.JPG)
Back to my blog(s)
My last posting to this blog, Jim's Soapbox, was November 17. It's been too long. My last posting to my other blog, Agnostic And Loving It, was more than two months ago. I think I was just feeling blogged out, tired of the effort, the rewrites the almost-but-not-quite-finished essays.
Recently, though, I've had a breakthrough -- an insight -- that I hope lessens the possibility of getting "blogged out" in the future. From now on, when I write in my blog, I will try to think of myself as "writing for me" and not "writing for you" as I had been doing. Isn't that what a blog (short for weblog) is anyway. Doesn't the name connote diary more than essay? It's like . . . now I can relax! The pressure is off! I'll just write what I want to write and try to not to "work too hard" at it, not be too perfectionist. No more starting a posting in my word processor, then getting bogged down (blogged down?) in detail and rewrites, and never posting it. What a waste of time, and very frustrating!
Why do I have two blogs?
I have an answer, but I'm not comfortable giving it. I'm not even sure it makes sense. I can also imagine you thinking, "Give me break, Fleming, do you really need two blogs? Are you trying to prove something?"
Hmmm, maybe I am . . . although that's not the reason. One of my blogs, Agnostic and Loving It, speaks out passionately strongly against religion (no particular religion, all religion!). And since faith-based religion exerts such a powerful influence on society today, it seemed at the time to be a big enough subject, and distinct enough, to merit it's own blog.
Second, there are members of my extended family I don't want to offend, as I'm afraid the irreverent tone of Agnostic and Loving It might. Strong as my anti-religion feelings are, I recognize that some good people have equally strong passions in favor of their religious beliefs, and I don't consider it my place to try to shake those beliefs. Those were my reasons then. Now I'm not sure they make sense.
"Dammit," I want to say, "Faith-based religion is more interwoven into politics (especially now) and education (e.g., intelligent design) than it has been in generations. Many people, including me, see this as dangerous trend, not a healthy one. I think more of us need to speak out. Certainly our politicians and media do not.
A politician today must profess a belief in a monotheistic God, and some identifiable religion, to have a chance of being elected. A candidate who professed to be agnostic or athiest could not be elected in the U.S. today.
And I've never heard a television journalist, pundit or personality question whether a particular religious belief is true or not. To their credit, they are beginning to air some controversial documentaries questioning the historical truth of religious beliefs (and that's good). But no one ever questions the underlying veracity of religious doctrine.
They like to say that the "terrorists" have "hijacked one of the world's great religions," but they'll never suggest that, Maybe it's ALL balderdash, every last bit of it. That would be "intolerant", we tell ourselves. It's okay in our culture to question a person's belief about absolutely any subject imaginable -- except religion. Not only that, we are taught to have the highest respect for the religious "beliefs" of others, no matter how outlandish. Asking tough questions (like, Where's the evidence?) is not allowed.
If a TV personality ever started asking the tough questions, he or she would probably lose their job (if not their audience and career). I guess the media is afraid to offend the imbecilic and ignorant 54% of American adults who believe "humans were made by God in their present form less than 10,000 years ago."
I use the word "imbecilic" tongue-in-cheek because, let's face it, not all "people of faith" are stupid. That's what confuses me! How can they believe this stuff? I heard a preacher on the radio today talking in all seriousness about what God said to Moses, as if it was historical fact. To believe that the "eternal truth" of our massive Universe was written down by a semitic tribe 2500 years ago is beyond absurd. Yet, it's believed by millions without question!
I don't know if I'll continue to have two blogs, or whether I should just have one. (I lean toward having "only one"). For now, though, I'm adding this posting to both my blogs.
Recently, though, I've had a breakthrough -- an insight -- that I hope lessens the possibility of getting "blogged out" in the future. From now on, when I write in my blog, I will try to think of myself as "writing for me" and not "writing for you" as I had been doing. Isn't that what a blog (short for weblog) is anyway. Doesn't the name connote diary more than essay? It's like . . . now I can relax! The pressure is off! I'll just write what I want to write and try to not to "work too hard" at it, not be too perfectionist. No more starting a posting in my word processor, then getting bogged down (blogged down?) in detail and rewrites, and never posting it. What a waste of time, and very frustrating!
Why do I have two blogs?
I have an answer, but I'm not comfortable giving it. I'm not even sure it makes sense. I can also imagine you thinking, "Give me break, Fleming, do you really need two blogs? Are you trying to prove something?"
Hmmm, maybe I am . . . although that's not the reason. One of my blogs, Agnostic and Loving It, speaks out passionately strongly against religion (no particular religion, all religion!). And since faith-based religion exerts such a powerful influence on society today, it seemed at the time to be a big enough subject, and distinct enough, to merit it's own blog.
Second, there are members of my extended family I don't want to offend, as I'm afraid the irreverent tone of Agnostic and Loving It might. Strong as my anti-religion feelings are, I recognize that some good people have equally strong passions in favor of their religious beliefs, and I don't consider it my place to try to shake those beliefs. Those were my reasons then. Now I'm not sure they make sense.
"Dammit," I want to say, "Faith-based religion is more interwoven into politics (especially now) and education (e.g., intelligent design) than it has been in generations. Many people, including me, see this as dangerous trend, not a healthy one. I think more of us need to speak out. Certainly our politicians and media do not.
A politician today must profess a belief in a monotheistic God, and some identifiable religion, to have a chance of being elected. A candidate who professed to be agnostic or athiest could not be elected in the U.S. today.
And I've never heard a television journalist, pundit or personality question whether a particular religious belief is true or not. To their credit, they are beginning to air some controversial documentaries questioning the historical truth of religious beliefs (and that's good). But no one ever questions the underlying veracity of religious doctrine.
They like to say that the "terrorists" have "hijacked one of the world's great religions," but they'll never suggest that, Maybe it's ALL balderdash, every last bit of it. That would be "intolerant", we tell ourselves. It's okay in our culture to question a person's belief about absolutely any subject imaginable -- except religion. Not only that, we are taught to have the highest respect for the religious "beliefs" of others, no matter how outlandish. Asking tough questions (like, Where's the evidence?) is not allowed.
If a TV personality ever started asking the tough questions, he or she would probably lose their job (if not their audience and career). I guess the media is afraid to offend the imbecilic and ignorant 54% of American adults who believe "humans were made by God in their present form less than 10,000 years ago."
I use the word "imbecilic" tongue-in-cheek because, let's face it, not all "people of faith" are stupid. That's what confuses me! How can they believe this stuff? I heard a preacher on the radio today talking in all seriousness about what God said to Moses, as if it was historical fact. To believe that the "eternal truth" of our massive Universe was written down by a semitic tribe 2500 years ago is beyond absurd. Yet, it's believed by millions without question!
I don't know if I'll continue to have two blogs, or whether I should just have one. (I lean toward having "only one"). For now, though, I'm adding this posting to both my blogs.
posted by Jim Fleming | 5:07 PM
|
0 comments
