 |
 |
feeling: charged
listening to: Cowboy Bebop - Tank!
BEWARE - preachy blog ahead!!
Ok, I just watched the 700 Club for the first, and hopefully last, time. Why, you ask? Well, on that channel, Whose Line is it Anyway is on from 10-11, and then 700 Club comes on at 11, when there's never anything else on that I watch. Normally I just turn the TV off, but tonight I guess I was just exceptionally lazy and sat through the closing credits of Whose Line (which I usually don't do for the American version), then right after that was a preview for 700 Club that talked about stem cell research and some guy who had AIDS and then later had HIV tests come back negative. Now, I've never seen this show before, and didn't even have any clue what it was about. In the first thirty minutes, I laughed myself silly at its ridiculousness. In the last thirty minutes I was actually pretty interested.
So first, they talk about how Bush wants to dethrone, for lack of a better word (did I mention I'm tired?), Arafat. They give the basic info about the debate, then this old guy starts blabbering about HIS opinion in that "this is my opinion, and it is the only correct opinion, if you don't like that, burn in Hell" kinda tone. Says that Bush is doing the right thing, that Arafat lives for nothing but terrorism, and that America is THE leader in the world and is responsible for taking charge in the middle east situation in order to make the world a better place. At that point it took all I had not to change the channel. It is exactly those arrogant, holier-than-thou attitudes that have caused terrorist attacks on America and will continue to do so in the future. I got news for Bush. This country is NOT perfect. Live among the REAL common people for a few days and you'll see just how hospitable and friendly and wonderful they are. Ever hear of road rage? Child abuse? Murder? Rape, drug abuse, shootings? The list goes on. There's more evil out there than there is good; get used to it. Maybe we're not WORSE than other countries, but I can guarantee you that we are not BETTER as a people. Nor are we better as a leadership power. We have tremendous debts and deficits, and I dare you to name 3 out of the 40-some (or however many XD;;) leaders this country has had that were not involved in some sort of groundbreaking scandal, and those names no one ever remembers because they didn't really do anything great don't count. I'm getting all confusing. Anyway, my point: America is NOT the greatest country in the world. Nowhere near. We do NOT deserve to lead the world, and we are NOT worthy of taking charge of other countries just because our leader doesn't like how they're run. It's that arrogant attitude that's going to keep other countries mad at America; it is NOT going to help end terrorism.
Anywaaaay, then after that they talked about the WorldCom scandal, where this big telephone company or whatever basically lied about their debts and are on the verge of bankruptcy because of it. Then, of course, the guy gives his opinion, which includes saying that America is in such horrible debt because of scandals such as this and the eer popular Catholic-priests-molesting-children scandal. Now, honestly, I don't really know much about the WorldCom thing, so I'll bypass that. But this guy was talking about how these recent scandals are like, THE problem. He doesn't realize that scandals just like these have been going on basically forever... but they either weren't picked up by the media or were picked up but not blown up like some recent ones. Like the Clinton sex scandal. Really now... does ANYONE think he is the only government official, federal or otherwise, to have an affair? If every member of the three branches of federal government who ever had an affair were kicked out of office, there would not be much left of our government. At all. But Clinton does it and it's an automatic tag on the rest of his life. And the priests molesting children thing... I'm sure this isn't the first time that's happened, either. This is just the first time it made national news as it has. Why? Lots of reasons. A temporary lull in news stories, a nosier reporter, someone was better at gossipping, more expansive media capabilities... you name it.
