For Dan
Now this is really cheating. No time to post responses and also write posts? Choose one or the other, right? Wrong. Write a rambling response to an interesting post on someone else's blog, then nick it back again and use it as a post on yours. I think I have this licked.
Seriously though, I found myself so engrossed in this just now I thought it was worth a post of its own. Call it a tribute to diversity, a curiosity of the nature of blog attraction, or some perverse compulsion to balance precariously on a soapbox for a moment, but here we go; as previously featured (hahaha!) on Dan's blog:
Hi Dan, it's good to be back. I've been a bad blogger and have't been around for a while. I picked an interesting time to visit you! I have posted my response to you on my blog too - you have made me think, which can't be bad.
I have sometimes wondered why I feel so drawn to your blog - I don't visit many (just too darned busy), but I always like coming here. Our beliefs, our politics, our attitudes are often so different, yet I like reading what you have to say, and I think you are a good, decent and immensely likeable man.
Never has a post showed so clearly how fundamentally different our beliefs are. We have divergent views on so many things. I remember a good discussion on gun laws many many months ago, and here we are again, poles apart, but I hope still friends.
My politics are clearly not yours - I celebrated madly when Barack Obama was elected your next President. I was brought up nominally Anglican, but remain unimpressed by organised religion and too much reliance on people's interpretations of the will of God. I am happy that some people find it fulfilling to live their lives within a stated religious framework, but deeply suspicious of fundamentalism in any form where it seeks to dictate how others should live their lives. Again, it appears we are different.
I was deeply saddened with the result of the vote on Prop 8 in California. Marriage has many forms, as do people. Their way may not be your way, but it is a way, and will hurt no-one who is prepared to accept and celebrate the diversity of human life. It cannot harm your family, and is an attack on no-one, simply an expression of love and commitment. Theirs cannot threaten yours.
Ah, and the big one - human life in its earliest form. I don't like the terms pro and anti-abortion. They suggest some people think it's a jolly good thing and highly recommended. It isn't. It's the result of a hard, traumatic and challenging decision, which sadly, some find themselves having to make under difficult circumstances. I cannot say I could choose it, or would not under certain circumstances, but I will not judge those who do. They have a right to do so safely and without my approbation.
Truth is a flexible concept - yours may not be mine. Fortunately, humans are flexible too, and can accept, celebrate and discuss differing views. Most of us try to live our lives within moral frameworks with which we feel comfortable, and are at least respectful of others' beliefs. I respect yours, and hope mine don't threaten our friendship.
Voltaire said something along the lines of "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
Sound chap, Voltaire.
Seriously though, I found myself so engrossed in this just now I thought it was worth a post of its own. Call it a tribute to diversity, a curiosity of the nature of blog attraction, or some perverse compulsion to balance precariously on a soapbox for a moment, but here we go; as previously featured (hahaha!) on Dan's blog:
Hi Dan, it's good to be back. I've been a bad blogger and have't been around for a while. I picked an interesting time to visit you! I have posted my response to you on my blog too - you have made me think, which can't be bad.
I have sometimes wondered why I feel so drawn to your blog - I don't visit many (just too darned busy), but I always like coming here. Our beliefs, our politics, our attitudes are often so different, yet I like reading what you have to say, and I think you are a good, decent and immensely likeable man.
Never has a post showed so clearly how fundamentally different our beliefs are. We have divergent views on so many things. I remember a good discussion on gun laws many many months ago, and here we are again, poles apart, but I hope still friends.
My politics are clearly not yours - I celebrated madly when Barack Obama was elected your next President. I was brought up nominally Anglican, but remain unimpressed by organised religion and too much reliance on people's interpretations of the will of God. I am happy that some people find it fulfilling to live their lives within a stated religious framework, but deeply suspicious of fundamentalism in any form where it seeks to dictate how others should live their lives. Again, it appears we are different.
I was deeply saddened with the result of the vote on Prop 8 in California. Marriage has many forms, as do people. Their way may not be your way, but it is a way, and will hurt no-one who is prepared to accept and celebrate the diversity of human life. It cannot harm your family, and is an attack on no-one, simply an expression of love and commitment. Theirs cannot threaten yours.
