Living Water
For those who thirst
That is the text on the front of a book one of my students tried to give me yesterday, right as I was closing up the help centre, and thinking about the pile of papers I still had to review.
I told her I'm an atheist, I'd talk with her about it later, and try not to burn in hell before then. (She did her shy/nervous laugh at that.)
I foresee awkwardness.
1. I'm not supposed to accept gifts. (Yes, I realize that this is something that the religious groups give out for free, which kind of blurs the line on whether it's a "gift".)
2. I need her to feel comfortable coming to me to ask about computer science questions.
3. I have no desire to be "saved", and was brought up to believe that lying is wrong.
Hmmm... perhaps I should have a quick chat with my bosses.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Stuff
The heat is on... the furnace at my mom's was fixed early this afternoon. Finally! (I'm not fully moved out yet... I'm still eating and sleeping at home.)
Swatchy helped me line a kitchen drawer. (Click for photos of my kitchen.)
I was told that setting out jars of vinegar will dispel paint fumes, so I have three shallow dishes with vinegar in them now.
The new apartment got phone and internet service yesterday. I took over my answering machine, but I didn't bring a power bar. There's only one outlet near the cable box that provides phone service, so that limits me to to items: the cable box itself, and the phone. The way the living room is set up, I'll be wanting to plug in:
• phone cable box
• phone
• answering machine
• TV
• VCR/DVD player
• shelf stereo system
... I count six items. (So far.) Yes, there are other outlets in the living room, but only one other one has something plugged into it: the lamp is plugged into the only outlet controlled by the light switch. (That outlet and light switch happen to be located one above the other, making the switch somewhat redundant. I moved the lamp as far as I could given the length of the cord, though. Of the other two outlets, one is where I don't want to plug anything in, and the other is right by the lamp which needs the switch-controlled outlet. Silly. Oh well, they're all on the same fuse anyway, so I guess it doesn't really make any difference where things are plugged in.
I rearranged more stuff in the living room, so it's starting to look pretty good. I still need to wipe down two sections of the wall unit, put the drawers and shelves back in, and set up the VCR/DVD player. Plus I need to replace the "phone box" with one of my nesting tables. ;)
Speaking of phone tables, that reminds me of the nook in my foyer. It's a phone nook, but it really looks like a Jesus nook. In fact, both I and my brother took it for one. Mom realized that it was a phone nook because that's where the original phone jack is located. It probably helps that she was around for the period of time where the only phone in a house was located in the main hallway. ;) I had quite an entertaining conversation with my phone/internet serviceman due to the "Jesus nook". ;) (His parents were also Catholic, and wanted him to go to midnight mass at Christmas now that he's back in the city.)
You can see the Jesus nook and accompanying phone jack in this photo:
(Note that there's no electrical outlet there... so you can't use a cordless phone there. Note also the wire running down from the jack... that wire goes around baseboards and doors to the only other jack in the apartment, located in the living room... right by the outlet controlled by the light switch. Doh! If they were going to add a second phone jack, they could at least put it by a power outlet that wouldn't be off most of the time!)
I have a story to tell about one of my windows, but that will have to wait for another time. It's late, and I want to get to bed earlier tonight! (I've been having trouble staying awake the past two mornings.)
Swatchy helped me line a kitchen drawer. (Click for photos of my kitchen.)
I was told that setting out jars of vinegar will dispel paint fumes, so I have three shallow dishes with vinegar in them now.
The new apartment got phone and internet service yesterday. I took over my answering machine, but I didn't bring a power bar. There's only one outlet near the cable box that provides phone service, so that limits me to to items: the cable box itself, and the phone. The way the living room is set up, I'll be wanting to plug in:
• phone cable box
• phone
• answering machine
• TV
• VCR/DVD player
• shelf stereo system
... I count six items. (So far.) Yes, there are other outlets in the living room, but only one other one has something plugged into it: the lamp is plugged into the only outlet controlled by the light switch. (That outlet and light switch happen to be located one above the other, making the switch somewhat redundant. I moved the lamp as far as I could given the length of the cord, though. Of the other two outlets, one is where I don't want to plug anything in, and the other is right by the lamp which needs the switch-controlled outlet. Silly. Oh well, they're all on the same fuse anyway, so I guess it doesn't really make any difference where things are plugged in.
I rearranged more stuff in the living room, so it's starting to look pretty good. I still need to wipe down two sections of the wall unit, put the drawers and shelves back in, and set up the VCR/DVD player. Plus I need to replace the "phone box" with one of my nesting tables. ;)
Speaking of phone tables, that reminds me of the nook in my foyer. It's a phone nook, but it really looks like a Jesus nook. In fact, both I and my brother took it for one. Mom realized that it was a phone nook because that's where the original phone jack is located. It probably helps that she was around for the period of time where the only phone in a house was located in the main hallway. ;) I had quite an entertaining conversation with my phone/internet serviceman due to the "Jesus nook". ;) (His parents were also Catholic, and wanted him to go to midnight mass at Christmas now that he's back in the city.)
