down low with breaking news), it was reported that EMI Music, much like Sony BMG last year, dropped out of the lawsuit against 'Project Playlist'.

On March 25th, Chloe Albanesius wrote and article about the news in PC Magazine's official website "PCMag". Below is the original article unedited (Source: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2343832,00.asp):

EMI Allows Content on Project Playlist, Drops Suit
By Chloe Albanesius

EMI Music has reached a deal to distribute its content on Project Playlist, and has dropped out of a lawsuit against the music Web site.

Project Playlist, which allows its users to compile playlists from music on the site, will now offer access EMI's catalogue, the companies announced Wednesday.

On Tuesday (March 24th), EMI withdrew from a lawsuit against the Web site that was filed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in April 2008. Nine record labels, including Warner Bros. and Atlantic Records, remain a part of the suit.

"Making our music available on a fan favorite like Project Playlist is part of EMI Music's mission to connect artists and fans and to give fans more ways to discover new artists," Ronn Werre, president of EMI Music's Music Services worldwide, said in a statement.

Project Playlist is growing in popularity, Werre said, and "our artists also know that word-of-mouth among friends is a powerful part of music discovery."

"It is crucial for us to continue connecting our users with more of their favorite music," Owen Van Natta, Playlist CEO. "This partnership will provide us with a wide-ranging selection of content to satisfy our users' appetites to share and purchase music."

In December, Sony BMG agreed to make its entire catalogue available on the site. At the same time, however, social networks like MySpace and Facebook blocked access to Project Playlist. Members had previously been able to embed playlists into their profiles.

The RIAA reportedly contacted Facebook last summer about removing the Playlist application, and made the request again in December.

The RIAA lawsuit said that Project Playlist's business model "amounts to nothing more than an enormous infringement of [RIAA members'] copyrighted sound recording for [Project Playlist's] gain."

Playlist is "well aware" that its activity infringes on copyrights, but still "aggressively touts its service as a legitimate enterprise," the suit said.
(End of article)

Don't worry, I'm not going to step onto my soapbox. I've made it clear in previous posts on my blog that I disagree with the lawsuit. There's no sense in beating a dead horse.

However, I would like to briefly address the legal issues at the core of this lawsuit.

The Record Industry Association of America (RIAA), maintains that Project Playlist is in violation of copyright laws, which although it may sound "cut and dry", in the world of cyberspace it is anything but.

Copyright provides protection to authors/artists for all forms of "intellectual property" by United States law (title 17, U.S. Code). This includes, but is not limited to, novels, artwork, photographs, music, video and movies (to name only a few).

Project Playlist maintains that it has legal immunity from Copyright infringement under section V or the "Communications Decency Act" (CDA).

"What is the CDA?", you might be wondering

The CDA was originally a law passed by Congress in an attempt to regulate pornographic material on the internet. Due to a lawsuit in the Supreme Court (ACLU vs. Reno), the law was partially overturned. What essentially remains of the law is as follows:

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996):

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

The defense of Project Playlist is basically this; Since the music files that they provide come from content hosted on external providers and they do not personally host any music files on their servers, they cannot be held liable for copyright infractions said external provider may or may not have made.

In layman's terms, "www.JohnDoe.com" uploads "Queen - Don't Stop Me Now.mp3", and posts (publishes) it on their website without obtaining Queen's written permission or paying royalties. Said mp3, which is hosted and published on "www.JohnDoe.com", then appears on the Project Playlist search engine (Since Project Playlist is a "fileshare" service and does not personally host or publish music files on their website) and is made available for users to add to their personal music player lists via the "www.JohnDoe.com" website. Since "www.JohnDoe.com" is the publisher and host of said mp3 they are in violation of Copyright law, not Project Playlist (according to CDA guidelines).

It would be like Google being sued because a writer found a link through their search engine to a complete unauthorized version of his book.

Anyway, I clearly side with Project Playlist on this issue. This is why I refuse to have the "MySpace Music" widget on my website. Many of the record labels that provide their music with the option of purchase on MySpace Music are the ones involved in this lawsuit so, as protest, I have chosen for my profile to remain silent.

Okay, so enough of that. I give you Monty Trek:

Brightest blessings.