Ah, and the big one - human life in its earliest form. I don't like the terms pro and anti-abortion. They suggest some people think it's a jolly good thing and highly recommended. It isn't. It's the result of a hard, traumatic and challenging decision, which sadly, some find themselves having to make under difficult circumstances. I cannot say I could choose it, or would not under certain circumstances, but I will not judge those who do. They have a right to do so safely and without my approbation.
Truth is a flexible concept - yours may not be mine. Fortunately, humans are flexible too, and can accept, celebrate and discuss differing views. Most of us try to live our lives within moral frameworks with which we feel comfortable, and are at least respectful of others' beliefs. I respect yours, and hope mine don't threaten our friendship.
Voltaire said something along the lines of "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
Sound chap, Voltaire.
posted by MargieCM at 9:56 am
23 Comments:
Wow, Margie, you have just reminded me that I haven't visited Dan in a while either, and I agree wholeheartedly: he is a good, decent and oh what an entertaining and witty man too. I love his blog for its quirky eclectic character.
I haven't seen the one to which you are now referring, but isn't it good that we can all of us disagree so completely at an intellectual level but find so much friendship on a compassionate and emotional level. Vive la difference!
I swing mostly in your direction when it comes to the issues concerned, but am maybe just holding some reservations about the new administration in terms of its ability to operate independently of the big corporate money guys who mostly pull the strings both politically and internationally. I hope, so hope it can...
And yes, Voltaire was a sound chap...if a touch frivolous at times....
My goodness Vally that ws quick - we almost got together in real time! Shame that I should have been dressed and showered hours ago, and have now spent almost the whole morning wittering away on the pooter. See what I meant the other day? No discipline.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Margie, as with Val, I agree with what you have posted. I also think, that with the varied and colourful opinions expressed on these blogs, that we do remain friends and respect each others' rights to voice those opinions.
Oh, that Voltaire - very insightful man he was.
I am reading "A New Earth" by Eckart Tolle and it has been very enlightening thus far.
Learn to live without the Ego...
Difficult, but entirely possible.
If you'll notice that, on Dan's blog, I avoided the apparent issue(s) and applauded the universal state of humanity - the need to have someone care.
Verification word "cants"...
Oh yes we CAN!
LOL Margie!
That was written with great discipline.
...and that was my delete.
Hi Margie,
You are a better diplomat than I will ever be, but I will just preface this with the thought that while Voltaire may have been right about ideas, I have a problem with people who will never have to make a particular choice (ie: men and abortions, or straight people and gay marriage) interfering with how I or anyone else might make that choice.
I was quite saddened by the acceptance of Prop 8 (but not surprised, given the time I've spent in California, which is not as tolerant as you might think outside of a few pockets of population). There is something to me quite wrong about a majority voting on the rights of a minority in matters that will never affect them directly and which hurt no one. "Marriage" is a legal issue, first and foremost, and is more about property and legal rights than anything else, no matter what the religious might think. If it truly were solely a religious issue, we wouldn't need licenses and the states or counties would not have a legal hand in it. perhaps North America needs to call every union a "civil union" like they do in Europe and make couples get their legalities out of the way at the registry office and then let people who wish to do so get their unions blessed by their churches or other houses of worship.
I do not walk in the shoes of gay couples wishing to have their love and commitment recognised in the same way my relationship is, and I will never understand why people are opposed to things that do not affect or diminish them in any way. Giving a gay couple the right to get married does not weaken my own union; rather, if someone loves another human being enough to adopt those values, it might actually solidify those family values everyone always trots out but doesn't support.
On the matter of abortion- if we had proper sex education, and wider access to birth control, there wouldn't need to be such a discussion about the topic. Abstinence education by itself is unrealistic, and I don't believe any woman who chooses to have an abortion does so happily and without trauma. Again, let's walk a mile in another person's shoes before we start trying to decide what we should do for them. If all the people who are so concerned about the unborn would take all that love and energy and go help the thousands of unwanted, neglected, abused children, the world might be a better place too.
Off my soapbox now.
