Farewell to My Friends on VOX

I had a lot of fun posting on VOX.com. I learned that something which I’d always hoped was true, is TRUE:
The more people seem different from me, be it their nationality, their skin coloring, their sex, viewpoints, religion, or location – the more I see we are the same, once we really get to know each other.  

Also, because in the United States we’re still in “Black History Month”, (a separation from plain old “American history” that I think is ridiculous, but that’s a subject for another post), I want to leave you with this one civilization-altering photo taken from Life magazine in 1968:

During the Olympic Games in Mexico City, U.S. athlete Tommie Smith won the 200 metre race in a then-world-record time, with Australia’s Peter Norman second, and U.S.’s John Carlos in third place. After the race was completed, the three went to collect their medals at the podium, where during the U.S. National Anthem, Smith and Carlos raised their fists in a “Black Power” salute to protest the human rights violations in their country, the United States of America.


This took place in October of 1968, just a little over forty years ago. They did this because, in their country, the United States of America, just a little over forty years ago, Americans whose ancestors came from Africa, or the West Indies, or anywhere else in the world nearer the equator where the Creator covered people with darker skin to protect them from the extra sunrays they’d be exposed to, were, by virtue of having that darker skin, judged as “lesser” by other Americans.

So the “inalienable rights” of their Constitution were not extended to them. They couldn’t even drink from the same public water fountains as their lighter-skinned American counterparts, because who knew whether or not dark skin might be catching? (Leaving the ludicrousness of that, as well as Coppertone and tanning salons aside for another post, too.)

The backlash for Mr. Carlos and Mr. Smith, their sports careers, their families, and even to Mr. Norman, the Australian up there with them, who supported them by wearing an Olympic Project for Human Rights badge, was staggering. I won’t detail what repercussions they all suffered – you can read many of them here

But now Smith and Carlos are in their sixties, and when asked recently if they would make the same sign again, in the same place and time, both answered, “Absolutely.”

Mr. Smith and Mr. Carlos realise what they did for the Civil Rights Movement, clearly.

But I wonder if they realise that their one gesture in Mexico City led to the first Black American President, who will shortly begin withdrawal of United States troops from a country which, (in my opinion) we should never have invaded in the first place?

Maybe, at this time, a white Democrat president would do the same, but that’s the not the point, really. The point is that forty years ago, when Smith and Carlos made their decision to stand up and stand out, non-violently,for civil rights, and when they then bravely bore the personal fall-out of that decision, they in essence became the salvation of thousands of young American men and women who will not be deployed to Iraq to fight and die there, and thousands of Iraqi civilians who, as a result, will not die at American hands.

When viewed in that light, the ramifications of Carlos and Smith holding their fists high and still in the air that day, are much more far-reaching than they would ever have imagined standing on that podium in their youth. Something done by two men in Mexico City forty years ago, engendered thousands of lives rescued today in a country where neither have ever been. It makes one wonder how differently history would have turned out if they decided against making their statement, had just taken their gold and bronze medals and gone home.

Everything we do in life, and everything we don’t, has a corollary effect far greater than we can possibly imagine on the entire planet, even if we are not Olympic champions. For example, thanks to some reconnections I’ve made on Facebook recently, I learned that what I said or didn’t say as a teacher in my classroom thirty years ago, still affects some of my former pupils today.

So, what about you? What gestures have you made or not made, what life-transforming thing have you done, said, or written, or not done, not said, not written, that can have had either miraculous or catastrophic results?

For better or worse, all that is done or not done by each of us, reaches far more of us than we could ever dream.

And with that last thought, I say, “Good bye and all good wishes to all of you.”

Patricia Volonakis Davis

February 2009

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

A Memo from Satan

INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION

 

FROM: Satan

TO: Minions

RE: The United States of America, Planet Earth

 

 

It looks like we’re finally making some real progress in the United States of America. Naturally, as your Supreme Leader, I take credit for the brilliant idea.  But it was our diligent force of minions working tirelessly there, who carried out My plan so well. Indeed, using the Christians against themselves, without even one of them suspecting our ultimate goal, was a group effort of pure genius.   So, I’m going to extend cautious congratulations to My force of followers who are working there.

 

You’ve done an excellent job – on the one hand you’ve calmed the suspicions of those annoying Americans who ever diligently fight for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, by not interfering in the citizens’ decision to vote in an African-American to the presidency. By allowing them the celebration of that one historical triumph against racism, they won’t be as upset, or nearly as suspicious, about what we’ve managed to pull off right under their noses.