Posted by spiritiger at 10:08 AM
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post

Wednesday, 1 April 2009

Star Wars: The Television Series?!
Topic: Movies, Television and Celebriti

My blogs have been entirely too serious and too long as of late, so I've decided to take a break from all of the controversial stuff and, instead, focus on the more light-hearted side of things.

There might be a few "Youngins" out there who might not know what the hell "Dallas" is, for you I give the following short (No, I swear!) summary:

"Dallas" was a nighttime soap opera from the 1980s about an oil family that lived on a ranch called "South Fork" in Dallas, Texas.

For more details about the series and characters, feel free to visit the following link: The Official Dallas Website For The Hit Television Series

Now I give you what "Star Wars" might have looked like if it had been put on television in the 1980s. Enjoy!

Brightest Blessings!

Posted by spiritiger at 8:11 AM
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post

Tuesday, 31 March 2009

Free Speech
Topic: News, politics and Activism

Ken and I have always been political minded people, and though we agree on most issues, occasionally we do find ourselves on different sides. Unfortunately for Ken, we often find ourselves debating when he would rather be sleeping because he has work the next morning, but I'll take whatever edge I can get (grins evilly).

Last night, Ken and I watched a video on "YouTube" from the RutherfordInstitute's Channel on the lack of free speech for young people in the school system. Here is the video:

Because Ken and I feel very strongly about constitutional rights, I was surprised to find how different our point of views were on this topic.

Before beginning to share my opinion about the stance Mr. Whitehead takes on the first amendment, I want to talk briefly about proselytizing.

All of us have, at one time or another, found ourselves at the other end of a conversation that usually starts with something akin to "Have you accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal savior?" and eventually leads to "burning in hell". I admit, that as a Pagan, my teeth are on edge when I find myself in this situation as I have no desire or motivation to turn my back on what I believe in, no matter what scare tactics are used against me. Depending on my mood or their attitude, I am either polite in expressing this, or down right rude.

Christians and those who follow similar religious beliefs have a right to tell me their opinion about their God, his associates, and his book because they have the right to free speech. A right that is guaranteed and protected by the Constitution. On the other side of the coin, I too have the right of free speech and can tell them my opinion about their religion and the evident pompous hypocrisy that I feel exists within their churches.

Now back to the video.

Where Ken and I found we had a difference of opinion was at around 2:47 seconds in the video where Mr. Whitehead discusses an incident that happened at a school sponsored public assembly, more specifically at a commencement ceremony, involving a student named Britney McColm in which her school asked her to give a speech about what was important to her to her fellow classmates.

Before the planned event, students who were to address the assembly were asked to submit their speech to the education board. When they saw the word "the Lord" and other spirituality based dialogue, they edited out those portions and she was told that she could not discuss her religious beliefs in her speech.

Aware of her first amendment rights, she ignored the education board the night of commencement and the moment she uttered the words "the Lord" her microphone was immediately shut off by one of the school faculty members and she was not allowed to continue.

Ken, much like I imagine many Pagans and Heathens, has the opinion that the school had a right and should have censored Ms. McColm. He believes that religious ideals have no place at a school sponsored event, most especially in regards to public schools which are considered government institutions. The word "government" being the key in that sentence since the first amendment also guarantees that government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (see also the "Establishment Clause"). Hence the reason that religion is neither endorsed nor taught in public schools.

However, the way things have been rewritten in history, this portion of the first amendment has become muddied in my opinion and can fall into a sort of grey area. Most evidentally in the re-wording of the "Pledge of Allegiance" in the 1950s to include "under God" after "one nation" and the addition of "In God we trust" on our national monies and now on license plates here in the state of Indiana.

How can government claim that it prohibits the creation of a national religion through the first amendment and yet let Christian religions have such strong influences in national policies created by government officials, our national pledge, and monies circulated the the government body of the United States Treasury? I'm sure political intimidation and sizable monetary donations/endorsements had a great deal to do with it. It doesn't take a genius to figure out. But, I'm rambling, so let's get back to the topic of Ms. McColm's commencement speech.

My position is this: So long as the speech was about how her spirituality has influenced her personally in the choices she's made in what direction to follow in regards to her education and not a sermon to her fellow students proselytizing that they should give themselves over to the God that she believes in, I don't see a need for censorship.

So what if she believes that the God she follows guided her to make the right choices for her in her life? Don't we Pagans feel that our many deities have watched out for us in times of adversity?