Margie, if any of this rant offends, feel free to remove it. I suspect your Voltarian side wouldn't do that, but I think politeness only goes so far when people's civil liberties are concerned.
xx
AM
Hi Dale and Anne Marie, and thank you for taking the time to respond to my warblings again. AM - I owe you a visit.
Dale, you and Vally before you are so right about how most bloggers generously accept each others' opinions. I must look up that book too - it sounds really powererful (and I have sooooo much time to read!). Speaking of which , Val, you must tell me more about Voltaire's frivolities! Clearly I am an ignorant one-quote wonder.
Dale, I did notice your restraint over on Dan's, and admired it. I really hope I haven't started anything that will offend him - I adore the man and love reading his blog - his love for his family, his appreciation of his beautiful surroundings, his sense of perspective and his wonderment for all things big and airborne come to mind. And of course he's a Who fan, which gives him major Brownie points - ha!
AM, thanks for your frank response. I have no problem with freedom of speech, and I am simply glad you find this place a nice safe one to voice your opinions - which, as it happens, are on a par with mine, but that's incidental.
Anyone can bang on about freedom of speech if the person speaking shares your beliefs. The real test is how we deal with diversity of opinion, as individuals and as a society.
PS: At the risk of stating the obvious, Sarah Palin's attitude to sex education in schools and the importance of teaching abstinence-only worked a treat in her own family, didn't it? Those poor kids. I feel for them. It's hardly an ideal start to a marriage, and so young. Sigh.
I applaud this post Margie! I have my own ways of thinking which are pretty much the same as yours on these issues.
I try to live according to simple principles:
A) I am opposed to any form of discrimination, be it ethnic background, religion, gender, sexual orientation or anything else. I am also opposed to justifying the discriminatory views on "higher" authority, religious or anything else.
B) I fully believe in everyone's freedom to think and believe the way they want, and make choices according to those beliefs - AS LONG AS the choices do not cause harm to other people and as long as they do not try to enforce their views on other people.
The second part is essential for me. That's why I can't approve of things like the ban on gay marriage in California. It crosses the line. "We do not approve of gay marriage so we will force others to our views by giving the ban the power of law." Everyone is at liberty to personally not approve gay marriage but I do not think anyone is entitled to direct other people's lives based on the thinking. In this case the belief causes immeasurable harm to people who love each other, whose love to each other does not take away anything from anyone else, who want to marry but are not allowed to do so.
I have to say I especially have problems with Christian conservatives (the same would apply to all who from my point of view are religious extremists, but the Christian conservatives have the most power in the west). They can say "We have the right to our beliefs". They indeed do. But if the goal is to have political power to drive through decisions based on the beliefs a line is crossed. Secondly religious conservatism and/or fundamentalism has the unique feature that personal interpretation of the holy book's message is taken as the only true interpretation and there actually God's direct announcement which cannot be questioned. In other words it is not admitted that personal, human factors have a role to play there and that in fact the message is read selectively, taking parts that fit one's own thinking and ignoring others. Then follows the thinking "We have the true faith, therefore we know what is moral and what is right and have the authority to decide it for others." The freedom argument (from those who think differently) does not necessarily work with this, because God's truth is supposed to be above such human concepts as freedom and therefore not at all connected.
Sorry for ranting. I know that all religious conservatives are not the same. They do not think identically; not all evangelical Christians are necessarily fundamentalists; not all religious conservatives seek political power in order to change laws according to their beliefs either. I guess I have problems with Christian conservatives who DO seek political power and DO seek to change laws.
I'm sure such people would argue: "Liberal politicians and other liberal people want to change laws too, they want to keep/introduce liberal regulations that go against our convinctions and therefore restrict our freedom." But there's no similarity, because liberal laws generally speaking allow, not ban. To bring it to a head a little, if the laws allow gay marriage, it does not mean that people are banned from being heterosexual and marrying a person of the other sex.
I have already read your post over at Dan's.
" Fortunately, humans are flexible too, and can accept, celebrate and discuss differing views. Most of us try to live our lives within moral frameworks with which we feel comfortable, and are at least respectful of others' beliefs. I respect yours, and hope mine don't threaten our friendship."
enough said. We all have our own beliefs in life and how we carry out our lives. It does not mean we cannot be friends. It just means we believe in different things. I certainly hope that what I may or may not believe in will not affect my friendships here in my blogworld. I am very respectful. To each his own I say.