 

But we mustn’t rest on our laurels. The Constitution in this particular country was so intelligently designed, that, though we’ve managed to drill some holes in it, it’s still holding up.  The fact that it had “separation of church and state” as one of its major clauses has been problematic for us for more than two centuries. For the last 232 years, The United States has been the one of the few spots on earth where every religious denomination has lived peacefully side by side. A synagogue could be built as easily as a church, a mosque never attacked, because the law of the land was that all citizens of all the separate religions were allowed to worship their individual gods in any way they saw fit, with no interference from the government!  And, in upholding that part of the Constitution, the government was not permitted to limit any citizen‘s civil rights based on their religious beliefs. People, all people, could enjoy their religious preferences and worship in peace and harmony!

 

It was disgusting, and very, very frustrating for Me.  Those who’ve been with Me through the centuries can attest to the fact that our mission is most successful when a country‘s government is of a specific, ruling religion, and that ruling religion takes action against other minor religions that try to exist  in the same area.

 

Oh, the bloodshed I enjoy when people try to rise up against religious discrimination, when one religion despises another! No other type of war we’ve created on earth has created more slaughter, more sin, than a religious war. But even those who are new to the forces of evil, can see how well we’ve done in the Middle East (re: Earth)  All that human blood sacrificed in the names of all the different gods’ advances our cause greatly. It weakens the good will in men, makes them believe they are superior to one another, and ultimately brings down the very gods those men and women claim to worship. What a perfect scheme has religious war been for us!  But with a government that protects all denominations, our work in the U.S. had not been easy.

 

Until we infiltrated the Mormon church and beguiled the Catholics and other Christian denominations into thinking that the Mormons want to work in harmony with them.

 

That one really made Me chuckle.

 

Because, thanks to My work done centuries ago, we’ve already convinced the Mormons that they are the only ones going to heaven. They truly believe they are the only chosen, therefore they won’t be in harmony with the other Christian denominations for very long, that’s for sure, because all the other denominations feel exactly the same. Their smug religious superiority will crack their veneer of righteousness. But  now that they’ve come together this once and have been able to obtain the votes of so many denominations to pass the country’s first religious law, we here in Hell have finally witnessed that the United States’ Constitution is no longer impervious to current popular belief.  Civil liberties are up for sale to those who can obtain the most votes.  We have proven that with the passage of this new law.

 

This is enormous for our cause.

 

And relatively soon, maybe in five years, maybe in ten, if the Christians continue to believe they have upheld their religion freedoms by passing a religious law (don’t you love the irony?) the Mormons will  start thinking about additional religious laws they’d like to have passed. And why shouldn’t they, since this  foray into political control was so successful?

 

Once that happens, with luck, timing and some clever minions in the right churches, (which reminds Me–I thought we fired Ted Haggart? Oh, well — I’ll save that for another memo) some of those laws the Mormons will want enacted will anger some of the other religious denominations.

 

Like the Jews. They’ve proven volatile enough to get riled very quickly. If we get the right people in with the Mormons and some real troublemakers in with the Jews, there will be a religious uprising of one religious group against another in the United States, just as we’ve been able to create religious uprisings in other countries, as fast as you can say “JOSEPH-VEE-ESS-ABRAHAM.”

 

And all because we were able to convince Mormons, who were at one time in the past, as ostracized as gays are today, that gay marriage was threat to them.

I’m still laughing.

And the best part about this?  None of the religious groups have any clue that they’ve helped to destroy their own religious freedom in the United States, one of the few places on earth where they were free to worship as equals.  In fact, they’re so blinded to it, that even if they found this memo, they’d have no idea what in Hell I was talking about.

 

Congratulations, My most worshipful, hardworking minions. If you pull this off in Australia next, I think a bonus will be in order.

 

 

Satan

The Sanctity of Marriage and The Colour Purple

Weddingrings

In the fifty-two years I’ve been on the planet, I’ve experienced great joys in my life. But I’ve also experienced many great tragedies. Only those who are closest to me know of them, and will ever know what they cost me.

Yet, as much as I’ve suffered because of those tragedies, I’m glad of them in many ways, because not only did they make me stronger, they made me more compassionate. Having been judged and condemned, and hurt by the unfairness of it, I really try as hard as I can to walk in the shoes of others before I condemn or judge myself.

Yet, when I do come to the point where I feel no amount of compassion can help me excuse the acts of one human being against another, I become so outraged that it’s better for me to withdraw for a while, spend time in my garden, say, and think things through.

As a result, I haven’t been commenting much on my neighbour’s blogs since the election here in the United States has been heating people up, but I’ve been reading everything. And when I do comment, I’m very careful, trying to think things through,trying to see things from all perspectives, trying not to lash out and accuse.

But enough is enough.

I’m referring to the term, “the sanctity of marriage.” I have been hearing it a lot on blogs and on the telly because it’s election time. And I have to admit, it’s making my blood boil.

