I wish I was there to see this

http://opinionistas.com/2009/05/04/chicks-are-people-too/

I'm sorry, yes, another blog of a blog. But it's good.

I was told the other day - or lectured? Not sure which - of how women can get accepted into the military's brotherhood of infantrymen, when appropriate (but who's keeping track?). The story from my conversational companion revolved around a female medic who became "one of the guys". If she stuck to her womanly roots, I don't know, but to become "one of the guys"? I truly understand what it means to stick to one's job and do what you need to do in the situation without making ludicrous excuses or doing more than one is capable. But to not be accepted in the right light as one's respective person, or to be given a "different label" just to make it easier for people who are less prone to thinking a way of understanding a person's worth? Hm. I do hate screwed semantics.

Book List

Having been wrapped up in full-time studies, I don't seem to feel inclined to read at my leisure good, solid books to curb the intellect's hunger. Now that I have time, I do! It feels liberating- but I feel like some slow butt because I haven't really read much of anything outside textbooks (which are usually disgustingly boring). I now want to collect C.S. Lewis' works. I feel like starting out with The Great Divorce. No, I haven't read it yet. Yes, that sounds sad, hence my feeling like a slow butt.

I miss reading what I want to read for hours on end.

Got a bone to pick with the world. Again...

Today's society discounts several things I hold dear: chastity, humility, selflessness, charity and genuineness- to name a few.

They rarely (or never) mention any of these things as valuable, except for selflessness. Nevertheless, the many do not seem to live it to the fullest- when it comes down to it, it's every man for himself and "hate to be" all those who are just unfortunate. People have such lax views on anything chaste- few people mention it as being a strength of a person. I feel that people think or understand that the innocent heart is only for children. Then pride. Just pride, pride, pride- and it's not always whittled down into a wise sort of dignity that isn't celebrated inwardly. Charity- why is it usually used in reference to the downtrodden and not as in treating any of your neighbours, rich and poor? I feel that people are rarely genuine. You can't seem to trust people to just be Good- you always have to watch you back. What kind of living is this? You can't freely live a good life. It's no wonder that I walk out my door and feel morally fatigued after dealing with lost ideas everywhere I turn. I am just disgusted.

If I didn't value anything in living for a higher good or for the promise of an eternal, true Happiness, then I truly would not want to live at all.

But what am I saying? This is a neverending "problem". Man is the same, age after age. I really wonder what will happen at the "end" of the world. When will such things really end?

My thoughts (or thesis) on that question: perhaps the "end" of the world may be the end of your life. Once you die, you leave this world, you leave the temporal- you are no longer bound by time. Maybe you end up at the "end of the world". It's certainly the end of your "world".

Here I sigh, close my writings and face the world head-on again.

Intelligence is...stupid?

I watched this movie trailer and was left with a thought: if we weren't created by a higher Intelligence and we were just some cosmic accident, then the words we use, the ideas we have, the intelligence we own...at the bare roots of it all, were just accidental? So, we ourselves are not intelligent.

Our nervous system just interacts with our surroundings, and by some chance (if monkeys couldn't type out the Bible or Shakespeare at least somehow type out the definition of rationalization) we come to understand what this is and that is and we put names to things and we make calculations and we invent things and, yes, rationalize about our own existence? It's just by chance that every man of every age asks those same questions about life and stuff, huh?

I, for one, know that as immensely capable as we human beings can be, we are also capable of mistakes. So, logically, we're imperfect. Therefore I have little trust in the idea that we human beings can come about by chance and then say or think something like we're intelligent by our own design. (As a side note, we human beings can be very self-destructive- we figure out ways to kill ourselves yet we strive way too hard to control and maintain our lives...)

So with these thoughts, I think we who believe in God should not be ostracized and immediately labeled as fantastical or illogical (squirm)religious people who can't be open-minded.

I am pro-choice, too.

When inspired, it's best to hear the source of inspiration straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

It hasn't been easy. I don't change opinions willy-nilly, especially if I've held them for a long time and if they're about key issues. But I've been doing a lot of soul-searching lately and feel that the only responsible thing to do is to go public and admit that I'm now pro-choice.