I find it amazing sometimes that most of us who fall under the category of "Pagan" have no difficulty accepting and embracing our own spiritual differences in beliefs, deities, or culture (I mean, let's face it, no two Pagans/Heathens are completely alike), and yet become so adversarial when it comes to Christians and there sets of beliefs. Whatever happened to the concept of "Namaste" which loosely means that "the divine in me, recognizes the divine in you"?

Yes, it is monumentally annoying to be preached at by a Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christian about God, Jesus Christ and their often over dramatic concern of the damnation of my mortal soul and the assumption that I am ignorant of the teachings of the bible. Believe me, there are much more productive uses of my time. But where is the harm? What does it hurt, besides maybe my ears, figuratively speaking?

We have become so lost in the sea of "political correctness" that we now risk drowning, in my opinion.

Hearing the words "God", "Lord", "Jesus Christ", "Bible", "Devil", and "Hell" will not shatter anyone into a million pieces. They're just words. They don't have that power. I don't condemn these words or fear that they will seductively influence me to change the course of my life either spiritually or intellectually. No word, verse or individual has the power to change what I believe. The only one with the power to change what I believe, is me.

Any Pagan or Heathen that has a fear that anyone proclaiming to be Christian has the power to influence what they personally believe when they proselytize, doesn't have faith in or an emotional connection to their chosen path or spirituality to begin with.

I don't believe that there is anything wrong in any individual expressing to those around him/her what has personally influenced them to stay straight and true to themselves; be it religion, spirituality, a deity, a person, a motto, a book, a movie, or even a song. If it has positively effected their lives and made them happier people for it, why shouldn't they share it or talk about it with others? I can celebrate that they have found a path that gives their life a sense of fulfillment and peace, and can do so even if their path is different from my own, without feeling threatened.

Yes, yes, I know. I'm a hippy. I probably always will be. I make no apologies.

Finally, I want to discuss the constitutionality of the speech Ms. McColm was denied in giving at a school sponsored event, since that is what is really at the heart of things.

Although she attended a public high school which is a governmental institution or entity and the commencement ceremony falls into the realm of a school sponsored event, Ms. McColm's first amendment right of free speech was unequivocally violated.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was put into place to prevent our government from recognizing any one religion as our country's national religion. The clause is as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

James Madison's early draft of the amendment addresses the issue further in saying, quote:

"The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed. No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases."

Due to the fact that public schools are governmental entities, the Supreme Court in 1962 (Engel v. Vitale) supported banning prayer in classrooms, and prohibiting the teaching of religious beliefs as it constituted governmental endorsement of religion.

A presiding judge, Hugo black, who supported the ban wrote:

“… the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government."

To put it bluntly; public school teachers and faculty are considered representatives of a governmental institution. As such, they cannot lead students in prayer, or teach the beliefs or ideals of a specific religion.

However, neither the Supreme Court's 1962 decision nor the Establishment Clause can be attached to students attending public schools as they are not governmental representatives/employees.

Therefore, when Ms. McColm attempted to give her speech in which she uttered the words "the Lord" at her commencement, she was not violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and had every right to execute her right of free speech guaranteed by that same amendment.

So then it becomes a matter of what is or isn't "appropriate". I hate subjective arguments.

Had the microphone been turned off after some kind vulgar obscenity like perhaps an "f-bomb", after a personal attack against an individual or group (religious or non-religious) motivated by racism, homophobia, hatred or ignorance, or after some other type of hate mongering/divisive espoused opinion, I wouldn't protest the school's decision. That kind of speech is unarguably inappropriate for a commencement speech.

However, that's not what happened here. She was censored because she said two words that revealed that there were Christian overtones to her speech that might possibly offend someone who doesn't share the same philosophy or ideology as the Christian church.

Was this inappropriate for me personally, as a Pagan? Hell no. Unless the words "may you smite down the non-believers into the bowels of hell to burn forever!" came after the words "my Lord", would I give a damn, to be brutally honest.

If Ms. McColm had proselytized her beliefs during her speech and I had been in attendance, you can be damn sure I would have expressed my disagreement to her personally once the ceremony was concluded. After all, I too have the right of free speech.

