Pro-life vid of the day: Drew Barrymore cherishes daughter Olive
by LauraLoo
As reported by US Magazine, new mother Drew Barrymore discusses how her daughter Olive has changed her life – as well as stating that “mothers cannot have it all… certain things have to fall off of the table.”
Drew also visited The View and Oprah to share more about Olive and the family that she cherishes.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLzEZMjlCCQ[/youtube]
Apr.08, 2013 12:00 pm |
Video of the day |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I learned this lesson too late – but it is a lesson I want to share with women (and other soon to be Dads) - fathers can’t have it all either.
Also, why do so many from my generation and younger generations (and I include myself in this) feel our parents and grandparents were idiots when they told us that being a parent will change your life! So sad she is finding out now about the joy of parenthood.
I must have been totally (there is a word from the eighties) brain washed.
No offense intended to Drew, but shouldn’t she be a grandma by now, a good looking grandma, but a grandma nonetheless?
Drew is 38 I believe, Tyler. Why in the world should she be a grandma?
That is close to grandma age. I know a few women in their forties who are grandmas? (I mean no disrespect to Drew…I got a late start as well…just an obersvation.) Jack, the way you are going, you could be a grandpa by the time you are in your 40’s.
Gawd I don’t want to be a grandfather in my forties. Actually, if my son has children at 18 or 19 I will be in my late thirties. :/ I hope that doesn’t happen.
You’ll probably change your tune. Just think you won’t have to change the diapers!!
No. I don’t think I will. I didn’t get any type of education. Not even a high school education. It makes me stupid compared to people in my age group and it severely limits my economic prospects. I really, really want my kids to get married a bit later and make it through college before they have children of their own. I do NOT want my kids to be like me.
Jack, an education doesn’t make you a better or more moral person, only more educated. As A7X recently demonstrated university and college can get a person to study some fairly stupid things.
I don’t know if Drew ever had an abortion in her more wild days, but she definitely seems to have a good head on her shoulders now. It is too bad she had a tough life and crummy parents.
Jack, I think you will raise your kids well. You’re not stupid (I am sure others will corroborate), you just don’t have papers is all. College is not everything it is said to be. I want my son to get married when he is ready, I hope I can help prepare him to be ready sooner rather than later. For me, part of being ready doesn’t mean having a degree though – preparing my son means ensuring he has the moral character to defend and help his future wife get to Heaven. (Obviously, getting to Heaven involves a few more details then I can list in this comment box but I you get the gist of what I mean.)
They will learn morality from me, not from school. That’s not my concern. You can be a great person and be uneducated. I’m not concerned about what type of people they will be, they are awesome and they will be decent people. My concern is their job prospects and economic prosperity. I want them to have options. If they choose a non-school type of career, that’s fine with me, but I want to impress on them the importance of education. It’s something I never got the option of having and I would like them to have it.
It doesn’t matter if I’m “smart” or not, I cannot do much of anything without a degree. I missed out on learning critical thinking skills, writing skills, and a ton of other stuff that if you don’t learn young you never learn sufficiently. I forever will have low-paying labor jobs. Which is okay, it’s better than being a drug dealer or thief, or dead, which was where I was heading before I got my head on straight, but it’s not a life I want for my kids unless they choose it freely, not get forced into it by a crappy childhood and lack of funds. Luckily they have well-off grandparents that will help them afford their education, because their father is a screw up and their mom doesn’t really have any ambition.
As a side note, I really don’t have an issue with my children choosing to never have biological kids (it would be cool if they adopted if that’s what they want). There’s a ton of mental illness in my family, and while some of it’s probably due to abuse and deprivation I am pretty sure some of it’s genetic. I’m not concerned with them passing on their genes, though they can do so if they wish.
Not everyone is suited for an education. Many universities don’t just teach stupid stuff, they also fail to teach certain skills essential for success in academic life.
I think your attitude to whether your children have kids or not is healthy. I have no objections to it (as if my objections mattered anyway).
As you know economic prosperity doesn’t equate to happiness. Be careful for what you wish for. As for critical thinking skills and writing skills I believe you either have them or you don’t. Universities don’t help with critical thinking skills. In my opinion, that is myth, and a false sales pitch. Proficiency, which is what employers are looking for, at a skill is innate - proficiency is not learned. A skill is just something that you have practiced.
Jack what would you study if you went to school?
Most employers at decent-paying jobs look for a degree before they even worry about proficiency nowadays, Tyler. You can’t even get a foot in the door in many jobs (even ones that you might be fantastic at) without a degree. Shoot, you can’t even move up into management at Wal-Mart without a degree half the time. At least it’s like that in the US, I don’t know about Canada.
Economic prosperity isn’t everything, but it’s nice. It’s nice not to worry about what you’re going to eat at the end of the month or whether or not you can afford to replace your shoes when they are falling off your feet. It’s nice to know you can give your kids an education and pay your medical bills if you have an emergency. Money isn’t everything but it’s a handy thing to have in this world.
If I could get a degree in anything it would be in physics or mathematics. It’s a fool’s dream.
What do you want to with a physics or mathematics degree?
Can’t you get a student loan? I think some schools in the states have financial aid for young single parents.
I would teach. I always wanted to teach.
Be a janitor at a prestigious university – start doing math formulas on the wall and the chalk board when the classes are empty, dress up like Matt Damon, and perhaps an astute math professor will take you under his wing. (Be forewarned – you may have to attend some pyschological counselling with a hyperactive college shrink in order to continue learning under the math professor.)
Jack is absolutely right about math or physics degree. What places in general tend to be looking for is not having the exact skill needed for the job learned in college, but proof that you have the ABILITY to be taught, and that you can problem solve. Having a math or physics degree shows that you know just that- how to problem solve, and that you are able to learn technical and complicated things.