With all due respect, one thing I have learned in 20 yrs of being a Hairstylist, is , that , politics, religion and life choices, are things to stay away from. There is few times of agreement on these issues.
good post, for being not such a busy blogger Margie!!
xox
from dan's:
"This certainly has unearthed the lurkers, is probably what you’re thinking Dan, and if you are, you are right. Although I drop in from time to time too, I was led to this particular post by my favorite antipodean. I am not here to pontificate, but you have sure whipped up something that will get folks thinking. My thoughts on this for what it is worth.
Essentially Prop 8 is a definition limiting civil marriage, which is a secular contract, and as such it is not something where a referendum should decide who is entitled to it. Now, under religious laws, the similar contract or religious vow is something else. If people wish to marry in the “eyes of the church”, of course that is their right. For it to be legal within civil law, they must supplement their religious vow with the legal registration, or similarly if someone wants to legalize their civil wedding with the church, the must do it under God.
Religious groups have the right to define conditions for the religious ceremonies and what is legal under their church law; I have no issue with that. However, the matter in California involves a majority vote to influence civil law, and as such the Prop 8 passing is a travesty.
In my opinion, I cannot see how this will be sustained and expect it will be reversed in March when the Supreme Court reviews it. In this country the judiciary is there to prevent majorities from doing exactly what has happened, limiting the rights of minorities, and there is no doubt in my mind that this will be overruled. The folks protesting have a right to expose their opinions on this, and if it helps get the matter to Supreme Court, that is also their right. However, it should not sway the judiciary in determining the legality of this decision under constitutional law.
The discussion on abortion is one I struggle with a lot. It has extremely difficult issues that are not easy to reconcile, and I don’t find it boils down to holding a simple pigeon-holed position. I have no argument against the rights of an individual, and agree that a person should be at liberty to make there own choices. If they desire to die with dignity and endorse a doctor to help them, then I believe it is their right to do so. However, an individual’s choices must be checked when another person, or the rights of another person is involved. And that is where it breaks down for me; I find it very difficult not to give the unborn child those inalienable rights. It is a life and the right to life should be protected. An argument might be that it is not ‘another person’. But however it is syntactically described, it is a human life, already created, already vulnerable. Although my opinion is more similar to that of fundamental Christians than a liberal view, my argument is not bound with religious collateral.
With similar opinion, I find it extremely difficult to condone taking a life through capital punishment, even when I have been forced hypothetically in counter-arguments to imagine horrible situations involving severe harm upon my family; if someone murders or does heinous things to my family, they have done wrong. Killing them for it does not help me.
As I have said, I don’t find these arguments easy. I respect people with faith, and I respect people’s individuality.
I extend to you and your family, and indeed, all the folks here, my sincere wishes for a wonderful and peaceful Thanksgiving.
Be well.
P."
Hey Margie CM!
I just somehow bumped back to your blog while listening to "Wish you were here" by Pink Floyd...and read this post of yours!
Hey! I was trying to read your opening paragraph....I read it three times....but unfortunately I recognise that for me, I am not sure what you really are saying....so sorry, I apologise. I guess it travels into the world that sorta goes like this: the real rule of the internet...."People shold speak, not type, or something is lost in the shuffle"....Quote by non other than...me. Translation: I dunno know if ya love me or hate me.
But it is, actually, unusual these days for you to post a bit more often. I, too, am becoming too busy, and thus...less active my own self.
All that being said...
I am blushing that anyone would ever post a blog about...me.
Margie, I love ya.
Did you get my email response to your post on my own blog? Let me know if you did not. Feel free to post it too, on your own, if you wish.
...Even The Who stuff!
I am amazed that so many folks responded so much to my own blog post. I have been not posting too much lately, on my own blog, due to death in the family, bad health of many others, etc., but...
I never expected so much response. I must thank you, and any others for that. I receive no compensation of any kind for "hits" to my blog, so do not think of that, by the way.
The issues expressed, on my site, as well as yours, are truly heartfelt and so deep. I encourage that line of thinking. We are thinkers, here.