I have absolutely no problem in telling a bible-thumper why I have no interest in his God or his religion and I have no problem in turning my back and walking away from someone that asks me "Have you been saved?". I have that right, and he has the right to speak freely. If you take away that right, however, then I have a problem.

This is sure to be an unpopular view, given that I am a Pagan defending the rights of a young Christian. But, I stand by my opinion and the rights guaranteed to all under the Constitution.

Brightest Blessings.

Posted by spiritiger at 8:18 AM
Updated: Tuesday, 27 October 2009 5:51 PM
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post

Sunday, 29 March 2009

Octo-Media Whore & The Ryan Moats Tragedy.
Topic: News, politics and Activism
I will try to make this as short and to the point as possible as my blog entries seem to run a little long, but no promises.

Octo-Mom and her Brood:
I have avoided talking about this as there is entirely too much exposure to this insane woman's story as it is, but the latest news about the "Angel's in Waiting" fiasco has finally figuratively poked me enough that I finally had to give my opinion on this ridiculous situation.

1) Nadya Suleman has claimed that she never intended to get pregnant with eight babies.... and yet, she and her fertility doctor implanted an unethical number of embryos in her womb knowing that she had six children (two of them "special needs" children, and two of them young twins) already, no job/source of income, and living in a inadequately small home provided by her father.

That's not a mistake, that's a plan.

Ms. Suleman herself has admitted via one of the MANY video interviews she's done that before she got pregnant the disability she had been living off of (She had also been living off food stamps from the state of California and receiving benefits from Med-Cal) was about the expire in few short months. How do you support six children, two of them "special needs" children when there is no money coming in anymore? A gamble of having multiple births to gain the attention of the world and, more importantly, the world media doesn't seem like a bad plan when deals involving serious money will undoubtedly come rolling in.

2) Nadya Suleman claims that she is not depending on tax payer money to support herself or her children and that she is supporting her children completely on her own and added "I don't want to depend on tax payer's money". (Source: RadarOnline.com, Nadya Suleman's Video Diaries, Entry - Exclusive: Octo-Mom Defends "Angels" Firing: "They Were Toxic" at http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/03/exclusive-octo-mom-defends-angels-firing-they-were-toxic)

And yet.... there is still an active website (sanctioned by Nadya Suleman herself) at http://www.thenadyasulemanfamily.com that requests donations of money and items for the family. It even provides a paypal link so that you can donate directly.

So, if she is perfectly capable of providing for her children on her own, than why is she and those under her direction still asking for money and donations? Why are friends and associates of Dr. Phil furnishing her house and the nursery? Why are non-profit nursing organizations providing care instead of paid by the hour nannies?

Either she is a liar or a con artist... perhaps even both.

3) Nadya Suleman fired the "Angels in Waiting" (An non-profit group of nannies and nurses headed by Gloria Allred) who was providing round the clock care for her premature babies. In the wake, Nadya has callled them "toxic" and they have made allegations of neglect and tuberculosis exposure.

Wow.... who do you side with on that one? On one side you have Nadya Suleman, and on the other Gloria Allred? I mean, both are pretty much media whores with their eyes mostly on the prize of dollar signs than the ideals of right and wrong. So I choose not to have an opinion either way until a more respected/reliable person or agency can thoroughly investigate the matter.

In conclusion, you can't have your cake and eat it too. For her to cry crocodile tears and say she wishes and remains hopeful that the media frenzy will die down and her life will return to normal (whatever that once was) and yet regularly appear in a video diary of her life on RadarOnline.Com (which I am sure she is getting paid handsomely for) is hypocritical at best, detrimental and permanently damaging to her children at worst, and that's the real crime in all of this mess.

The effect that all of this publicity, all this "transparency" (which seems to be the latest buzz word) is going to have on the future of all of her children, not just the babies, is going to reap devastating results that will have their therapist's ears ringing for years. I guess taxpayers will foot the bill for that one too.

Ryan Moats Detained While Mother-In-Law Died In Hospital:
For those of you who don't care for sports, Ryan Moats is a back-up running back for the Houston Texans (NFL). Even some sports fans, because he is not a "starter", are probably unfamiliar with him aside from those following the recent news this month.

While en route to a hospital, in which Moats was speeding and ran a stop sign and a blinking red stop light while exhibiting his flashing hazard lights, Officer Robert Powell pursued Moats until he came to a stop and parked in the hospital parking lot.

