A few things...
My good friend and one of my favorite local illustrators, Jon Stich, has updated his website. Check out some of his new works, like the phenomenal piece he did for another local fave, Diesel, a Bookstore (it's the fourth piece in under "Painting").
-
Good lord, I broke like a sucker and got a frikken MySpace. Still cellphone-less though, by god *shakes fist*
-
Okay, I'm not an atheist, nor a religious person, but this is quite interesting, as are the photopinions included. To wit:
People of "faith" scare the bejeezus out of me. They are liable to do any irrational thing they are told to do. I think it would be extremely refreshing and comforting to have people in charge who do not operate on faith. Atheism is a big plus in my book.
Oh boy. I dislike dualistic "us and them" thinking like this, though I, like most, am guilty of it. But I suppose that's how we define the grey and what is best all-around, and how we come to realizations about complex ideas. Sadly though, many just get on the ride for the black and white bits and get off before the thinking in shades starts. Anyway, I've always felt like rabid atheism has its own set of problems, like not just NOT operating on faith but actively campaigning against it (flipside, same as religious fundamentalism treats atheism), and that has more than a little to do with sensationalism of private religious beliefs by media, and things like this that promote a link between religious beliefs and what a person's character should be.
But yes, I'll admit too, I still take glee when pols who bash gay marriage as detrimental to sanctities or who wear their religions on their sleeves as proof they are "moral" get caught up in sex scandals and the like. All the more reason for politicians to drop the ideas of what's right by your god for what's right by your humanity.
Truly separating church and state may never happen, but maybe we're on our way to realizing someone's adherence to a religion (or not) is a non-issue and that lawmakers should make decisions based on what is best for us as humans -- not what their religion says is best for humans.
That's not atheism, that's good governance. And that is difficult, but that is why not everyone should be a pol.
But that Rudy Rivers should look into running for office:
[a lawmaker] doesn't have to be my clone to do a good job
Amen and hallelujah!
My good friend and one of my favorite local illustrators, Jon Stich, has updated his website. Check out some of his new works, like the phenomenal piece he did for another local fave, Diesel, a Bookstore (it's the fourth piece in under "Painting").
-
Good lord, I broke like a sucker and got a frikken MySpace. Still cellphone-less though, by god *shakes fist*
-
Okay, I'm not an atheist, nor a religious person, but this is quite interesting, as are the photopinions included. To wit:
People of "faith" scare the bejeezus out of me. They are liable to do any irrational thing they are told to do. I think it would be extremely refreshing and comforting to have people in charge who do not operate on faith. Atheism is a big plus in my book.
Oh boy. I dislike dualistic "us and them" thinking like this, though I, like most, am guilty of it. But I suppose that's how we define the grey and what is best all-around, and how we come to realizations about complex ideas. Sadly though, many just get on the ride for the black and white bits and get off before the thinking in shades starts. Anyway, I've always felt like rabid atheism has its own set of problems, like not just NOT operating on faith but actively campaigning against it (flipside, same as religious fundamentalism treats atheism), and that has more than a little to do with sensationalism of private religious beliefs by media, and things like this that promote a link between religious beliefs and what a person's character should be.
But yes, I'll admit too, I still take glee when pols who bash gay marriage as detrimental to sanctities or who wear their religions on their sleeves as proof they are "moral" get caught up in sex scandals and the like. All the more reason for politicians to drop the ideas of what's right by your god for what's right by your humanity.
Truly separating church and state may never happen, but maybe we're on our way to realizing someone's adherence to a religion (or not) is a non-issue and that lawmakers should make decisions based on what is best for us as humans -- not what their religion says is best for humans.
That's not atheism, that's good governance. And that is difficult, but that is why not everyone should be a pol.
But that Rudy Rivers should look into running for office:
[a lawmaker] doesn't have to be my clone to do a good job
Amen and hallelujah!
Labels: art, checking yourself before you wreck yourself, Jon Stich, politics
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home