Personally, though, I’d go with math because…um, I went with math…
I could get a loan probably, I would need a GED first though. But honestly it’s much less selfish of me to spend my time working and trying to give my kids the opportunities that were stolen from me and that I screwed up, so I’m gonna do that. I doubt I would be good at school anyway. I have never been in a school setting.
Yes, Bobby is correct – college is about jumping through hoops for the most part.
I hate to use the cliché but you won’t know if you’re good at school unless you try.
Speaking of Good Will Hunting, this is fun to note:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/03/13/good_will_hunting_math_problem_is_easy_watch_video.html
“college is about jumping through hoops for the most part. ”
Yup. And making sure your Christian faith is destroyed.
Sorry, that’s my cynical side showing again :)
Lol Bobby, I remember it’s you and Paladin and I think Kate on this blog who are the math geniuses. I like math but I’ve always had a thing for physics too.
Actually I think I would be good at the work, I have never had a problem picking up math and science. My dad actually had like 3/4s of a double chemistry and math degree done before he dropped out to get married and join a cult, he taught me a lot of math and science. I don’t think I would be good in a school setting though, I have way too much trouble concentrating.
Not a math genius- just enjoy math.
Most employers at decent-paying jobs look for a degree before they even worry about proficiency nowadays, Tyler. You can’t even get a foot in the door in many jobs (even ones that you might be fantastic at) without a degree. Shoot, you can’t even move up into management at Wal-Mart without a degree half the time.
This is really very true – I say it as another person without a degree. I am severely, severely limited in my job prospects and that is really frustrating. I’m not working in an industry that plays to…well, any of my strengths except my ability to work hard, which is always a bonus and which I am fortunate enough to have. I do well, but it’s harder for me to do well in these kinds of thinking than it is for most of the people I work with, and that’s tricky. And it is a hard industry – almost all freelance, constantly hustling for the next job, etc. It’s a stressful way to live and it’s a drag to know that I can’t realistically switch jobs at any point in time.
Years ago, I worked for a corporate investment firm, one of the big ones. I thought that I would do it old-school – get a below-entry-level job and prove myself, work my way up on merit, etc. I had no degree so I was unqualified to even interview for administrative assistant positions, but I was sure that if I went in at whatever level would accept me, I could prove myself. I worked in what they called conference booking, which meant I managed the meetings, interviews, and tech requirements for the thousands of people in the NYC and NJ offices. It also meant knowing a fair bit about the London office, since if there was videoconferencing involved I would need to book all the specifications for two rooms, one on each side of the ocean, with adequate technical support, seating, and even catering (they could request different “levels” of formality for the catering); lots of mornings I would get to the office at 4am just to make sure a key meeting teleconferenced smoothly, taking into account the time difference. Because I really wanted to stand out and make a good impression, I memorized the floorplans of all these office buildings, all the floors – it was easy enough for the NYC office since I could physically go walk around all of our floors on my lunch breaks, but I had never been to the NJ office or the overseas ones. I would study the floorplans and quiz myself on them, so that I could be as personal as possible and always book people in meeting rooms that were near their offices, without even needing to ask which room they’d prefer. People grew to know my voice and my name and to appreciate what I did for them. For most hours of the day, all six of my phone lines were lit up, and I would watch e-mails pour in as I booked meetings over the phone. It was stressful and pretty miserable. It paid $500/week. Before taxes.
But you know what – I said “below entry level” for a reason. Those jobs aren’t even the same COMPANY anymore; it’s not like back in the “I started in the mailroom” days. I was literally paid by a different company than the “real” employees of the corporate investment firm. Me, the receptionists, the janitors, the IT department, and other “support staff” were employees of a different company, a company with no actual office that I was ever aware of, just a name that meant that we, unlike the “real” employees, had a terrible benefits package and absolutely no possibility for advancement. There was no working your way up in that company; those jobs ended where they began.
After some time at the firm, once I had developed some really strong professional relationships, I asked some of the mid-level (ie not low but not stratospheric) investment firm employees about opportunities to interview for administrative assistant or other “in-firm” positions. I wanted health insurance; I wanted opportunities for advancement. I got reprimanded by HR for using my access to company resources (names, e-mails, etc) for my “personal benefit.” Because I did not “work for” the investment firm; I just “had access to” their employees. Any attempt to cross over was seen as inappropriate and – dare I say – uppity.
If I could go to school I would study library science. It’s been my dream since I was young. I think of the freedom I would have with that – my current industry (live theater) pretty much only exists in year-round-career form in NYC, so I can basically never move away. But there are libraries everywhere. I could work in high-intensity libraries in big cities or prestigious universities; or get a nice little job at a small elementary school somewhere, and settle down. The freedom, the flexibility, the chance to really do something I love and make use of my strengths – it would be awesome.
I have been very fortunate. I have done well for myself in a very competitive industry, kind of by accident. I recently took a highly competitive professional apprenticeship exam that only comes around every few years, with a strong focus on shop arithmetic and spacial reasoning (ie carpentry skills, basically), and scored tenth out of hundreds of applicants. That apprenticeship, when my slot opens up, will be two years of solid employment before I need to hit the pavement and scrounge up work for myself again. It will come with good benefits and great networking opportunities, so that when I eventually need to freelance again, I am in a better position. I am very lucky.
