All,
Make sure you bring a BlueBook or two on the day of your final. You will need to write and stuff.
There will be a review session. The most appropriate night would seem to be two days prior to the exam, or December 14th. Details remain the same: show around 7, bring a copy of the review sheet, bring blankets and sleeping bags and coffee and such, outside pub (with occasional breaks inside to warm extremities and to get coffee), and I even spoke with physical plant about getting them to turn the fire on inside. Yes, I am teh awesomes.
Regarding other things, Please email me your papers on the same day (December 14th) by 5 PM. Remember to paste the text into the body of the email to avoid attachment issues. Send it five times if you like. Just make sure there are no problems.
Also, remember that the National Civil Rights Museum was a part of the course materials. Many of you have expressed to me your desire to write about duty and responsibility as the thing that has changed for you in the course of the Search program. I imagine that, if this is you, the Civil Rights Museum may have had something to do with it. Depending on how you use it, it could serve as a "source" text from this semester, though most likely it would serve as a footnote or aside. But the point to remember is that if you are trying to fulfill a quota of texts, cf. one of my favorite lolcat memes:
However, if in the process of writing your paper you organically think of a number of different things that we studied, and you include them as observations along the way toward the changes in your thinking, then this is good.
In other news, a buddy of mine actually saw this in DC. I obviously believe in education (as I am an educator), but at times I seriously consider just giving up.
I think this guy definitely ranks as competition with Mr Ahmadinejad for the "I'm Taking Crazy Pills" award. Holy crap.
Good luck on your other less important finals.
-W.
That truck reminds me of a billboard I see driving from Atlanta to Chattanooga around the Dalton area that has a picture of the twin towers like the one on the truck that says "racial profiling could have prevented this".. I thought it might've just been because it's the South, but I guess ignorance is just as prevalent everywhere else.
ReplyDeleteIt would be massively funny if it wasn't so tragic. It seems like a sort of gluing together of three things that the bill board creator isn't fond of, gays, 9/11 and health care. I've got to be honest the connection between the three eludes me but then again I don't have a billboard of my own :)
ReplyDeleteAs absurd as this is, I ensure you these views are not uncommon. The people who hold these views are not crazy nor irrational, only misguided.
ReplyDeleteFor anyone who reads the Bible literally will, and must hold these beliefs. If one holds the Bible above all, they are no more wrong than MLK to do all that they can to stop an increase government spending to support what they believe to be an "abomination." And they do have reason to believe death will come to those who do commit these acts.
Sources:
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination." (Lev 18:22)
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (Lev 20:13)
In regards to the "racial profiling could have prevented this" billboard. That reminds me of a story of a women who was killed by a drunk driver. The driver was an illegal immigrant. Therefore the accident became an illegal immigrant issue. That really made me mad.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Spencer's comment.. "And they do have reason to believe death will come to those who do commit these acts." - death will inevitably come to everyone, what this should've said is "death SHOULD come to those who commit these acts," but what's funny about this is those same people who would use that as proof of homosexuality being wrong are going against other quotes from the same text like for example "thou shalt not kill."
ReplyDeleteBasically just because a book tells me it's okay to do something doesn't mean it's right. Hitler could write all the books he wanted about how it's okay to kill Jews, it doesn't mean it's right. I agree they are misguided, yes, but if we're going to talk about Christian principles here I don't believe hatred and killing are two of them. If one holds the Bible right above all then there's going to be a LOT of contradiction and many conflicts between even the book and the laws of the United States. If we lived by the laws of the Bible women wouldn't have the right to vote and we could still own slaves. If one is going to use the Bible as a source for why homosexuality is wrong then they might as well go tell their wives they can't think for themselves and go buy some slaves (and I'm pretty sure these people wouldn't do that).
Sorry I have a lot of built up anger regarding hypocritical Christians because I come from a family of Catholic morons.
Perhaps I came off wrong.
ReplyDeleteI'm not trying to make a defense for taking the Bible literally. What I am saying is that 31% of Americans say they do and that these 95 million Americans, with a perhaps a small percentage excluded, think homosexuality is wrong.
What I am defending is their right to use legal means to stop their government from spending money to support something they find so wrong. And not only the right but the fact that they should act upon their beliefs. I agree that this instance was over the top and yes I'm also defending our right to mock them.
And the second point I was trying to make was that the number of people who think homosexuality is immoral is no small number even in this day and age and that's something not apparent in our setting. These people really do have a voice and the issue of health care benefits to same sex couples is not as remote as one might think.