Then came the ever popular stem cell debate. Oh goody. Well, the main point this time was that there is an alternative to embryonic stem cell research that scientists for some reason haven't talked much about, and I for one had never heard of it before. The alternative: "adult" stem cells. Stem cells taken from liposuctioned fat, and probably other methods, but that was the one highlighted. Yet scientists are still pushing for the embryonic research. My question: why? Why would you rather destroy unknowing human lives than use what you can suck out of liposuctioned fat and get the same results? Embryonic stem cell research basically amounts to taking a life without that life's consent in order to MAYBE benefit another life. But with adult stem cell research... well, liposuction and other procedures that can give you adult stem cells are just like organ transplantation, if not LESS painful. I always thought there was a lower risk with liposuction than with, say, donating a kidney... that or around the same risk. So if you could get stem cells from fatty stuff that would just be discarded anyway, why would you want to kill unconsenting human lives to get those same cells? Makes no sense to me. Another thing that ticked me off about that debate: scientists were saying that the reason people are against embryonic stem cell research was "fear of the unknown". Gimme a break. The reason is that you want to KILL human babies, that you want to play God, that you KNOW there are other ways that would work just as well, but you want to do THIS one partly because you think you can prove them wrong, and partly just because you can. Someone very wise once said "Do not do something just because you can." Just because you have the technology and the research doesn't mean you should follow through on it. Just because I have a bunch of medicinal objects in a cabinet downstairs and I know I'm phyhsically able to take handfuls of them at once doesn't mean I should. Just because you have a gun and you know it could kill a person doesn't mean you should go shoot everyone you see. Is that fear of the unknown? I think not. That's common sense.
Then they had a story about how vitamin Es can help reduce the risk of Alzheimer's or some such for the elderly, and how stuff that's cooked at really high temps like fries and chips can cause cancer. This isn't really a big debate or anything, it just amused me. I mean, really. Just about anything can give you cancer, in the right amounts and circumstances. As for the vitamin E thing... ok, how many times in our lives have every single one of us been told to eat right and exercise? Eat lots of this, avoid lots of that, do this, don't do that, and you'll live longer and healthier (or get sick and die younger, depending which road you take). What this story said was that eating stuff like greens, whole grains, nuts/seeds, bran cereals, and the like are better for you in the long run. Come on now... who COULDN'T have figured this out on their own? :P
And then came their final story, which took up the last half hour of the show. I don't know if that's how they always do it - a bunch of brief debates and opinions followed by a big testimonial thing - but yeah. And actually... this part managed to touch me. Not to the point where I would recommend 700 Club to all my friends and become a loyal follower, mind you. :P But it did touch me. The story: this kid named Matt is an outcast all his life. His dad doesn't love him, his brother molests him, boys at school taunt him. By age 10, he's a homosexual. At age 18, he's attacked and sodomized at knifepoint by a nameless bad guy. So he escapes crying and screaming and literally cursing God, then he hears God's voice and is all touched and lets Him into his life and all. Then he goes around looking for other Christians and a 5 year old boy convinces him to come to church, then to rededicate himself at the altar. So he starts coming to church regularly, but still goes through the regular homosexual activity on the side. Then at some gathering of some sort he falls unconscious and Jesus tells him that when he's committing homosexual acts, he's doing it to Him (Jesus). So then he AGAIN rededicates himself and never has a homosexual act again and thinks the idea is disgusting. Then he's diagnosed with HIV. He leaves the hospital after finding out, and God speaks to him yet again, telling him that He will heal him if he does something... or... something. I forget already. :P Well, eventually the symptoms get worse, till he's hospitalized with full-blown AIDS and weakening by the minute. There on his death bed he hears God's voice yet again when he asks why He hasn't healed him yet. God says he's healed, and the next morning Matt wakes up and the doctors are all around him going on and on about how his AIDS is suddenly in remission. But he still has HIV. So he leaves the hospital and starts evangelizing at prisons and stuff, and in one prison's audience is the guy who raped him when he was 18. And that guy is the first one to accept the altar call at the end, saying he needs forgiveness cause he killed and raped and etc. Then Matt says he was the one the guy raped years ago, and the guy feels horrible, but Matt says that both he and God forgive him, and then 20 convicts give their lives to God. So after Matt officially (or something) forgave his dad, his brother, his rapist, and everyone else, God appeared once more and told him the following: "I have purged your blood with my own", and that he was healed. So Matt ran to get an HIV test, and bing bang boom, it comes back negative. He goes back for the same test every 6 months for the next 8 years and every single one comes back negative. He even gets married and has a son due in a few months, when he was previously rendered sterile by the AIDS/HIV medications he was on for so long.