But sometimes I do feel trapped. Because the reality is, I cannot just say, “I’m done with this, with the hard physical labor and the crazy working hours and the weeks of being overworked followed by weeks of anxious lack of work; I’m going to start something new.” I can’t even get a job as a receptionist, even though two years ago I was part of a five-person management team for a show that cost $80 million to produce and that is still running smoothly, and six months ago I managed the build on the new set for a popular TV show, etc etc etc. It is frustrating and demoralizing.
Jack, please don’t sell yourself short. It’s definitely not too late to get your GED. My mom got her GED when she was in her 50’s. You have a long life and a lot of working years ahead of you. You are not taking away from your children’s future by pursuing your own education! Bettering your prospects will better theirs as well. You may think you missed out on learning critical thinking skills and writing skills, but I can tell just by your comments on this blog that you’re way ahead of many people in those areas.
I feel you Alexandra. It’s extremely frustrating, to know that you have the skills and drive to make something out of yourself but you can’t do the “old school” prove yourself method anymore. The job market is just saturated with people who had the money and ability to get a degree, and those people will always have the chance to get in ahead of you. Especially when you have years of experience and knowledge to prove that you have what it takes, but no, they would rather give jobs to kids fresh out of college who coasted on dad’s money half the time. :/
And thanks Lrning, I just worry about being in mountains of debt, especially with the way that the federal government is going right now, and plus I don’t think even with loans I could afford to work only part-time. And I don’t think I could handle school, raising my kids full time with basically no help, and work. Maybe when they are in high school I’ll have a chance for something scholastic. But I would be pretty old to be starting a career, I don’t know if I would even have any job prospects at that point. Plus I have a criminal record, totally my fault, that would cause some problems with funding for school and such. I actually am not sure if I qualify for federal assistance because of it. And then there’s the issue that I’ve never been in any type of formal school setting before and I don’t know if I could handle the work load.
I thought that the owners of this blog said they would block comments that are inappropriate.
I don’t see how Jack and Tyler’s comments have any place here.
Since my comment has nothing to do Drew’s story, you may delete it, but please delete Jack and Tyler’s comments as they fall under “useless”.
Lol you must be new.
Confusing. Two different babies named Olive on the same day.
“Confusing. A story about a baby almost named Olive, and a story about a baby actually named Olive, on the same day.”
Wow. The part the surprises me is that I didn’t notice until you pointed it out.
Lol you must be new.
Agreed, and I learned this fact a little late too. But I am okay if they get deleted. Although, they strayed off topic (just a little!) they were dealing with Drew’s alarming old age at becoming a first time Mom (waiting for the heat for this comment.)
Hi mamamia.
When we talk about “inappropriate” comments, usually we have in mind rude, obnoxious, blasphemous, offensive, etc. It usually is the case that going off-topic is okay, though the final decisions are always up to the discretion of Jill.
Alexandra and Jack – I think the corporate world’s requirement to have a degree for many of its position is down right unfair due to the very high cost of education in the US. Sure, their actions can justified by arguing that hiring a person with a degree provides them with more certainity of the person’s ability and “qualifications” but at more honest level, it just a transfer of cost from the employer (who would have had to train in the past) onto the employee. This on-the-job training is just another one of the many benefits employers have slipped out of providing.
The business landscape has changed so drastically over the last 50 years it is hard for individuals (workers) and families to keep up. It has taken the American dream away from many people.
I am not pro-regulations because I know regulations kill business and simply transfer money to accountants and lawyers. However, a society of business owners who don’t have a moral compass from their religion that tells them this is unfair needs to be regulated like the bunch of avaricious children they are. American greed and regulation cycle is spinning out of control just as it is in so many highly developed countries with mixed economies.
Tyler, you realize that business owners have about the same religious percentages as the general population, right? about 75% Christian, 16% non-religious, and 9% other religions?
Jack, do their business principles come first or their religious principles? The question that matters is which principles are applied, or how they practice their religious values. When the rubber hits the road – do they subscribe to a “me first/dog eat dog” attitude or a Christian attitude.
There are many good Christian business owners but the pressure on them to make a buck is becoming stronger and more difficult to deal with. The regulation business is going nuts and creating more “me first/dog eat dog” business owners. Read any Ayn Rand book and you’ll see this idea of American business owner fighting the regulators on display except Rand is completing promoting greed!
You can be a generous, giving person and be a Christian or non-Christian.
You can be an avaricious, uncharitable person and be a Christian or non-Christian.
That’s really all the opinion I have on the topic that won’t be offensive to most of the commenters. :/ Though I do agree if Christian business owners applied Christian ethics to their business practices they would be significantly more charitable and run things differently.
Rand’s philosophy is so anti-American it is even funny. I think Christopher Hitchens comment about her philosophy was the best. To parapharase: “Some things, like being selfish, don’t need to be championed.”
Tyler, you realize that business owners have about the same religious percentages as the general population, right? about 75% Christian, 16% non-religious, and 9% other religions?
I forgot to mention the loudest voices are the secularists (who are anti-Christian) who demand workplaces be free of Christian prayer and symbols. These anti-Christian voices also sue employers for exercising their Christian values (not all of their Christian values but some of them) thereby making many Christians feel that the rest of their Christian values are allowed in the business world as well. The anti-Christian crowd has been too loud and have sought for too long to marginalize Christian virtues. Christian virtues have been mocked and satirized for decades by the MSM.
Here’s a more current photo of Drew with baby Olive. LL :D
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-moms/news/drew-barrymore-totes-adorable-baby-olive-around-los-angeles-picture-201394
Tyler. There are so, so many more of you than there are of the non-religious. Seriously man. I’m not gonna buy this persecution complex stuff, sorry. I don’t know of a single case of a “secularist” insisting that all workplaces be clear of religious symbols, though I do know of a few lawsuits to keep religious symbols out of public places and such.