You can see the Jesus nook and accompanying phone jack in this photo:
(Note that there's no electrical outlet there... so you can't use a cordless phone there. Note also the wire running down from the jack... that wire goes around baseboards and doors to the only other jack in the apartment, located in the living room... right by the outlet controlled by the light switch. Doh! If they were going to add a second phone jack, they could at least put it by a power outlet that wouldn't be off most of the time!)
I have a story to tell about one of my windows, but that will have to wait for another time. It's late, and I want to get to bed earlier tonight! (I've been having trouble staying awake the past two mornings.)
Monday, May 28, 2007
I'm It
I've been tagged by Brit Knitter to give seven random facts about myself.
Here are the tag rules:
Each person tagged gives 7 random facts about themselves. Those tagged need to write on their blog the 7 facts as well as the rules of the game. You need to tag 7 others and list their names on your blog. You have to leave those you are tagging a note in their comments so they know they have been tagged and to read your blog.
Seven Random Facts:
1. My first word (besides gurgles interpreted as "mom" and "dad") was "Christmas tree." (Technically, I suppose that's two.) I was fascinated by my first sight of a Christmas tree, and when my mom said "that's a Christmas tree" I replied "Christmas tree" in a stunned way. She then said "isn't it pretty?" to which I replied "pretty!" I used "pretty" constantly the whole holiday season, but didn't say Christmas tree again until the following year.
2. To this day I love Christmas decorations.
3. I am an athiest. This doesn't mess with my love of Christmas: to me, Christmas is a celebration of friends and family.
4. My father tried to force me to be a Roman Catholic. I rebelled. It took a Roman Catholic priest to get my father to understand that I could still be a good person even though I'm not religious.
5. I'm stubborn. (If you haven't already guessed.)
6. I like frogs. I happen to collect frog things, but please don't buy me ugly frog stuff just because they have frogs on them. I still have good taste (in my opinion).
7. I like doing silk paintings, but haven't had time for several years.
8. I hate tagging people. So, instead, I'll list seven more random things, starting with this one. (Plus my first several items sort of flowed from each other, rather than being truly random.)
9. I cannot visualize 4D or higher. I wish I could.
10. I am pretty good at splitting firewood. (Well, I am when I'm not out of shape.)
11. I'm good at fixing lots of things.
12. I like untangling yarn.
13. I *like* drinking water. Well, not mineral water or fizzy water. Or well water. Or water from Regina. (Or was it Saskatoon with the bad tasting water? I can't remember now. I think it was Regina.)
14. I'm afraid of swimming in water that isn't clear. I sometimes get freaked out even when it is clear. I don't necessarily let that stop me from swimming, though.
Here are the tag rules:
Each person tagged gives 7 random facts about themselves. Those tagged need to write on their blog the 7 facts as well as the rules of the game. You need to tag 7 others and list their names on your blog. You have to leave those you are tagging a note in their comments so they know they have been tagged and to read your blog.
Seven Random Facts:
1. My first word (besides gurgles interpreted as "mom" and "dad") was "Christmas tree." (Technically, I suppose that's two.) I was fascinated by my first sight of a Christmas tree, and when my mom said "that's a Christmas tree" I replied "Christmas tree" in a stunned way. She then said "isn't it pretty?" to which I replied "pretty!" I used "pretty" constantly the whole holiday season, but didn't say Christmas tree again until the following year.
2. To this day I love Christmas decorations.
3. I am an athiest. This doesn't mess with my love of Christmas: to me, Christmas is a celebration of friends and family.
4. My father tried to force me to be a Roman Catholic. I rebelled. It took a Roman Catholic priest to get my father to understand that I could still be a good person even though I'm not religious.
5. I'm stubborn. (If you haven't already guessed.)
6. I like frogs. I happen to collect frog things, but please don't buy me ugly frog stuff just because they have frogs on them. I still have good taste (in my opinion).
7. I like doing silk paintings, but haven't had time for several years.
8. I hate tagging people. So, instead, I'll list seven more random things, starting with this one. (Plus my first several items sort of flowed from each other, rather than being truly random.)
9. I cannot visualize 4D or higher. I wish I could.
10. I am pretty good at splitting firewood. (Well, I am when I'm not out of shape.)
11. I'm good at fixing lots of things.
12. I like untangling yarn.
13. I *like* drinking water. Well, not mineral water or fizzy water. Or well water. Or water from Regina. (Or was it Saskatoon with the bad tasting water? I can't remember now. I think it was Regina.)
14. I'm afraid of swimming in water that isn't clear. I sometimes get freaked out even when it is clear. I don't necessarily let that stop me from swimming, though.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Rights
Warning: controversial thoughts expressed in this post.