Because those who make that statement, ” I believe in the sanctity of marriage,” believe that just because they make it, they alone have a God-given right to determine how a segment of the human population can live.  A segment, who, if we observe nature carefully, we can see exists amongst all living creatures, not just amongst humans. A segment who have been naturally selected by nature as its clever way to keep the population down, without denying them the one joy granted to mankind — the ability to love, mentally, spiritually, and physically.

Well, let’s examine that statement:

Webster’s Definition of ‘Sanctity’- The quality of being ‘Holy’

Webster’s Definition of ‘Marriage’ – the state of being united to a person in a voluntary and contractual relationship recognized by law.

So, ‘sanctity’ and ‘marriage’ are not linked together in the dictionary, and in fact, mean two separate things. But when put together and stated by heterosexuals, those heterosexuals mean that to them, marriage is a holy, legal union to which only heterosexuals are entitled, because by this very definition and belief, only heterosexuals can be holy and only heterosexuals can uphold a holy, legal union.

And so, there is the insidious melding once again of church and state. Why? because they’re not talking church, synagogue or even mosque marriage here, blessed by a cleric, when they say “sanctity of marriage”. They’re talking state marriages by a non-secular, government official.

And let’s examine the ‘holy unions’ of some of the very people who tout this belief, “Marriage Sanctity”, “Sanctity Marriage” the loudest:

First of all, some go out of their way to proclaim themselves, “Staunchly heterosexual.” And that alone makes me wonder. ‘Staunchly?’ You either are or you aren’t heterosexual.  There’s no adverb needed, unless for some reason, you need to convince your own self how ‘staunchly’ you feel about your own heterosexuality.

But, who cares, anyway? I certainly don’t. When I encounter new people, what they may or may not be doing sexually in their own bedrooms does not in any way affect my marriage or me, unless they’re registered child molesters who are now living right next door.

Frankly, I think the ones who do care are just plain nosy.

It’s like saying when you meet someone, “Hi, I’m Dick. Say, I put my penis in a vagina. Before I shake your hand, can you tell me where you put yours?”

But the ‘sanctity of marriage’ types go even further than that. They actually lie to others and themselves about the verbiage, ‘holy marriage’. They know and we all know that unholy heterosexual marriages abound. Heterosexuals get married for all kinds of ‘unholy’ reasons. They marry for money, they marry to have someone to iron their shirts, they marry because their biological clocks are ticking and any stud or brood mare will do.They marry someone much older who they don’t love, because they want financial security and can’t wait till the old bastard dies. They marry someone straight out of the schoolroom, because they want to deny their fading youth, their comb overs and their spreading gut.

Every month it seems, there’s the minister in the news who has a lovely wife and three beautiful kids, but who’s boinking a male prostitute and lying about it. There’s the ordinary woman who uses the term, but is divorced from a loser who left her and his kids to fend for themselves. Or, like in my own case, an ex-husband who believed in the ‘sanctity of marriage’ (meaning he’s repulsed by gays) and promised his wife a happy marriage if she moved overseas with him, where he then ignored her and spent his time on another woman.

Sanctified marriages, all.

There are the holy men who talk about the sanctity of marriage. The ones who take a “vow of chastity” Another deceptive term, which translates to mean a “vow not to sleep with consenting adult females, but with unsuspecting little boys, instead.” And then have it hidden by the ‘sanctity’ of the church.

Then, of course, there’s John McCain’s idea of the sanctity of marriage— Leave your sick wife for a younger, hotter one. And Sarah Palin’s idea of the sanctity of marriage, (and motherhood)—force your seventeen-year-old to become a wife long before she’s ready for your own personal gain, bind her for life to a boy-man who’s not much of anything and most likely never will be.

And as this goes on and on, this disgusting hypocrisy which we are on the verge of making into law, I have a lot of anger and a lot of questions:

1) How can the people who talk like this live with themselves?

How can they call themselves or their relationships “holier” than my good friend and neighbour’s, a human being filled with compassion for his country and fellow man, who lovingly nursed his lifelong partner through sickness,spending his savings on medical care,then watched him die and is forever missing him; yet was not allowed to make this very blessed union between two loving, caring individuals legal?

2) How have those of us who see not only the unfairness of it, but the out-and-out wickedness of it, allow it to get so much airtime? Dismiss it because, even though we don’t agree with it, it doesn’t actually affect us, because we just happen to have been born heterosexual?

And the most important question of all, the one that makes me angriest is this:

3) Why in hell is every gay man and woman not openly and fiercely protesting this? Is it because they have bought into it, and they really do think they are evil and unholy, unworthy, somehow, of the rights the rest of us can legally enjoy?

Is it because they are scared to shake the status quo, find it more comfortable to hide and lie because they are able to?