Considering how much the religious say that they should be allowed to talk about their morals that are offensive to others (which they are allowed to and always should be, don’t mistake me), then you can’t complain about people who don’t like your morals and say so. They have the same right to not like them and say so that you do to say it. You can, however, fight unfair legislation like the HHS mandate, that’s an infringement on business owner’s rights, I agree.
Jack, not in Hollywood or in the MSM or in colleges or in the courts.
This is not a persecution complex. This is a fact. There is no argument here, and your wilful blindness on this subject is annoying and is almost reaching the height of being dishonest.
Prayer in public schools – gone. Movement to remove “In God We Trust” – going strong. Natural law theory not recognized by the courts – affirmative.
http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/10/22/british-airways-employee-fired-for-wearing-cross-necklace.htm
The recent labelling of Christians and Catholics as Religious Extremists alongside terrorist groups like Hamas.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/look-out-its-a-religious-extremist-93598/
Finally, I can complain about people who don’t like Christian morals when they don’t offer any sets of morals for me to critique. To simply complain about someone else’s morals without having a set of morals oneself is highly immature. If I use your argument I should say to you: “I can say I don’t like your lack of morals and you better not complain when I do.” Do you now see how immature your comment is? You are prepared to fight for a lack of morals and reduce morality into a battle of might is right….is there anything more absurd? If you have a set of morals, you need to share them so they can be discussed….but then they will only be Jack’s morals, and every other non-Christian will have their own set of morals…and what ends up happening is moral anarchy because no one can agree on a set of moral standards…a society with no morals. It is my opinion that Christian, specifically Catholic morality, that is the morality that each society should embrace. People who only critique the morals of other people ought to have the courage to try to defend their own moral view, and if they don’t have any they should at least be honest enough to say so.
Also, (civil) liberty is only a starting point, a foundation; while true liberty is the end goal for morality.
With civil liberty one must ask: liberty for what purpose?
Jack, the anti-Christian, leftist individuals have been very strategic in their attack on Christian values: they attacked the education system, the media, and the legal system. They used their smaller numbers very effectively.
Considering how much the religious say that they should be allowed to talk about their morals that are offensive to others (which they are allowed to and always should be, don’t mistake me), then you can’t complain about people who don’t like your morals and say so. They have the same right to not like them and say so that you do to say it.
They have a right to say they disagree no doubt. But to establish a society based on no restrictions to personal liberty should be called what it is - anarchy.
“Jack, not in Hollywood or in the MSM or in colleges or in the courts.
This is not a persecution complex. This is a fact. There is no argument here, and your wilful blindness on this subject is annoying and is almost reaching the height of being dishonest. ”
Hollywood having a lack of Christians or “Christian values” isn’t “persecution”. I have no idea how in the world that would be. The MSM sometimes has a secular bent (MSNBC in particular) but sometimes has a heavily pro-religious bent (FOX). Colleges do tend to be ideological, and bent toward secularism, but there are many religious colleges. There are a few unfair court cases (really, linking me some UK case doesn’t help your case so much, and that story isn’t quite what you are making it out to be), but there are unfair court cases towards other groups to. Some states bar atheists from holding office (not that an atheist can hold office in most areas of the States anyway, apparently some studies show we’re generally trusted less than rapists, and they would rather elect Muslims), and “welfare of the child” is a valid defense for losing custody of your kid if the judge decides that your atheistic views are damaging (has happened, and perfectly legal). Atheists are excluded from entire groups like the Boy Scouts (which is their right, but I still think it’s rude of them), and face a lot of public censure in many areas. Atheists are actually “persecuted” though, and neither are Christians in the US. You mock the meaning of the term when you try to claim Christian persecution in the US.
” Prayer in public schools – gone. Movement to remove “In God We Trust” – going strong. Natural law theory not recognized by the courts – affirmative.”
You never had the constitutional right to make other people pray your prayers in the first place, in regards to school prayer. And it’s not illegal, at all, to pray in public schools as long as it’s not obligatory and teacher led. “In God We Trust” and the “Under God” in the Pledge was added in the 50s, it wasn’t even on our original money nor in our original pledge. I think the movement to remove it is silly, but to claim that as “persecution” has got to be one the most whiny things I have seen you say. I have no idea what you are going on about “natural law theory not recognized by the courts”, but if you are talking about evolution vs creationism, evolution has mountains of evidence, and young earth creationists not liking it doesn’t change that. We’re not removing valid theories because someone doesn’t like it.
” If you have a set of morals, you need to share them so they can be discussed….but then they will only be Jack’s morals, and every other non-Christian will have their own set of morals…and what ends up happening is moral anarchy because no one can agree on a set of moral standards…a society with no morals. It is my opinion that Christian, specifically Catholic morality, that is the morality that each society should embrace. People who only critique the morals of other people ought to have the courage to try to defend their own moral view, and if they don’t have any they should at least be honest enough to say so. ”
Lulz you realize that non-Christians are pretty much exactly like Christians in that we pick the morals that suit us for whatever reason. Christians do it to, I think it’s funny when you try to deny it. You and whatever random Christian off the street are going to have disputes about what morals are right and fair. Heck, even another Catholic and you aren’t going to agree on everything (though I do notice Catholics tend to be slightly more consistent as a group). I have seen a gazillion doctrinal disputes just on this site, and even more in real life. You can’t convince me you guys are much more cohesive morally than non-Christians.
I don’t have much use for some Catholic morality, I like other parts of Catholic morality. I’m sorry Tyler, you live in a multicultural and multireligious society. I know it pains you that other people don’t live like Catholics, but honestly, you’re going to have to get over that.
atheists *aren’t* actually persecuted in the US, I meant to say. Some social discrimination and some unfair laws, that’s about it. Same thing with Christians in some areas.
