Irony: Commended Student
I read in the local paper (
Henry Neighbor) that Sheena T. Hilton, daughter of Larry and Catherine Hilton of Stockbridge, GA. was named a commended student in the 2005 National Merit Scholarship Program.
Good for her. It's always wonderful to see individuals succeed, especially despite the poor Georgia school system. I'm glad to see that--what? She was in a private school in Massachussetts?
Sheena T. Hilton is a student of Phillips Academy in Andover, MA. I think this is the first time I have seen anyone mentioned as being a National Merit Scholar (a very prestigious award) and I find it sad that they had to ship their kid over a thousand miles to get this.
Georgia schools suck, public or private. While some are exceptional, they are as rare as an albino squirrel. Georgia schools consistently rank at the bottom of national rankings for every scholastic metric imagineable, including more than a few at #49 and #50.
I am a product of public school and I want to send my children to public school. My daughter, however, was born six weeks too late to be in state sponsored pre-K, so I send her to private school. She will be six weeks too late to enter public kindergarten next year, so I will send her to private school. Having seen the quality of Georgia public schools, I cannot in good conscience send my children into that hole. I will not allow my children to be held back so that we can appease the lower half, and often the lowest quarter, of public education students and their parents. I won't allow the quality of education to be hamstrung by petty squables over carrying cell phones on school property or facial piercings, both of which are cause for suspension in Henry county.
Congratulations to Sheena T. Hilton for her hard work. Shame on Henry county for failing to fulfill its basic task: education.
Bishop says "homosexual acts are intrinsically evil," on par with killing innocents but more important than war.
Well La-Di-Frickin-Da!
The archbishop of St. Louis wrote a
letter explaining the absolutes of morality and how they apply to voting. Here's the Cliff's notes:
It is never permissible to vote for someone who supports any of the following:
- Unrestricted abortion.
- Euthanasia.
- Same-sex marriages.
- Stem-cell research.
- Cloning.
It is permissible to vote for someone who supports any of these:
- War.
- Capital punishment.
- Opposition of "social justice" issues such as poverty, education, law and equality, health care, housing, and/or hunger.
I'll tackle some of the "no way in hell" items first. Abortion, stem-cell research, euthanasia and cloning all fall under the same umbrella of destruction of human life at all stages. Whether one agrees with the position, it is consistent and has significant worth--upon the basis that life begins at fertilization/conception/whatever, the defense of that life is extremely important.
Equating the defense of life with same-sex marriages misses the mark. The opposition to same-sex marriages appears to be based on the idea that "homosexual acts are intrinsically evil" and could never be excused. I think that presumption is a hard one to make when the archbishop states that war and capital punishment have legitimate purposes; there are so many actions of such a greater danger to life, liberty and harmony than who one chooses to have sexual relations with that placing this at the top of the list is absurd.
What does one do when faced with a choice of only two candidates one supports same-sex marriage and the other supports euthanasia? The archbishop allows for no dissent--one cannot vote for a candidate who supports any of those issues, leaving the voter without any option.
Now when one tackles the "approved" list, one sees that the archbishop does not view war or capital punishment as "intrinsically evil". He states, "neither practice includes the direct intention of killing innocent human beings. In some circumstances, self-defense and defense of the nation are not only rights, but responsibilities." Here he changes the subject--capital punishment and war have little, if anything, to do with defense.
Capital punishment is the execution of someone who has been captured; it is not necessary for defense as that individual is already imprisoned and society protected. It is also heavily debated how often "innocent" people are killed: there are numerous cases where states have executed individuals who were later exonerated, and many more where states refuse to allow testing of evidence or hearings to allow for the exoneration of execution victims. Furthermore, it is difficult to reconcile Catholic theology with any person being "innocent", as everyone has sinned in some form or fashion. So if no one is innocent, then convicted murderers are just as guilty as any sinner and no more deserving of execution.
War is not an action of self-defense. If you choose to go to war, then you have a choice and it was not necessary. War is a pre-meditated action. Innocents die in war, often in far greater numbers than military; innocents are often targetted, directly and as "collateral damage". War suffers from the same horrors the archbishop rallies against--the murder of "innocents".
To suggest that it is acceptable to execute a helpless prisoner or promote war which slaughters non-combatants...but any support of homosexual unions is condemned...the archbishop has lost his sense of priorities.
I should have kept flipping channels.
I fucking hate "Christian" television. Liars and hypocrites.
So I was flipping stations last night, before the final
Presidential debate of the season, and I stop on one of the "Christian" stations. Not sure why, but something he said caught my attention. It had the feel of a
60 Minutes news show, but it was obviously light on facts and overflowing with blatant hypocrisy.
The "anchor" was lamenting the "
secular humanism" in U.S. culture. He stated that religion had been expelled from public schools; lie number one. To support this, he stated how evolutionary theory was taught in science class while the equally (or moreso) valid creationism was not; lie two. Further, kids were prohibited from praying in schools; lie three.
Religion is in public schools because religion is everywhere, even if it is not overt. However, religious beliefs are not taught in public school except from an objective analytical perspective with regard to science, history or any other school subject.
Faith is not a school subject. But to say that religion has been banned from public schools is such an overt lie that it begs the question:
What fucktards actually believed this guy?
Evolution is a scientific
theory supported by significant evidence; creationism is a religious belief supported by very little evidence. A scientific theory is not fact, but it is based upon such strong evidence that it is accepted as the best current explanation. That it is not complete is not a fault of the theory; that's why it's a theory. To compare a scientific theory to a religious belief is like comparing apples to squirrels--they're so far apart they're not even in the same kingdom. Though this is a
common error, that does not make it less egregious.
Prayer is not prohibited in public school; it never was and it never will be, because such runs completely contrary to the
First Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution. But because individual students, or even groups of students, are free to pray as they wish, that does not make it permissible for a representative of the school, such as a teacher, coach or administrator, to lead students in prayer as part of their role as a representative of the school, e.g. a teacher asking children to pray during class or a coach asking students to pray before a game. The students are not prohibited from praying, the school is prohibited from any form of coercion to that end. To portray this as prohibition of prayer in school implies that prayer can only exist when led by an authority figure, that individual children cannot pray on their own. This is hypocrisy when one considers these same people claim children have such an ability to
decline group prayer when led by an authority figure.
My four year old child should not be forced into a situation to stay silent while her class says "one nation under God"; my child is not in school to make a point, she is there to learn. One cannot expect a child to buck the crowd; one cannot expect a child who is told to obey the teacher at every instance to then disobey the teacher when that authority figure tells them to recite "under God", or to pray, or that creationism--a belief based completely upon some almighty being--is on the same scientific basis on evolution...
I hate people like this. I believe in God, I believe God created me and this world and I pray with my daughter every night. But I will teach my daughter about religion; I want her school to stay as far away from it as possible. They should focus on facts--there's plenty of those for them to cover.