What I mean by “able to” is that race can’t be hidden, but homosexuality can. However, if every gay person’s skin was, say, the colour purple, they couldn’t hide. Then, to the “sanctity of marriage” types purple skin would = gay, which would = unholy and unsuitable for marriage. Or even, maybe, shaking hands.

What then?

You see, this is why I haven’t been writing about this election.

Declaring Myself

As I roam around various blogs, I notice that though I don’t know many of my blogging friends’ real first and last names, I do know that they are “Christian” or “Atheist,” “Conservative” or “Liberal.”

It seems important to many that others know what bunch they’re part of, and certainly that they are part of a bunch—any bunch. It’s also important to many to know which bunch others are a part of, because in this way they can gauge that other person based on whatever that other person’s particular bunch signifies to them.

For example, if someone states, “Hi, my name is Such-and-Such, and I’m a Christian,” or, “Hi, my name is So-and-So, and I’m a Liberal,” there’s bound to be someone hearing either of those introductions thinking, “Uh Oh,” or, “Thank goodness.” So, without knowing anything else about this new person, we experience either a warm mental welcome towards that person, or an uncomfortable wariness.

Declaring oneself part of faction serves two other purposes for some, too: It allows them to cheer for their particular faction, just like we do with sports teams. Most of us, when we have a favourite sports team, don’t really care much about what that team does to win. As long as it does. After all, that’s the one purpose of team sports these days, isn’t it? To win… regardless of how that’s achieved?

Choosing to be part of a group also means to some that they can let their group do their thinking for them. Let’s face it ─ mulling over our country’s foreign policies, or which candidate we should vote for, or where we stand on each individual issue is hard work. To start, we have to find the hour in our already busy days to read about what those issues are, and from more than one source in order to get a balanced view. Then, we have to analyse all that information and decide what we believe regarding every issue on a one-by-one basis. But, most of us have to work eight hours a day, at least, then come home and take care of chores, houses, kids, maybe even a pet. Much easier to let our group simply tell us what we think. That saves us a lot of trouble, doesn’t it? At least in the short term, it does.

So, in the interest of fair play, because though anyone who reads my blog knows my name, my occupation and even where I live, they don’t know my affiliations, because I’ve never openly declared them. Now I will:

I am a follower of Patrichism, which makes me a Patrichist. Below, I’ll list the basic principles by which Patrichists live:

1. Patrichists strive to be pro-active, not re-active. Meaning, we don’t take action based solely on our emotions, we try to think rather than just feel. Let’s say that something ‘feels’ wrong to us, like, for example, abortion or gun control. I pick these two issues because Liberals are ‘for’ both, and Conservatives are ‘against’ both. But not all Patrichists have an identical opinion on either. What all Patrichists do agree upon, however, is how we deal with our feelings on these two issues. The first thing we do not do is re-act in a knee-jerk way, by issuing hysterical demands to deem them both unequivocally unlawful.
Instead, a Patrichist will think – what might happen if all abortions or all gun control were to be outlawed? What good could happen as a result? What bad could happen? What might the long term effects be? How would those effects spill over into other areas we might not expect or anticipate? Patrichists think the same way with, say, offshore drilling. Or declaring war on another country. Whatever the issue, a Patrichist acknowledges his/her gut feelings, but does not act upon those feelings, by immediately banding with a group that supports or opposes. A true Patrichist thinks everything through thoroughly before holding an opinion. A true Patrichist entertains all perspectives on every issue in his/her mind, openly and without fear of where his thoughts might take him.

Aristotle said, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a concept without necessarily accepting it.” Patrichists keep their minds educated by using them and holding their emotions at bay, until such time as their thoughts can be formed coherently.

2. A Patrichist never worries about what others will think if the stance they hold on any particular issue is different than theirs. She doesn’t worry about being ostracized, even from her own group. A Patrichist is unafraid to stand alone.

3. Patrichists are also not afraid to change their minds on an issue if new information comes to light. This does not make them ‘wishy-washy,’ this makes them intelligent. Since Patrichists believe that opinions should be formed based on knowledge and not emotions, it stands to reason that the more knowledge one gains of an issue, the more complex that issue becomes, and the more one needs to think it through, possibly causing a change in perspective. In simpler terms, Patrichists are not blinded to one idea and one perspective only, but are always open to new ones. This is what makes them so powerful. Politicians cannot manipulate Patrichists, because politicians can never get a consensus on what a Patrichist may or may not be thinking about any one issue. Since Patrichists’ thoughts are individually and not grouped-based, that means that the only way any politician has a chance of getting the vote of some Patrichists, (though not necessarily all), is to tell them what he really thinks. Which no politician will ever do, of course, for fear of losing the surer votes of Liberals or Conservatives, or whoever he’s after who can be counted on to have a more predictable mindset.