Jack, you are the person who used the word “persecution.” In any event, it is not been so much of Christians as it has been the expunging of Christian values. (I used the word marginalize, thank-you very much and I talked about Christian virtues being marginalized – not individuals!)
You’re moderating all of your views with words such as “tends” and “kind of” – what are you trying to say Jack?
There are many cases in the US – I am not going spend all doing looking them up when you very well know what I am talking about. You feigning ignorance on this subject is unbelievable.
FOX is not religious – it is conservative perhaps but religious. Simply because it employs religious people doesn’t make it religious. I find that comment very insulting on behalf FOX. Furthermore, one station among the many others seems rather unfair given that the more majority of the population of the US is Christian as you indicated. Obviously there are some unfair hiring practices going on at the non-FOX media. They don’t respect religious views.
I am not talking about evolution vs. creationism. I am talking about Natural Moral Law and Natural Law theory – look it up. Jack, you have a bad tendency of shoving words and pov’s into other people’s mouth. It makes it hard to discuss things when you don’t stay on topic – please stay focused.
You never had the constitutional right to make other people pray your prayers in the first place, in regards to school prayer.
But people always had a right to pray their prayers in school! We can allow prayers and people not to pray simultaneously.
You realize that non-Christians are pretty much exactly like Christians in that we pick the morals that suit us for whatever reason.
Not you are not…Christians and Catholics have their morals published and documented (it is called the Bible) and those morals do not change from one generation to the next. Atheists, as far as I know, do have a set form of beliefs.
Most importantly, you have once again side-stepped trying to articulate your own moral values. We still don’t know what they are. This is a serious question. What are morals? I am not accusing of having no morals, I really don’t know what you morals are. And since I don’t know them I can only infer that they are a “lack” of my morals.
The relative cohesion of Catholic views on morality as compared to society in general is a secondary point and does not alleviate you from ennuciating your moral views.
Jack please tell me what you like about Catholic morality?
I could make more corrections but…
Atheists, as far as I know, do not have a set form of beliefs that is published or subscribed to by vast number of atheists.
Jack, I am not going to continue this back and forth unless you try to at least articulate your morality and/or your philosophy or supporting reasons for your morality.
Because we’ve never told you before. Nope. You’ve never heard any reasoning from any atheist or agnostic here about their morality. NEVER, EVAR.
Give me a break.
Tyler : Atheists & Morality
Denise : Non-procreative sex/Homicidal Adoptees.
And it gets old.
“Tyler : Atheists & Morality
Denise : Non-procreative sex/Homicidal Adoptees.
And it gets old.”
I’m going to create an awesome drinking game based oon the comments on this blog. By awesome, I mean that everyone who plays it will die of alcohol poisoning.
Come to think of it, I think I stole the drinking game idea from ninek. Well, this will count as me giving credit to her for it.
“FOX is not religious – it is conservative perhaps but religious. Simply because it employs religious people doesn’t make it religious. I find that comment very insulting on behalf FOX. Furthermore, one station among the many others seems rather unfair given that the more majority of the population of the US is Christian as you indicated. Obviously there are some unfair hiring practices going on at the non-FOX media. They don’t respect religious views.”
FOX is very obviously pro-religion, I don’t know how you can deny it. MSNBC is pretty obviously anti-religion. Most of the rest of stations seem neutral on the subject. Journalism is supposed to be neutral unless it’s an editorial or column or something, so I fail to see how that’s a bad thing. You want CNN to have a “christian hour” or something? I don’t actually see what your complaint is here.
“I am not talking about evolution vs. creationism. I am talking about Natural Moral Law and Natural Law theory – look it up. Jack, you have a bad tendency of shoving words and pov’s into other people’s mouth. It makes it hard to discuss things when you don’t stay on topic – please stay focused. ”
Where is this banned by a court? Has there been a court case where religious people can’t use Natural Moral Law in their own lives and preach it? Has there been something that outlawed Natural Law Theory as a moral outline?
“But people always had a right to pray their prayers in school! We can allow prayers and people not to pray simultaneously. ”
Which I literally, literally just said. People can still pray in school. It’s not illegal, it’s not banned. Kids and teachers can pray, or not. The difference is that since the sixties it can’t be teacher led and obligatory.
“Not you are not…Christians and Catholics have their morals published and documented (it is called the Bible) and those morals do not change from one generation to the next. Atheists, as far as I know, do have a set form of beliefs. ”
Because atheism isn’t a religion, I don’t see how atheists could have a set form of beliefs. Most humans, however, share certain morals in common with each other when they live in the same culture, atheists are no different.
” Most importantly, you have once again side-stepped trying to articulate your own moral values. We still don’t know what they are. This is a serious question. What are morals? I am not accusing of having no morals, I really don’t know what you morals are. And since I don’t know them I can only infer that they are a “lack” of my morals. ”
I. Have. Stated. My. Morals. And. Reasoning. About. A. Million. Times. On. This. Blog. It’s not my fault you don’t accept my morals so hard that you don’t even acknowledge them when I tell you them, and it’s not my fault you apparently have very little short term memory. You can’t possibly have talked to me as much you have and not be able to state in generalities what I believe is my moral code. It seriously takes some balls to state that you have no idea what my morals are after talking to me for months about them!
Any takers on explaining my moral views to Tyler? God knows I go on about myself enough.
