|
You may have seen this spam email floating around the net. Well, one day it got sent to me, and here is my response. Subject: Fwd: And we said O.K. I disagree with much, though not all, of what the author of the original has to say. I've added some of my thoughts about it to this, inserted after the part it responds to. Many of you may agree with the original author and disagree with me, but since the message states that its intention is "to get you thinking", i feel that hearing a different view may help achieve that goal. To preface it a bit, i'm an atheist. Some people use the word atheist to mean someone who knows or believes that there is no god, or more specifically knows that the god character named God and partially described in the bible is not real. That isn't what the word means to me. I use the word to mean exactly what its root words mean. The prefix "a-" mean "without". The word "theist" means "someone who has the belief that there is a god". Atheist means simply, someone who isn't a theist. The explaination sometimes works a bit better with the "-ism" form of the words than with just the "-ist" form. Theism is the belief that there is a god. A theist is someone who has theism. Atheism is without theism. An atheist is someone with atheism. An atheist is someone without theism. --somebody wrote: >And we said O.K. > >In light of the many perversions and jokes we send along to one another >for a >laugh, this is a little different: > >This joke today is not intended to be a joke, it's not intended to be >funny, >it's intended to get you thinking. > >Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane >Clayson >asked her "How could God let something like this happen?" (regarding the >attacks on Sept. 11). Of course, a more insightful question to ask may have been "How could Allah let something like this happen?", since the perpetrators were muslim not christian. The easiest answer is that fictional characters have little, if any, power in the real world. > >Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said >"I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years >we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our >government >and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He >has >calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His >protection if we demand He leave us alone?" This is insightful? This is profound? o_O > >In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I >think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her >body >found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we >said OK. Which religion's prayer would you let in? Which deity would be prayed to? What about the first amendment? If you really want prayer in school, you are free to go to private school, pray privately during lunch or before or after class, or you could attend classes at the church of your choice. > >Then someone said you'd better not read the Bible in school... (The >Bible >says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor >as >yourself.) And we said OK. The bible also says to gladly dash the children's heads against the rocks, slay all of the enemy's people except the virgin women, stone to death a man who works on the sabbath, and that God will spread dung on people's faces. > >Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they >misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we >might >damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an >expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK. Perhaps Dr. Spock wasn't such an expert, and perhaps there were other factor involved in his son's death. > >Then someone said teachers and principals better not discipline our >children when they misbehave. The school administrators said no faculty >member in this school better touch a student when they misbehave because >we don't want any bad publicity, and we surely don't want to be sued. >There's a big difference between disciplining, touching, beating, >smacking, >humiliating, kicking, etc.). And we said OK. Forms of discipline other than touching than physical abuse are still allowed. The assertion that there is no kind of disciplining in schools is erroneous. The implied statement that discipline must include physical abuse is frightening. > >Then someone said, let's let our daughters have abortions if they want, >and they won't even have to tell their parents. And we said OK. Assuming they mean daughters who are still minors, then i agree that this is too far. > >Then some wise school board member said, since boys will be boys and >they're going to do it anyway, let's give our sons all the condoms they >want so they can have all the fun they desire, and we won't have to tell >their parents they got them at school. And we said OK. The part about not having to tell the parents where the condoms came from isn't exactly true. While schools wouldn't have to inform the parent when a student does go in to get a condom, parents would know that the schools would make condoms available. > >Then some of our top elected officials said it doesn't matter what we >do in private as long as we do our jobs. Agreeing with them, we said it >doesn't matter to me what anyone, including the President, does in >private as long as I have a job and the economy is good. Why should a stranger's private life matter to me? If no crime is committed, then what does it matter? > >Then someone said let's print magazines with pictures of nude women and >call it wholesome, down-to-earth appreciation for the beauty of the >female >body. And we said OK. Venus deMilo anyone? Michelangelo's David? If nudity is inherently dangerous, then you'd better get rid of the mirror in the room where you shower. You'd better not look at yourself unless you are dressed. Its not "ok" to show bare breasts, unless its a documentary on native african people. What is up with that? Women aren't allowed to breastfeed their babies in public. What is up with that? How many boys expect breasts to be like those on a barbie doll(large, firm, perfectly round, no sag, nipple-less) because thats the only kind they've ever seen? How many girls' self image has been harmed because of boys who don't understand what breasts are? How many girls' self image is harmed because they have unrealistic expectations because they aren't allowed to know what the human body is really like due to restrictive views of modesty? > >And then someone else took that appreciation a step further and >published pictures of nude children and then further again by making >them >available on the Internet. And we said OK, they're entitled to free >speech. My sister had nude pictures taken of her baby boys. Oh the Humanity!! If abuse or harm is caused, then that is a problem. But, not all nudity causes harm. Some kinds of nudity might. Never oversimplify the issue. > >Then the entertainment industry said, let's make TV shows and movies >that promote profanity, violence, and illicit sex. Let's record music >that >encourages rape, drugs, murder, suicide, and satanic themes. And we said >it's just entertainment, it has no adverse effect, nobody takes it >seriously >anyway, so go right ahead. Not all movies that display profanity, violence, and/or illicit sex promote them. In fact the most effective way to say that a thing is bad and to demote it, IS to show it AND its consequences. One of the problems with violent movies, is that although they display violence, they downplay or ignore the consequences, the blood, the gore, and so on. If you are shown a thing without the negative consequences that would follow, that is how you get desensitized. Bring on the pain. Let the movie makers show us how much bad things hurt. It ain't pleasent, but thats the point. Moral behavior is most effectively achieved through empathy and understanding. in order to understand why somethings shouldn't be done, it is important to see and vicariously experience the pain it causes. > >Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they >don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill >strangers, their classmates, and themselves. Perhaps their parents were too busy making money to spend time with their children. Perhaps their parents didn't think it was important enough to teach morality themselves and preferred to delegate to a church or the state to teach it. Perhaps the few children who do harm others are bothered by it, but are bothered more by something else. > >Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it >out. I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW." In a manner of speaking. Sowing with allcaps is a bit rude though. > >Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the >world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but >question what the Bible says. God who again? The one who commanded death and slaughter? The one who manipulated and destroyed a pharoah for the intent of being able to display his own power? The one who's alleged son said that he came to set fathers against the sons, the mothers against the daughters? The one who's alleged son said that he came not to bring peace, but the sword? And which "Bible"? The sacred texts of the Hindus? The Torah? The King James? The NIV? The RSV? The Catholic version? The Koran? The Book of Mormon? Dianetics? > >Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like >wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people >think twice about sharing. Well, the Lord of slaying animals and burning their meat for a sweet savor, and slaying thy enemies and keeping their virgins, he doesn't have the best reputation. > >Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through >cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and >workplace. Schools are for education, and workplaces are for work. If your religious views can't thrive or survive in their own field, why should they be allowed to invade others? > >Are you laughing? Nope. > >Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on >your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what >they >WILL think of you for sending it. Funny how we can be more worried about >what other people think of us than what God thinks of us. Well, since i think that the biblical god named God is a fictional character, and thus has no thoughts except for those put into his "head" by writers, of course i don't care what he "thinks". If he's real, then he can come over for dinner sometime and tell me what he thinks. I shouldn't be expected to guess whats on the mind of a supernatural, practically invisible and imperceptible, unknowable being. > >Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no >one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't >sit >back and complain about what bad shape the world is in! > > >Are you thinking? Yes. Are you? |