4. Patrichists use the word ‘faith’ carefully. They never say they have “faith” in a politician, as though that politician is God. Yet, a Patrichist can have faith in their God, if they choose to believe in one. That’s right—some Patrichists believe in God, others don’t; but whether they do or don’t, they recognize that blind ‘faith’ in a politician is the way to loss of free thought and will, but faith in a God is an acceptable choice, as long as it harms no one. No matter what any religious person or any atheist will tell you, there is no clear-cut proof that any god exists or does not exist, there is only each individual’s idea of such. And because religion is an idea, a Patrichist respects every human being’s right to a different one. Even so, all Patrichists recognize that there exists good and evil, and that any killing done in the name of any idea of any religion is evil, pure and simple.
5. Lastly, one of a Patrichist’s main motivations in life is to leave every place she or he enters a little bit better than it was before. But, Patrichists’ thoughts are global when they think in terms of ‘place.’ A Patrichist counts the entire planet, not just one particular state or country, as the place to strive to make a positive difference.


So, that’s the entirety of Patrichism. Five very good points. I try my damndest to practice these every day. In fact, I’ve practiced Patrichism for so long, that I’ve earned a PhD. in it. “Dr. Davis”, that’s me.

Of course, my doctorate is self-proclaimed. How? Because ‘Patrichism’ is my very own ‘ism’ that I made up myself, my personal ‘ism’ by which I try my best to live. This should explain the match of the first six letters of this particular ‘ism’ to those in my first name.

Up until now, I’ve been the only member of my “Society of Patrichists.” But today, I’ve decided to begin awarding ‘honourary degrees in Patrichism’ to those who, by reading their blogs, I’ve come to believe follow (or, like me, try their best to follow) the principles of Patrichism.

Those who receive an honourary degree are under no obligation to accept it, of course. In fact, they can even refute it for any reason at all, and no hard feelings. But for those listed below who feel they have earned a degree in Patrichism and would like to accept it, I’ll happily send you your diploma via email, signed, sealed, and flourished for you to place on your office wall, with my very best wishes:

 

Honourary Bachelor’s Degree in Patrichism Awarded To (Alphabetically):

iliask.vox.com

lightchaser.vox.com

schoonerhelm.vox.com

shushnow.vox.com

All of these ‘Under Thirties’ above have the wonderful ability to think outside the box or group of circumstances they happen to be born into. They are all, in their own way striving to do something special with their lives. I highly recommend their blogs. They have wisdom beyond their years and always teach me something or make me think.


Honourary Master’s Degree of Patrichism Awarded To (Alphabetically):

headwaves.vox.com/

paxblog.vox.com

With all the madness going on in politics these days, reading these two, knowing they’re out there, thinking and caring, makes me sleep better at night.

Honourary Doctrate Degree in Patrichism:

petermcc.vox.com

You know, there just has to be another Dr. of Patrichism out there, and this one feels especially right because he discusses so many issues and he’s (I hope he won’t mind my telling ) even older than I, thus earning ‘experience’ points. I could have picked snowy938.vox.com, too of course, but last I heard he’d already had a reader declare him a ‘Snowy God.’ And being a god beats earning an honourary doctorate any day.

More honourary degree listings coming in future months. And for anyone on this list who wants to accept his/her diploma, on my honour as a Patrichist, I promise I will send you one. To those who accept, I guess I can say, ironically, “Welcome to the bunch!”

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

I am Ann Coulter

Today would have been the day I posted the last in my series on men, titled, “In Danger From The Outside World.” But, I’ve had to postpone because several events have occurred in the last two weeks that have prompted me to make this announcement:

I am Ann Coulter.

That’s right. She and I are the same person.

Look – this chart (Chart I) will prove it:

Patricia V. Davis Ann Coulter

age 51 47
height 5 ft. 3 inches 6 ft.
weight 124 unknown
Hair colour dark brown blonde
Eye colour black blue
Education Teaching Degree Law Degree
Residence California New York
Self-defence Can leg press 270 pounds Owns guns, has body guards

Though this chart does not show much similarity, if you look at our photos, you will see that Ann and I are wearing a similar beige, sleeveless blouse.

Therefore, because we have this one thing in common, Ann and I are identical.

Have I proven that point?

I hope not.

Now look at this chart (Chart II) :

Jesus Christ’s Beliefs Ann Coulter’s Beliefs

Bless those who persecute you! Bless, and do not curse! (Rom 12:14) 

Repay no one evil for evil! (Rom 12:17)

Do not avenge yourselves! (Rom 12:19)

“We need to execute people like John Walker Lindh in order to physically intimidate liberals.”— from a 2002 speech. 