“Jack please tell me what you like about Catholic morality? ”
I like that Catholic morality is based on natural law, actually, even when I disagree with the reasoning and conclusions that you guys come up with I respect that there’s an actual, rational basis for these beliefs, whether I think they are correct or not. I like the Catholic view on the death penalty. I like the Catholic view on abortion, obviously. I like that the Catholic church, as opposed to a lot of other Christian denominations, really emphasizes charity and helping the less fortunate, I think that is amazing. There are lots of other little things I like about Catholic morality but those are the big ones. There are also big things I dislike about Catholic morality, but you didn’t ask about that.
Still waiting for a full description/listing of your morality….
xalisae, you subcribe to a quasi – natural moral law morality with respect to abortion but not contraception and other specifics escape me. With Jack I have no idea what grounds his points of view. He has never attempted to defend his positions from a philosophical perspective. For the most part, he basically critiques other people’s views. Basically, he, unlike yourself however, has effectively admitted to being a cherry picker of moral systems. With all atheists unless you discuss with each and every moral issue you are never going to have a clear idea as to where they stand on an issue – from my perspective, it appears that atheists lurk in the shadows of morality, spouting off when a particular issue irks them.
xalisae: Tyler
It gets old.
” I’m going to create an awesome drinking game based oon the comments on this blog. By awesome, I mean that everyone who plays it will die of alcohol poisoning. ”
Lol I like this idea. We got Denise and Tyler, how about every time truthseeker and Ex-GOP argue about Obamacare you have to drink when they stoop to personal insults. You’ll be dead every Sunday.
Before we take the conversation to the next level…why don’t you tell me what you don’t like about Catholic morality and why.
”how about every time truthseeker and Ex-GOP argue about Obamacare you have to drink when they stoop to personal insults. You’ll be dead every Sunday.”
I like it. I should add that anyone else is free to add their suggestions.
you can add Jack and xalisae on politics to the drinking game.
and JDC’s sporadic comments can be when everyone has to drink no matter what.
You know what I don’t like about Catholic morality because I told you. It’s exhausting to continue to repeat myself. In general I don’t like prohibitions on consenting behavior that harms no one but the consenting participants. That’s stuff like contraception, homosexuality, etc etc. I don’t like the Catholic view on those subjects. Which you know. Because I have told you personally multiple times.
“and JDC’s sporadic comments can be when everyone has to drink no matter what.”
I’ll drink to that!
this conversation sure fizzled.
I’m not going to continue the conversation until you admit that you know how I generally think about morality.
Don’t worry Jack I am done. I can see this conversation is going nowhere.
Typical.
I don’t know what you expect, honestly. It’s not like I ever hide what I think, I state my unwanted opinion on moral issues all the time. I just think it’s incredibly disingenuous you act like every conversation like this is the first, that you have no idea where I am coming from in regards to ethics, and you think you can browbeat me into, idk, admitting that I have no moral code and I’ll start saying “teach me your ways oh Catholic sensai” or something. You and I have plenty of pleasant conversations about our beliefs, but then you turn around and claim you have no idea what I believe!
In morality reasonably well defined moral viewpoints like those carried by Protestants and Catholics are like two countries that subscribe to a shared view on the rules of war. Atheists in this analogy are like terrorists, moral terrorists or guerilla moral fighters, that don’t subscribe to the rules of war. Moral terrorists can ambush Catholics and Protestants from any direction and have the element of surprise.
The Golden Rule is obvious to everyone. You can’t always predict who follows it better by their religious or non-religious beliefs.
The problem is not your lack of sharing your viewpoints but that your viewpoints are entirely your own, and in your head. If I want to know what Jack thinks about a subject I have to ask Jack for Jack is the only who truly knows. Jack makes no appeals to any other authority. If Jack later changes his mind, no one knows but Jack, and Jack is accountable to no one but his former beliefs which he has discarded. Jack has nothing and no one that is accountable to. (Insert atheist for Jack if it is easier to read that way.)
It seems to me that there is something intrinsically immoral about being an atheist…even before a particular atheist has begun to share their particular moral views on a subject.
“In morality reasonably well defined moral viewpoints like those carried by Protestants and Catholics are like two countries that subscribe to a shared view on the rules of war. Atheists in this analogy are like terrorists, moral terrorists or guerilla moral fighters, that don’t subscribe to the rules of war. Moral terrorists can ambush Catholics and Protestants from any direction and have the element of surprise.”
Well, if we’re going to make offensive analogies about people’s religious views, I would say that atheists and agnostics are more like an isolationist country that really wants to be left alone to do their own thing, while Catholics and Protestants are like the invading army who wants to force convert everyone to their culture. But, both of our analogies are equally stupid.
“The problem is not your lack of sharing your viewpoints but that your viewpoints are entirely your own, and in your head. If I want to know what Jack thinks about a subject I have to ask Jack for Jack is the only who truly knows. Jack makes no appeals to any other authority. If Jack later changes his mind, no one knows but Jack, and Jack is accountable to no one but his former beliefs which he has discarded. Jack has nothing and no one that is accountable to. (Insert atheist for Jack if it is easier to read that way.) ”
Funny, I have the exact same problem with religious people in general. You like to pretend you all follow an unchanging set of morals, but you don’t. You all have differing interpretations of the same book, and though you might tend more towards some viewpoints the only way I can know what a particular Christian thinks is to ask them. Your morality is different from Hans’ is different from Carla’s is different from Jill’s is different from Ex-GOP’s. And you all can change your mind and find Biblical justification for whatever you want, and do.
I will give it to Catholics, as I said they tend to be more consistent (as long as their actually following the Church for the most part, rather than being CINOs). But still, there’s plenty of moral disagreement among Church members.
“It seems to me that there is something intrinsically immoral about being an atheist…even before a particular atheist has begun to share their particular moral views on a subject.”