Four people exited the vehicle; Ryan Moats, his wife, and two relatives, at which time Officer Powell allegedly drew his sidearm and commanded them to stop. Moats' wife then said "My mother is dying" and she and another female relative ignored a repeated command to stop and entered the hospital leaving Moats and a male relative of her's behind to deal with the situation.

Ryan Moats continually tried to explain to Officer Robert Powell that his mother-in-law was dying, who seemingly seemed indifferent to his situation and in fact talked over Moats several times. Over 16 minutes, of commands to "shut up", lectures, a discussion with a Plano police officer of past pursuits and nonsense not related to Moats being pulled over, more lectures he was finally allowed to enter the hospital at the added behest of a nurse who informed Powell that Moats mother-in-law had "coded" (Code Blue, patient dying) three times. She had, sadly, died before Moats was allowed to leave the parking lot. - Source: YouTube, Robert Powell Ryan Moats Dash Cam Video 1 & 2;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQFGzaYZV2A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syF2w0u5Bos

There are, without a doubt, going to be two distinct camps on this issue. Those that believe that Officer Powell was overzealous and lorded his power unnecessarily when he detained Ryan Moats, and those that believe that Officer Powell acted accordingly within the boundaries of police procedure.

I find myself kind of in the middle on this one, with my foot firmly planted on the side of Ryan Moats.

Lets start with Officer Robert Powell. He is parked off road somewhere watching for speeders/automobile law violators. A dark colored SUV with its hazard lights flashing comes speeding past, running two stops in the process. He pulls out in pursuit with sirens active.

Rather than stopping immediately, the vehicle continues on course. So Powell's adrenaline starts to pump as a result of emotions from both anger and fear. The question of "Is he going to run?" obviously had to have popped in his brain as he is a police officer and this kind of scenario is taught in the academy. So adrenaline and mind racing, he follows the vehicle into the parking lot where it comes to a stop, and four people immediately exit rather than remaining in the vehicle (which we are all taught to do). He too exits his vehicle, allegedly with weapon drawn and commands everyone to stop.

Now given that we see officers everyday who are shot and killed while during traffic stops, everything Officer Powell does to this point makes sense to me. The vehicle failed to pull over to the side and stop immediately when Officer Powell initiated his sirens, and when it finally did stop, four people immediately exited the vehicle. So there had to be some question in the officer's mind on what potential danger he was walking into.

This is where the logic ends however.

As soon as Ryan Moats, his wife, and two relatives exit the vehicle Mrs. Moats says very clearly, "My mother is dying" and it is obvious, well at least to me, that the emotions of all four seemed to verify this.

At that point, in my opinion, a light bulb should have gone off in Officer Powell's head (Flashing hazard lights, speeding towards a hospital parking lot... hmm this must be some kind of emergency). But, rather than pausing and taking in what Mrs. Moats was saying and looking around at where they all were standing, he dismisses her and in fact continues on in ranting about the "red and blues" (sirens).

This officer was so caught up in himself and his own emotions of anger that he didn't feel the pain and emotion of Moats or his family who had a loved one that lay dying, and he had over 16 minutes to calm down and figure that out once it was clear that there was no threat or danger.

Now for some arguments of comments I have seen posted all over the internet:
1) Powell should have realized it was an emergency when he saw the flashing hazard lights.

Flashing hazard lights do not mean "I am on the way to the hospital, please ignore my traffic violations" they simply are a warning to other drivers/vehicles to exercise caution when approaching. I seriously doubt Powell has ESP. There is no way he could know what the situation was. Moats was still speeding and, to the officer's perspective, driving recklessly since he had ignored stops. This was more than enough due cause for Powell to pull over Moats.

2) Moats and his family should not have immediately exited their vehicle.

This is true as far as procedure goes, however procedure rightfully takes a back seat when the clock is ticking and your main concern is to just get to the bedside of a loved one who is dying in order to share a few precious moments in just saying goodbye. If it had been me, I too would have jumped out of that SUV and been running for the hospital door, I think anyone would.

One more thing, and then I swear I'm done... no, really.

While browsing Google News about the Ryan Moats story I happened across and op-ed piece on the Bleacher Report website by "BHL" (Whoever that is, nice to know he stands behind his opinion enough to use his full name).