“The fact of Islamo-Fascism is indisputable, “I find it tedious to detail the savagery of the enemy . . . I want to kill them. Why don’t Democrats? We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. ” in a speech at USC

Let not any filthy word go out of your mouth! But only good, so that it may give grace to the ones hearing! (Eph 4:29) 

Put off… anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, shameful speech out of your mouth! (Col 3:8

“Liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots.” —from her book, Treason 

There are a lot of Bad republicans. There are no good Democrats.”—CNN, July 21, 2003

If anyone says, I love God, and hates his brother, he is a liar. For if he does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? (1 John 4:20) “I’m a Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second, and don’t you ever forget it.” —July 2006 

“Press passes can’t be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the President“-Feb 23

“My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.”

New York Observer interview, 2002

Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. “Jesus’ distinctive message was: People are sinful and need to be redeemed, and this is your lucky day because I’m here to redeem you even though you don’t deserve it, and I have to get the crap kicked out of me to do it.” —2004 column
You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.”
But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also

Love your enemies! Bless those who curse you! Do good to those who hate you!…(Matt 5:44). 

For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others?

“I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning. Boom!…They’re a major threat. I just think it would be fun to nuke them…”reported by New York Observer, January 2007 

My question is this: If you don’t believe me when I say that Ann Coulter and I are one and the same, because we have beige blouses in common, why do we believe Ann Coulter when she claims to be ‘Christian,’ just because she has one thing in common with real Christians, which is, that she believes Jesus Christ is the Lord? After that, she deviates from Christian doctrine remarkably.

One cannot be a Christian “conservatively.” It’s all or nothing. Either one believes Jesus Christ is the Lord and Saviour and follows His Teachings (see Chart II) or one is not really a Christian.

You might ask, why do people say they’re Christians and try to get us to believe it, when they really aren’t Christians? The answer is the “Playground Principle.”

On a playground, it’s always the weakest kid who gets picked on. In order to protect himself, he has to have a tough, intimidating mouth, or another really big kid on his side.

Well, who’s a bigger kid than God?

The idea that we can annihilate all our enemies by invading their countries and/or taking over their governments is such a weak idea that it needs a big mouth and God backing it up, in an attempt to be impressive. That’s what these so-called “Conservative Christians” – I will coin a new term here and call them “Coulter Christians” because it’s much more appropriate – are attempting to do. By telling us that we are “idiots,” or “sick” or “ridiculous” because we see the weakness behind this methodology and by saying they have ‘God’ on their side, they are trying to intimidate us.

It also serves another purpose. Divisionist tactics and power in numbers. If we take Coulter Christians at their word that they really are Christians, we begin to view Christianity itself with disdain. That disparaging attitude puts true Christians everywhere on the defensive. For an example of this, I invite you to read this heartfelt post.

By deriding all Christians, we’re no better than those who hate all Muslims.

How can we tell the difference between ‘true Christians’ and ‘Coulter Christians?’ To quote Jesus of Nazareth again, “by the fruit they bear.”

Here is an example of the fruit that true Christianity bears:

 

 

The lovely young woman in this photo is IrishLuckylass, pictured here with her two lucky children. They’re lucky because she is their mother. I read this Lass’s blog almost every day, no matter how busy I get, because it’s an inspiration to me. She doesn’t write about world-shaking events, she writes about her life and how much she appreciates it, her children and how devoted she is to them. She writes about trying in all the ways she knows to be a good mother, a good daughter, a productive, loving human being.

IrishLuckyLass has had more than a fair share of trials in her life. But you might be tempted to dismiss them, because no matter what tragic thing has happened to her, she writes about finding, if not some good in it or some lesson to be learned, then at least some humour in it, as though bad fortune came her way so she could turn it into a good story for us all. Her Christianity has not made her bitter, angry or vengeful. Quite the contrary, the worst thing I’ve ever heard her say in her writings about the man she loved who betrayed her and his two remarkably beautiful children with her, is to call him (and I love this) “ass hat.”

When I asked her once how she managed to survive abandonment by her father, then a rape, followed by the desertion of her husband, (and more), she told me, “It’s my faith.”

Oh, but wait – she sometimes votes Republican!

So what?

Coulter Christians are no more true Republicans than they are true Christians.

Here is an example of the fruit “Synthetic Republican,” “Coulter Christian” mindset bears:

 

 

We all know who the man in this photo is. The following are quotes from his speeches and writings and you’ll find them remarkably like Ann Coulter’s and those of some other so-called Christians we know: (Replace the word ‘Jew’ for ‘Arab’ or ‘Muslim’)

1. “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” —from John Toland’s Biography, Adolf Hitler

2.“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” —Mein Kampf

3.“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter…..How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.” —Mein Kampf

4. “We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” ( in a speech delivered in Berlin October 24, 1933)

5. Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the ‘remaking’ of the Reich.” –Mein Kampf

6.“For this, to be sure, from the child’s primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor patriots: ‘Lord, make us free!’ is transformed in the brain of the smallest boy into the burning plea: ‘Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!’”—Mein Kampf

Have I made my point?