Ha. You are calling someone immoral for what they ARE. Not their actions (which can be justifiable), just what they are. This is one thing I dislike strongly about Christianity, to be honest.
Jack,
Hopefully most of us here subscribe to “Hate the sin, not the sinner”. Don’t give up on all of us! ;)
In morality reasonably well defined moral viewpoints like those carried by Protestants and Catholics are like two countries that subscribe to a shared view on the rules of war. Atheists in this analogy are like terrorists, moral terrorists or guerilla moral fighters, that don’t subscribe to the rules of war. Moral terrorists can ambush Catholics and Protestants from any direction and have the element of surprise.
This. Is. HILARIOUS.^
Lol Hans, I know that a lot of you aren’t like that. I just get annoyed when I see that stuff pop up. It really sucks to be told over and over something you are is intrinsically evil (which to be fair to Tyler I don’t think he was trying to say exactly that but it comes across that way).
Well, I guess I shouldn’t scratch too hard.
“Don’t worry Jack I am done. I can see this conversation is going nowhere.”
Followed by FOUR more posts by Tyler. Yeah, I can tell you’re done.
Jack, I am still waiting for you to make a point in defence of atheism instead of just attacking Christianity. Jack, do you (atheists) have any set of beliefs that are not simply a stubborn opposition to another person’s belief system?
It seems to me that at the heart of atheism and its supposed tolerance is a profound mistrust not only of God, but of people and God’s entire creation as well.
Jack, I am just ignoring comments by JDC and Hans and xalisae so don’t feel you need to correct them but thanks anyway. They aren’t trying to help out.
Jack, I am not going to try to befriend you and then try to proselytize you. I am just going to proselytize (which is the samething you are doing when you state your opinion).
By the way Moral Terrorists is now trademarked.
For the record, some Christian sects engage in moral terrorism but, obviously, it can’t be to the same degree as atheists. The Occupy Movement is one example of moral terrorism. Moral terrorism is civil disobedience gone wrong.
Tyler, what the heck!? Are you purposefully trying to be as offensive as possible?
” I really don’t know what you morals are. And since I don’t know them I can only infer that they are a “lack” of my morals.”
So you believe you must “infer” that you and Jack have no morals in common? Jack has expressed too many times to count that the innocent should be protected from violence and abuse. Don’t you share that standard of behavior? Jack has expressed numerous times his concern and compassion for those battling addictions, the poor, and the homeless. You don’t share the same concern and compassion? Jack has expressed numerous times that his children should be raised to be happy, responsible, productive citizens and to protect their childhood innocence as long as possible. You don’t share those values concerning your own children?
CCC 2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way
Do you do that Tyler? It’s part of Catholic morality.
“Jack, I am still waiting for you to make a point in defence of atheism instead of just attacking Christianity. Jack, do you (atheists) have any set of beliefs that are not simply a stubborn opposition to another person’s belief system?
It seems to me that at the heart of atheism and its supposed tolerance is a profound mistrust not only of God, but of people and God’s entire creation as well.”
If you can talk to me for months and you get THAT as my viewpoint on morality, then you are just being deliberately bigoted and mean.
And I’m not an atheist.
“Jack, I am not going to try to befriend you and then try to proselytize you. I am just going to proselytize (which is the samething you are doing when you state your opinion).”
Well too bad, because I don’t listen to proselytizing from people unless I know they actually genuinely have my best interest at heart. There are people on this blog that I will listen to and respect their viewpoint about religion. You were doing good for a while, but then you go off on these tangents and I realize, yet again, that you’re really just bigoted and apparently think that I’m two minutes away from becoming a serial killer or something because I don’t believe in God and follow every step of your doctrine. You obviously don’t actually have an interest in saving someone’s soul, it appears you want to talk down to and berate people who don’t share your religious beliefs. And I’m not entirely sure but I don’t think that’s what Christianity is supposed to be about.
Thank you Lrning, I appreciate it.
What I find weird is he says things like he’s confident I’ll raise my kids in a moral way earlier on this thread, and then a few comments later it’s all about how I don’t have any morals in common with him. How can I raise my kids with morality if I don’t have any morals? Lol.
So you believe you must “infer” that you and Jack have no morals in common?
I haven’t inferred that Jack and I have no views in common. Where did you get that? A lack does not mean zero morals. Indeed, atheists are condemned to have a morality of sorts – it is unavoidable in this life. One of my points is that atheism (most atheists) denies (deny) this implicit fact that morality is an objective part of reality and not subjective. I would like Jack to reconcile his compassion with atheism – I believe the two views are incompatible. If one acknowledges objective morality, and tries to be moral, that person is implicitly acknowledging that God exists. When they go on to deny God’s existence, while still advocating for a moral point of view, they commence moral terrorism.
Lrning, just so you can sleep at night, this is not about Jack – it is about atheism. Chill out.
Jack I can see that you have got completely the wrong with my comments.
But Jack it is your philosophy that people have to just suck it up and take any complaints about their world view.
try this again:
Jack I can see that you have gone completely the wrong way with my comments.
But Jack it is your philosophy that people have to just suck it up and take any complaints about their world view.
I have interpreted Jack’s views in the most favourable way possible – I think he is a closet –gasp—Christian.
pa·ro·chi·al
/p??r?k??l/
Adjective
Of or relating to a church parish.
Having a limited or narrow outlook or scope.
Synonyms
narrow – provincial – narrow-minded – parish
There’s no reason NOT to be compassionate, Tyler, whether you believe in God or not. From a selfish standpoint, you have a better time in life if people like you because you are nice to them and help them out. From a genetic standpoint, compassion towards those of your species helps your species survive. Plus humans are biologically wired to care about those they are close to, and to a lesser extent those of their own species. We’re also wired to feel good when doing nice things for other people. It’s not hard to figure this out, why an atheist would be compassionate.