Now, I was tempted to post this at a few forums I frequent whose other members are mostly non-Christian, not to press Christianity, but just to see how they reacted... but I knew instantly that all I would hear was something like "the guy was lying". What do I think? Honestly... I don't know. Now, let me remind you that I am a Christian, and one who will not be easily swayed by naysayers, no matter what they throw at me. I can be bloody stubborn when I want to be. But... to me, as a TV audience member living thousand of miles away from this Matt guy, I have no way of knowing whether this story is wholly true. I don't have access to his medical records, the doctors who made them, or anything else about him. I tend to believe it's true, because some of those parts of his story would be reeeeally hard to just make up and keep consistent. And his tears and other emotional reactions seemed pretty sincere. So if he was indeed telling the truth, then I'd sure like to hear a non-Christian's "logical explanation" for the sudden disappearance of his AIDS and HIV Also, if he was telling the truth, I can say that testimonies like these are why I'm a Christian. Well, sort of. In a nutshell, I believe because I've seen my God working in my own life and in others' lives. For me, it all fits together. Maybe it doesn't fit for others, but it does for me. That's all there is to it. If you have different experiences, or none of the sort, that's well and good. Just don't tell me everything I've seen and known and believed is wrong and a bunch of fantasies and twisted myths. That's where I draw the line.
So, moving on. :P I have one more point I'd like to address (doesn't that sound so formal? XD) now that I've made my religious belief clear. Another current issue. Recently it was decided that the "under God" line in the Pledge of Allegience to the U.S. is unconstitutional, because it suggests that America, by forcing its citizens to take the pledge, is forcing them to accept a monotheistic view and... stuff. Now, I'm a Christian, which means I do believe in that one God and I think it's kinda sad that He's being excluded from this nation. BUT... I understand where they're coming from. The Constitution clearly calls for separation of church and state, which technically means that religion and government are to be kept far from each other. Therefore, by this technicality, it is unconstitutional to try to make that non-Protestant minority (last I knew) accept a religion they don't believe in. I really do understand, and I almost, ALMOST, agree with this ruling. Why don't I? Because the original purpose of the separation of church and state thing was that America would not have a national religion, as did the country our earliest settlers came from. A simple two-word line of the Pledge of Allegience, "under God", does not suggest an attempt at national religion. It was added, what, 50 or 60 years ago, and ever since it's been constitutional. Why now? I don't know. But point being, separation of church and state as guaranteed in the Constitution means that America will not force its people into a national religion. That's all. That has nothing to do with the line in the Pledge, I don't think. I mean, I don't see any Church of America sprouting up since that line came to be.
It's a lot like the Second Amendment debate - the right to bear arms. People who just like owning guns because it gives them a bit of a power rush and a boost of confidence (confidence in your ability to murder seems pretty dumb to me anyway) stand behind this amendment saying it gives Americans every right to own any firearm as they please. But they fail to remember the original purpose of the law: to defend households should some imperialistic British soldier barge in one night. Also, in those days, firearms came in a much smaller range of... stuff... than they do today. Back then they had muskets and shotguns and rifles; today we have the most advanced, deadly guns you can imagine, and anyone can get their hands on one. Yet today there's no longer any threat of the British coming in and reclaiming their colonies, so why keep a law that was written for that express purpose? Especially when guns kill sooooo many people every year, more often within the household or by some other accident than by intentional murder, which is unlawful anyway? Face it, even if that gun in your closet IS just for protection, "just in case", you're more likely to accidentally set it off or have it fall into the wrong hands and kill someone that way than to actually need it to defend yourself. Guns made for hunting are a slightly different matter, but they're still guns, and there are other ways to kill deer and squirrels if that's your only excuse.
Ok, I think I've made my point. Points. Whatever. You all know now what an irreversibly conservative bigot of a God-girl I am, and you'll hate me forever for it, so I'll shut up and go to bed now before I step on any more toes.
comment! (0)
dragged from Becky's stream of consciousness at 6/27/2002 02:31:00 AM
|
|