I hope so.

Because if we can’t see the difference between those who say they’re Christians and those who act like Christians, just because they’re both wearing the same blouse, then I really am Ann Coulter.

And she’s going to be plenty ticked off when my new credit card applications go through.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Look Harder

“Look harder.”

Gee…did I just hear you say that again? You’re an English teacher. Surely you must know that one can’t look “harder” at written words on a page.

One can look “longer,” delve more deeply into the meaning of those words, if one can read them, that is, but one can’t look “harder.”

Yet, at least once a week, with distaste and fury layered through your voice, you say it to one of your first-year (seventh grade) pupils.

A girl today, I see.

A twelve-year old girl, whose life is already a misery. On the edge of puberty, her breasts feel sore all the time and, much to her constant mortification, one is growing faster than the other. No matter what blouse she wears to school, this is noticeable. The boys in her class often point to her chest, whispering and laughing behind her back. She hears them and wants to die. She feels she has nothing to balance this physical “anomaly” because to her mind, the other girls in her class are so pretty and sophisticated compared to her. The other girls in her class know how to flirt, while she just gets tongue-tied. And while the other girls in her class still maintain that smooth, soft complexion of their baby years, her face is already always breaking out.

Apart from her uneven breasts and pimples, her feelings of social ineptitude, she’s “stupid,” she’s been told.

By her older brother, when she can’t read the ingredients on their box of breakfast cereal, or when, in a rush of shyness, she’s struck mute when his friends come over to visit. “Don’t pay any attention to my sister. She’s stupid,” is his way of explaining her silence to them.

Her mother agrees. Oh, not that her mother actually says the word out loud, she just looks at her daughter pityingly when shown her marks. “Well, honey,” mother sighs, “I guess not everybody can be good at school.”

But, this young girl is not “stupid.” She has dyslexia.

When you, her teacher, place this before her:

“…after he was ushered into this world of sorrow and trouble, by the parish surgeon, it remained a matter of considerable doubt whether the child would survive to bear any name at all; in which case it is somewhat more than probable that these memoirs would never have appeared…”

This is what she sees:

“…after he saw ushereb otni this worlp of worros and rtoudle, by the barisp noeqrus, ti remaineb a rettam of consiberadle boubt whether eht chilp pluow survive ot dear yna name ta all; in which esac ti si tahwemos more than bropaple taht these sriomem woulp reven have addearep…”

Yet, all throughout her seven years of schooling so far, not one person in her life has noticed. Her brother, being a child, couldn’t notice. Her mother, not having had much education herself, might not notice. But you – her teacher? Why didn’t you notice?

I know why. You really didn’t want to be a teacher, did you? You wanted to be…hmmm…let me guess…a writer? …An actor, maybe?

And because the agents didn’t knock down your door in their enthusiasm, because the studios didn’t shower you with movie contracts, you “fell back” on teaching, didn’t you? Someone, some career counsellor somewhere, or even another teacher perhaps, advised you, “You can use your M.A degree. You just need to take a few education courses. It has great benefits and you get your summers off,” didn’t they?

And you thought about it. You thought that the salary wasn’t too bad, especially for the amount of effort you were planning to put into it. Better than being a waiter, anyway. You also realised that the teaching day, ending at 3 p.m., would give you just enough time to play at your real interests. And on a subconscious level, you knew that if you didn’t succeed at them then, you could always blame it on the fact that you, “had no time, you had to teach.”

Then the years went by, faster than you could have believed. You never got that publishing contract and Johnny Depp got all your good roles. So your disgust with Johnny, with Random House and with yourself, grew.

Eventually that disgust manifested itself into an abiding revulsion for your pupils. In particular, this little girl in front of you now, who is flushed through with agonized humiliation because, on top of everything else she thinks she should be and isn’t, she can’t read Charles Dickens and she knows you loathe her for it.

In your loathing, you’ll go one step further. You will make sure all her classmates detest her for it, too:

“I can’t believe this. Are you just going to sit there? Read it. We’re all waiting for you to say something.”

I understand you believe you should be able to express what you feel, at the very least. At least, here – in a classroom full of twelve-year-olds, you are in charge. You can say whatever you want and no one can stop you, because you have tenure, another job perk of your insufferable ‘career.’ So the worst that can happen is that you’ll get a lecture from the headmaster if any one of your pupils, or their parents has the temerity to complain. Which they hardly ever do.

Last week, it was a boy. You really outdid yourself there. You managed to make him cry. In a room full of other boys his age, he cried, because of you.