The title of the piece is called "Ryan Moats Saga an Unfortunate Reality: Police Are Guilty Until Proven Innocent" (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/146534-ryan-moats-saga-an-unfortunate-reality-police-are-guilty-until-proven-innocent)

In it he sort of moderately decries the public for accusations of brutality and generally condemning the actions of police officers. Sort of an attempt to shame those refusing "to see through things through the officer's eyes before passing judgment" yadada yadada. Feel free to check out the address above if you want to read the full piece.

It's his opinion, he has a right to have it (( shrugs)).

There was only a portion of it, that I really took issue with. Upon recalling a police chase he and co-workers watched on television in which officers threw two suspects to the ground at the end he said the following (his words):

"My jaw dropped. These two dirt bags just drove through traffic at over 90 miles per hour, nearly took the lives of many innocent bystanders all while disrespecting the authority of police in leading them on what seemed like an endless chase.

And the police should be "nice" and "gentle" to these jerks? Are you kidding me?

I'd be all for the officer pummeling someone in this scenario, and even shooting them. If you're willing to drive your vehicle at over 90 miles per hour, running away from the police, through public, you do not deserve to breathe another minute, let alone be treated "nicely" by the police."

Wow... nice to know that after figuratively waving his fist in the air about the lack of perspective in looking through the eyes of someone else, he has absolutely no problem judging the suspects to the point of sentencing them to death. Classic hypocrisy.

It is the job of the police officer to "protect and serve" the public (you me, and even the suspect) and to enforce the law, not to execute the law. It they had that power, we would exist in a "Police State" (a country that maintains repressive control over the people by means of police or secret police. See also Authoritarianism.) similar to Nazi Germany and the SS, rendering the judicial court system, the right to legal defense, and due process null and void.

We are guaranteed certain rights by the Constitution, one of the most important being the sixth amendment - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecution. It reads as follows:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

As one of our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, once said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Just something to think about.

Brightest Blessings.

Posted by spiritiger at 12:58 PM
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post

Saturday, 28 March 2009

Stupid should hurt.
Topic: Blogging

I dare you to get through the entirety of the video below. I warn you, it will be 8 minutes and 30 seconds you won't get back.

Now, I don't know if "Jesusophile" is a YouTube Troll (someone who creates purposely controversial vblogs in order to generate hits on his YouTube channel), a satirist, or an idiot that is easier to program than a VCR. But, I have never laughed so hard at something that seemingly was never intended to be funny. My favorite of course being when he said "Giraffes are stupid", but kudos to the idea of giraffes with wings too, there's a vision that will be with me for awhile.

Apparently this nice, if not naive, young man from the Netherlands is unaware that there is, in fact, evidence of evolution... it's called, FOSSILS!! (( eyeroll ))

The funniest, if not the scariest thing, about this is how many people have actually joined his channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/Jesusophile. Nearly 1,000 and still growing and was awarded the "#72 Most Viewed (This Month) - Netherlands". But then, its really no wonder when you see his other vblogs with titles such as; "Why Condoms Don't Really Offer Protection Against STDs", "Why Homosexuality Is Against God's Will", and "Why Its Okay For Sex To Hurt the Vagina". All of which I felt might be too controversial to include in this blog. However, if you would like to have a good laugh at the stunning stupidity, and have the time, please feel free to give them a watch as well.

From what I've read of the comments that "tubers" have given, the consensus seems to be that he is a satirist, although the user "Jesusophile" has never confirmed or denied this. If this is true, he gives one stellar performance. I admit that I am often gullable, but to me, at least, he appears to be genuine in his sincere belief in what he is saying.

The problem with videos like the one above is that, without a disclaimer stating that what you are watching is either humor or satire, it can be assumed that what you see is what you get. This can be potentially dangerous if the viewer is swayed by what he/she sees and takes what is being said to heart without any benefit of being educated by facts. Most especially when it comes to the subjects of condoms, sex, homosexuality, and female sexual identity.

There is enough misinformation and prejudice that exists in our society already.

In conclusion I leave you with the following:

Posted by spiritiger at 9:09 AM
Updated: Tuesday, 27 October 2009 5:39 PM
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post

Newer | Latest | Older

«	April 2009					»

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30