Peace,
--Dan
Margie CM:
I should add, as Anne Marie so importantly mentioned on your blog...
I have had a very personal and very close (living and finacial...my own family) part in making decisions on abortion, as well as other life or death (unplug, not unplug) issues. These issues I state were immediate family, not remote. I also share the same with proposition 8. I am not one of those that is on the sidelines.
I am not immune to the balances sent to us all from the real world. I am so sad that I have actually had to deal up front with these things...it truly has burdened my life immensely. I cannot choose another way, however. I am not living the religious zealot. i am trying so hard to be the best that I understand to be.
Love you all,
--Dan
Of course this is all very interesting, but, have you noticed that when you buy a bag of Tooty Fruities, there's hardly any pink ones in and loads of yellow ones?
It's a bloody disgrace!
Hello Margie, missed ya
xx
LOL Gypsy, I knew we could count on you to put things in their proper perspective...what a gem! You are precious...and what about liquorice allsorts? There are never enough of the brown ones. Have you noticed they put one or two on the edge of the pack so you can see them, then after that....nothing!
Dan's response is as gentle, wise and loving as it is possible for a man to be. He is also a gem.
Wow, thanks all for these deeply thoughtful and reasoned responses - especially you, Gypsy. Not having Tooty Fruities in these parts, however, my personal beef is with the imbalance of green to red jellybeans in your average pack. The green ones tast like washing-up liquid, yet they are criminally plentiful. As you say, a disgrace.
Maria and Paul, you have added a great deal to this discussion, and you both make excellent points (again, I find myself frantically nodding my head off, but hey, a good argument often transcends agreement anyway). Thank you.
Grace, I hear what you say too, and yes, you speak wisely! I have to admit I have never trodden the safe path with conversation though. Without religion, politics and sex, in my book a dinner party's pretty dull (and that's just the entertainment!) No, seriously though, I think what you also say here is true in that it's a measure of maturity, tolerance and respect that we can discus such things from opposing viewpoints and remain friends.
Finally and most importantly though - DAN - how could you think such a thing?! Love you, of course. I have received and rejoiced in your email, and may get around to doing a bit of a cut and paste with it here (but not now because I'm supposed to be cooking dinner oh dear oh dear). I will just say again that you are an absolute gentleman and enormously generous of spirit with it. My point was that people with fundamentally diverse views can often find other points of closeness, and I was pondering the nature of that attraction I suppose. Obviously not very well though, and I'm truly sorry if you misunderstod, even for a minute.
My pathetic brain has only just registered the implications of your own experiences. What a nit I am. All I can offer is my apologies for my insensitivity - I never thought to question the circumstances behind the presence of your beautiful boy - and my heartfelt congratulations to both you and Cruz for being such wonderful, supportive parents and grandparents. Oddly, I was talking to an old friend of mine yesterday, who with his wife has recently put his own plans on hold to support and care for his just 16-year old and her new daughter. Not a circumstance he would have chosen in any sense, but a situation he accepts and will help with for the rest of his life. I have so much admiration for what they are doing as a family, and in awe of the task they have taken on together and without judgement.
Oh, and I don't think of you as a religious zealot, I promise. Love to you and your family always, and all the best wishes in the world for your health and happiness Dan.
Now it is you who brings a tear to my eye, Margie...
This comment has been removed by the author.
And, as a spokesperson for the opposite view - Green is my absolute favourite colour...
The lollypop bucket at our local pizza den comes adorned with yellow - nary a Green one in sight!
An utter disgrace.
Margie, you have also brought me close to tears. I realise that I was somewhat insensitive to Dan's situation too. He has such generosity of spirit...a gentleman to his core.
oh Margie, you only meant the best of course. Just stating how you felt. And Dan aswell. All friends here....no worries..xo
holy wow... I am going to have to come back and re-read this all when I am less exhausted and can absorb it all!
xo
Ah...ha!
It has come to this:
Some here, I see, have squeezyhugs for each other. That is OK. Love works just fine. I too, like those hugs. We need always to remember those else that need 'em too. ..And you folks are those that do.
Peace, really,
--Dan L.
Post a Comment
<< Home