And now his life at school is effectively over. He’d already been having trouble. He’s the smallest male in his class and he can’t hit, pitch, kick or dunk a ball. However, he was managing to get through with his wry sense of humour and his ability to run pretty damn fast. Now he’ll never fit in, thanks to your public, verbal flogging.

There’s good news, though. For you, anyway. You know how you so wanted to make a social impact with your literary and/or theatrical endeavours? You have. Your words and your performances will never be forgotten. You are immortalised in the minds of your pupils.

This little girl today, for instance. She’ll will always remember and be affected by you. The first time she meets someone who calls her “friend,” she’ll be so surprised and grateful, that she’ll probably be misused. Her first job promotion, she’ll feel a clenching in her stomach, as she wonders if she’s really capable of handling it. When a man tells her he loves her, there’ll always be doubt whispering in her mind, that he can’t possible mean it. And if she becomes a mother, she’ll worry far more than most, that she’s making a mess of it.

As for that boy, if he has a supportive family, he’ll make it through the next five years of school, though they’ll be hell for him. The girls will always roll their eyes when they see him coming and sidle away. He might come to hate women because of it and himself, too. And if he doesn’t have a loving family, he might decide life is not worth it and take himself out, along with some of his classmates and teachers, probably. Possibly you.

All because you and so many others like you, couldn’t respect yourself, or your pupils or the job you were hired to do. It’s a job you’ll always despise, yet one from which no one will ever be able to pull you away. And every day you’re in it, you make my job harder for me.

Haven’t you figured out who I am?

Well, maybe you should look harder, too.

I’m the English teacher across the hall. And I hear you every day.

——————————————

credits – excerpt from Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist, photo from ‘foversouls’ on Flickr- “First Day of School”

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Senators, Thank You for Your Support

 

 

Michael Bernard Mukasey  is an impressive man. His alma mater is Columbia University and Yale Law School. In 1987, Mukasey was nominated as a federal district judge for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan by President Ronald Reagan. He served in this position for 18 years, including tenure as Chief Judge from March 2000 through July 2006. Mr. Mukasey is also is a teacher. He began teaching at Columbia Law School in the Spring of 1993 and has taught there every Spring semester since. In addition, he is well-connected politically. Mukasey and his son are justice advisers to Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign. And, on top of all this,  as of yesterday, November 6, 2007, Michael Mukasey has been appointed by our “democratically-led” Congress as 81st United States Attorney General.

For those who are not familiar with the title, The United States Attorney General is the head of the United States Department of Justice concerned with legal affairs and is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States government.

Quite a notable resume, don’t you think? Yet, despite all of Mr. Mukasey’s accomplishments, you might be surprised to learn that he, The United States’ top law official,  doesn’t know how to use the internet. When Mr. Mukasey was asked by Senator Whitehouse, “Is waterboarding constitutional?” Mr. Mukasey replied, “I don’t know what’s involved in the technique. If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional.”

But, he said, “if.” Which means, he can’t be sure.

Mr. Mukasey, I can help. Go to your computer and type in “waterboarding” on any search engine. Here’s what comes up on Wikipedia:

“Waterboarding is a technique that simulates drowning in a controlled environment. It consists of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face to force the inhalation of water into the lungs. Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish and intimidate. In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex and can make the subject believe death is imminent.

Waterboarding’s use as a method of torture or means to support interrogation is based on its ability to cause extreme mental distress…Although waterboarding in cases can leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the real risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries as a result of struggling against restraints (including broken bones), and even death.”

Wikipedia also states that, “Numerous experts have described this technique as torture.” Funny, but somehow I don’t think it tales an expert to figure that out, which is why I can‘t understand why Mukasey is having so much trouble with it.  Some nations have criminally prosecuted individuals for performing waterboarding. In the past, The United States has been one of those nations.

Why am I talking about this? “Waterboarding” – a euphemism that sounds like a fun sport, instead of what it actually is, got renewed attention September 2006, when reports claimed that the Bush administration had authorized the use of waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners of the United States. ABC News reported that current and former CIA officers stated that, “there is a presidential finding, signed in 2002, by President Bush, Condoleezza Rice and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft approving the ‘enhanced’ interrogation techniques, including water boarding.”

Waterboarding became an issue in the nomination of Michael B. Mukasey to be the next U.S. Attorney General because of his wishy-washy stance on whether he approved of waterboarding or not. Several Senators indicated that they would not vote for him without a more definitive answer.

Yet, his nomination was confirmed by the Senate yesterday.

My thanks to Wikipedia for providing most of the material for my VOX blog this week. But my biggest thanks goes to The United States Senate for upholding my beloved Constitution.

Good job, people.

 

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

 

Switch to our mobile site