I don’t think anyone has to “suck it up”, I have no idea where you got that.
I’m not a “closet Christian” and I really wish you would stop saying that, it’s offensive.
Hans are you rising above? Let me hold on to your feet.
And see when I do try to give any type of secular justification for something, he just completely ignores it.
Thanks Jack – Next time just say you are borrowing xalisae’s argument. It will save you time. Does that explanation satisfy you given all the evil committed by the people in the world? I guess the self-interest to be nice people missed a few folk (and not just religious folk). How come you believe the biology that people should be nice is the morally correct biology and not the biology of Jeffrey Dahmer types (you must have sneaked in another separate moral standard here)? Or is your standard for determining the “moral” biology simply a utilitarian calculation – more people are like you than Mr. Dahmer? Yet, how do you know that it is the biology and not the ethics that Christ taught that is guiding the moral behaviour of people in society. When we look at non-Christian cultures they generally don’t have the same respect for life as we do? In short, your assumption/belief in the innate goodness of human beings is interesting but it doesn’t seem to correspond to reality.
As for “I don’t think anyone has to “suck it up”, I have no idea where you got that.”
Here is just a quote from this thread…:
“Considering how much the religious say that they should be allowed to talk about their morals that are offensive to others (which they are allowed to and always should be, don’t mistake me), then you can’t complain about people who don’t like your morals and say so”
I guess you spoke too soon Jack. You have to remember that I don’t write or think as fast as you. Be patient with me.
Hans are you rising above? Let me hold on to your feet.
Nope, I’m made of dust. Wet dust. Gravity keeps me here on Terra Firma.
Given that this is a prolife site here is a more on topic question: Jack, why do so many mothers abort their children if they have been biologically wired to be ”good” and “compassionate”?
” Does that explanation satisfy you given all the evil committed by the people in the world? I guess the self-interest to be nice people missed a few folk (and not just religious folk). How come you believe the biology that people should be nice is the morally correct biology and not the biology of Jeffrey Dahmer types (you must have sneaked in another separate moral standard here)? Or is your standard for determining the “moral” biology simply a utilitarian calculation – more people are like you than Mr. Dahmer? Yet, how do you know that it is the biology and not the ethics that Christ taught that is guiding the moral behaviour of people in society. When we look at non-Christian cultures they generally don’t have the same respect for life as we do? In short, your assumption/belief in the innate goodness of human beings is interesting but it doesn’t seem to correspond to reality.”
You asked me why compassion would work with atheism, I took that as why would an atheist be compassionate so that’s the answer I gave. Everything I said is true. Doesn’t mean that people are necessarily going to be nice, just that there is plenty of non-religious reasons for doing to.
You are extremely ethnocentric. I assume when you say “non-Christian cultures don’t have the same respect for life that we do” you are thinking of like Stalin and Mao. There have been purported Christian leaders who acted the same as those two. You realize that the entirety of Asia and pretty much everywhere but Europe and northern Africa were non-Christian for much of history, and had varying degrees of respect for life depending on the tribe and religion and culture of the region. And Christian Europe was absolutely brutal, so don’t tell me that Christian cultures are necessarily more respectful of life.
I don’t think that humans are “innately good”. At all.
” Jack, why do so many mothers abort their children if they have been biologically wired to be ”good” and “compassionate”?”
Humans are biologically wired to care about those close to them unless they are mentally defective or ill, that’s just factual. I think that the wiring doesn’t always take place until later in the pregnancy (one of the reasons later term abortions are much more rare imo).
Well, Jack – it has been nice. I don’t think I can get you to commit to a position. Good night.
Omg.
Yeah, come on Jack! Why won’t you just commit to the position Tyler “infers” for you? How dare you continue to insist on your own perspective.
Lol Lrning.
I missed this, Tyler, sorry, about you claiming that I think people should just “suck it up”. I think I just didn’t make my point clear in the quote you put up: ” “Considering how much the religious say that they should be allowed to talk about their morals that are offensive to others (which they are allowed to and always should be, don’t mistake me), then you can’t complain about people who don’t like your morals and say so””
I think you just misunderstand my slang/way of speaking or whatever. When I say “can’t complain” I don’t literally mean you can’t complain about something. I just meant it as “well if you get free speech you can’t take that right away from those who disagree with you”. Complain away Tyler.
Good night, Tyler. Maybe reading this thread while better rested will help you see what’s wrong with what you just said.
Lrning…see you at Church on Sunday.
OMG, if mamamia was unhappy about the comments a few days ago, I wonder how she feels now!
Genuine question Tyler, do you have any friends/acquaintances who are non-religious? Do you treat them like you treat me? And do you really, really believe that what you are doing is sharing God’s truth and doing any good? Or do you just browbeat me because you are trying to feel superior?
JDC, why don’t you enlighten me?
Those are genuine questions Jack? Again, good night.
Those are genuine questions. I was wondering if it’s something about me that upsets you or if it’s non-religious people in general. I realize I tend to make people mad a lot, usually without meaning to, so I was wondering if the reason you go after me so much is because you want me to feel bad or something.
Looping all the way back to the original post….
Having a baby named Olive would just make me really hungry. :) No food baby names for me or I’d start drooling every time I called the baby. “Olive….” *stomach growling*
“JDC, why don’t you enlighten me?”
OK. Well you said that you could not get Jack to commit to a position, but he has in fact been clearly committed to one this whole time. That is what was wrong with your comment.
April 10, 2013 at 1:31 pm
*on