Here is my new thinking:

1. The government shouldn't be able to tell me whether to paint my house yellow or green. It's my house, and the choice should be mine. I'm pro-choice.
2. No one should pressure me to buy a foreign rather than a domestic car--or the other way around. It's no one else's business whether I drive a Toyota or a Chevy. The choice should be mine. I'm pro-choice.
3. On election day, I should be able to vote against any scoundrel I wish. I don't want to be nagged into voting against this guy or that. I can choose my own scoundrels. It's my ballot and my decision. I'm pro-choice.
4. In these E-Letters, I should be able to express any opinion I want. If a reader doesn't like what I say (or doesn't understand irony or parody), tough. It's my E-Letter and my writing. I'm pro-choice.

Precisely because I am so consistently pro-choice when it comes to my own choices, I acknowledge the right of others to make choices of their own.

Just one example:

I think every child should have a choice about whether he will come into this world. If he chooses not to, we should respect that choice. Of course, his choice will have to be manifested in a sufficiently clear way.

When the rest of us make choices--to hire a house painter, to buy a car, even to vote--we sign a contract or somehow make our choices known on paper. The same should apply here, for consistency's sake.

Thus, if an unborn child signs a waiver or agreement or contract (or whatever the document would be) indicating that he doesn't want to come into this world, his choice should be respected. Absent such a signed document, we have to presume that his choice is to come into this world. After all, everyone I know who ended up being born preferred it to the alternative.

Whatever the unborn child decides, we should respect his choice--and we should not allow it to be overruled by someone else's choice. That's my opinion, and that's why I'm pro-choice.

-Karl Keating, Catholic apologist
(From his e-letter on Catholic Answers)

I've always liked that letter. I wonder what pro-abortionists would say to that (quite frankly -and I say this after the trend of responses I've seen and heard countlessly - I wonder if what they might say would somehow not contain "flamatory" remarks or rants about crazy Catholic/Christian/God-believing-zombies-trapped-by-religion...(thinks)nah.)

I too am an advocate for freedom of choice. Who doesn't want to have the freedom to choose their preference? That is why I'm so grateful for being Catholic. There's this teaching in our faith that God gave us free will (oo, so we're not a group of zombies somehow contributing to the psychological phenomenon known as organised religion?!). And then, from the Gospel of Spiderman, we read, my brothers and sisters, "with great power comes great responsibility". Cue screeching record to a halt. Isn't that another way for saying "to whom much is given, much is expected?" Let's just say that all men will agree that there is a God and God gave us free will and God wants only the best for men and that God, not being a creation from men's mind to fill an unnecessary void, truly knows more than men do because of He is Infinite Wisdom, thus knows what is best for men. And let's say that He taught us through various ways of revelation that we have a responsibility for many of the undeserving gifts bestowed upon us creatures capable of stupidity, one of which is called Free Will. So, the question that comes to mind is: what is this responsibility? Do we, as men, make up what will be that responsibility? Hm, well, because we don't entirely know what is best for us, just a limited portion- because we're not beings of infinite wisdom- then God would know what the responsibility is for having Free Will. So, who to trust, God or man? If I've limitedly rationalised that, as much as man is capable, man is limited, and that since I cannot entirely prove that there is no God, I'm going to throw my best chances that there is one and move on with that, put my trust in God and His Truths revealed- yeah, that was pretty much Pascal's Wager, in a sense but not entirely.

And yes, I know I divert.

So, secular vernacular: Freedom of Choice. Catholic/Christian/God-believing zombies (I'm kidding, zombies) vernacular: Free Will.
Free Will = our own choices + responsibility
Freedom of Choice = Free Will
Thus, Freedom of Choice = our own choices + responsibility.

My point: many people living today with under this pro-choice, "freedom of choice" banner seem to shun the "responsibility" factor in the equation. I'm sick of the "freedom of choice" to do whatever the hell I want, even if I don't know that it will harm someone else, ...blahblahblah, excuses, etc. etc. In secular, Catholic-devoid terms, shut the f*** up. But that's just my opinion. :)

It's so weird waking up so early on a Sunday morning. Weird in that wonderful way. Because now I won't nod off during 0800 Mass.