Here's the poll
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethird-americans-believe-bible-literally-true.aspx
Also interesting is the high inverse correlation between education and taking the Bible literally also shown in the above link.
New York Times Article about Obama's predicament over Health Benefits for Same Sex Couples
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/us/politics/13benefits.html
Spencer,
ReplyDeletewhile I understand your overall point, it still proves the ignorance of the individuals in question. (And I'm using that word intentional: ignorance means lacking information rather than inferior intelligence or the like.)
First, you are correct that there are many people who claim to take the Bible literally. However, I have yet to meet an individual in this country who has explained to me how this is possible (and I have been studying this for some time). Indeed, since its inception, for both the Jews and the Christians for almost the entire history of the texts themselves, no one even conceived of this as possible, let alone as intended by Hashem. It is only a recent movement (within the last 150 years) that has started to proclaim the idea of "literalism," even though there is no doctrinal, traditional, or logical basis for it. Put simply, (a) it makes no sense when you have, e.g., two flood stories that have always been regarded as coming from two sources and state two mutually exclusive number of days for how long it rained, (b) it runs entirely roughshod over the entire history of, e.g., the Catholic, Orthodox, Reform, Protestant, Kabbalah, etc., traditions, but, best of all, (c) it disagrees with Hashem himself (the argument runs roughly as follows: if God hands you a problem and says, "Solve this," and you simply scream back "YES!" with all your might without trying to do so, aren't you going against God...?)
Second, I still don't understand how Obama's health care plan is going to cause another 9.11 or how condoning sodomy would do so, etc. Unless you subscribe to the God Hates Fags groupthink of Phelps, et al, which actually interprets the Holy Word to say that God does not actually hate fags, but hates fag-adjacents (i.e., God doesn't actually punish the fags, but other random innocent people who happen to be living in the same country as the fags, e.g., Pastor John Hagee stating that God sent Katrina because America is becoming more tolerant of homosexuals).
Third, and most important, none of this matters. Those who allegedly take the Bible literally do not also stone their relatives when they hear that they have had sex out of wedlock--because this is illegal. Those who allegedly take the Bible literally can use all the hate speech they want, but until they amend the constitution to restrict the contract rights of adult citizens to specifically mean heterosexual adult citizens (and apparently of some particular Christian sect), then all arguments which base themselves upon the Bible are completely not applicable. Put another way, from the perspective of our particular constitutional democracy, these people are not a problem insofar as and as long as the public education system ensures that they be regarded as pathetic idiots. Otherwise, they actually constitute a threat to the very fabric of the society itself--a good representation of democratic autoimmunity, though this one unfortunately arises not principally from the exercise of free speech as the irresponsible ejaculation of a small and sad mind.
-W.
Foucault, specifically:
ReplyDelete"The problem, very roughly put, was the following. Democracy is founded by a politeia, a constitution, where the demos, the people, exercise power, and where everyone is equal in front of the law. Such a constitution, however, is condemned to give equal place to all forms of parrhesia, even the worst. Because parrhesia is given even to the worst citizens, the overwhelming influence of bad, immoral, or ignorant speakers may lead the citizenry into tyranny, or may otherwise endanger the city. Hence parrhesia may be dangerous for democracy itself."
The answer, of course, is education.
-W.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI just want to let you know I read this and agree with it. As I opened my last post, "I'm not trying to make a defense for taking the Bible literally." I do think these people are ignorant and of course disagree with them. I also think that education is the key.
ReplyDeleteBut I do partially disagree with your argument concerning the connection between homosexuality and 9/11 especially regarding "fags" and "fag-adjacents." To start WBC claims that God hates "fags" AND "fag-adjacents" and that homosexuality should be a capital crime. Given this fact, my argument is as follows.
Given that one thinks homosexuality is immoral and that God will punish this immorality with death,
(Note: I am not saying these beliefs are right nor that I agree with them but only that some people do hold these beliefs)
I think that post-modern thought would support at least one of these two statements.
(Note 2: I am not saying that these statements nor the post-modern reasoning behind these thoughts have ever been cited as argument in this case)
1.Those who support immorality are guilty of immorality.
2.Those who sit idly as their country supports immorality are guilty of immorality.
Being that Obama's health care bill includes benefits for same sex couples, assuming the givens, the connection to 9/11 is reasonable.
To reiterate my second point about how these views are more widespread than one might think, the WBC, a small private organization, were not the only ones to hold the views that homosexuals were at least partially responsible for 9/11. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robinson also agreed that homosexuals were partially responsible on the nationally aired 700 Club in the immediate 9/11 aftermath.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/falwell.asp