I've been thinking recently about rights... particularly Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. Two articles in particular have me thinking about it. The more recent one is about a Winnipeg girl who cannot refuse treatment, and a still recent but slightly older one about sextuplets.
Adults are allowed to refuse treatments. The question, however, is about children. The older girl is 15... probably old enough to make an informed decision. In this case, "three justices on the Court of Appeal [...] ruled that the treatment was justified on the basis of the sanctity of life and the duty to protect children."
In the sextuplets case, the Jehovah's Witness parents refused to terminate some of the embryos to give the remaining ones a better chance at a full term pregnancy. The parents refused on religious grounds. The babies were born premature, and two have already died as a result. Three of the babies were seized by the government in order to give them treatment, which included blood transfusions. The babies are obviously too young to decide for themselves.
So, here we have a situation where the government wanted to terminate embryos, but allowed parents to choose not to, then fought to save the babies from the beliefs of these same parents that caused them to be born in the first place. From an abstract point of view, it seems rather hypocritical. I suppose it falls back to the argument about when a clump of cells becomes a person. (I think, personally, I believe it happens around the time that the fetus can survive outside the womb. A woman can then still choose to have the fetus removed from her body, but it then becomes a ward of the state that can be adopted, rather than terminated.) Anyway, it seems silly to let religion rule in one case, but not the other. (However, if your religion says to murder your children, I definitely don't think that should be allowed.)
Hmmm. So, religion shouldn't be allowed to kill people, but embryos rights don't overrule parents rights.
The next bit is on when people should be allowed to refuse treatment. Obviously, a premature baby can't decide for itself, however, adults can. But where does it switch from one to the other. I would think a fifteen year old could decide for themselves, as long as you could make sure a parent isn't pressuring them to decide against their will. I imagine the judge thought the kid had been "brainwashed" by the religion... but that's not going to change when the kid turns 18. So if a brainwashed 18 year old can refuse treatment, why can't a brainwashed 15 year old? In this case, to protect the child, it's really the brainwashing that should have been prevented... but that runs against religious freedom.
I think it does make sense for the government to decide for children who are young enough to not be able to make their own decisions... after all, if they're young enough that they can't make medical decisions, they're also young enough that they can't make religious decisions either. I don't think the parent should be able to decide what the child's religion is if it risks the health of the child. Just like adults aren't allowed to do other things that harm children. However, older children should be allowed to decide for themselves.
I've been thinking recently about rights... particularly Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. Two articles in particular have me thinking about it. The more recent one is about a Winnipeg girl who cannot refuse treatment, and a still recent but slightly older one about sextuplets.
Adults are allowed to refuse treatments. The question, however, is about children. The older girl is 15... probably old enough to make an informed decision. In this case, "three justices on the Court of Appeal [...] ruled that the treatment was justified on the basis of the sanctity of life and the duty to protect children."
In the sextuplets case, the Jehovah's Witness parents refused to terminate some of the embryos to give the remaining ones a better chance at a full term pregnancy. The parents refused on religious grounds. The babies were born premature, and two have already died as a result. Three of the babies were seized by the government in order to give them treatment, which included blood transfusions. The babies are obviously too young to decide for themselves.
So, here we have a situation where the government wanted to terminate embryos, but allowed parents to choose not to, then fought to save the babies from the beliefs of these same parents that caused them to be born in the first place. From an abstract point of view, it seems rather hypocritical. I suppose it falls back to the argument about when a clump of cells becomes a person. (I think, personally, I believe it happens around the time that the fetus can survive outside the womb. A woman can then still choose to have the fetus removed from her body, but it then becomes a ward of the state that can be adopted, rather than terminated.) Anyway, it seems silly to let religion rule in one case, but not the other. (However, if your religion says to murder your children, I definitely don't think that should be allowed.)
Hmmm. So, religion shouldn't be allowed to kill people, but embryos rights don't overrule parents rights.
The next bit is on when people should be allowed to refuse treatment. Obviously, a premature baby can't decide for itself, however, adults can. But where does it switch from one to the other. I would think a fifteen year old could decide for themselves, as long as you could make sure a parent isn't pressuring them to decide against their will. I imagine the judge thought the kid had been "brainwashed" by the religion... but that's not going to change when the kid turns 18. So if a brainwashed 18 year old can refuse treatment, why can't a brainwashed 15 year old? In this case, to protect the child, it's really the brainwashing that should have been prevented... but that runs against religious freedom.
I think it does make sense for the government to decide for children who are young enough to not be able to make their own decisions... after all, if they're young enough that they can't make medical decisions, they're also young enough that they can't make religious decisions either. I don't think the parent should be able to decide what the child's religion is if it risks the health of the child. Just like adults aren't allowed to do other things that harm children. However, older children should be allowed to decide for themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)