It's hard to believe, but I graduated from high school 25 years ago today. In many ways, it feels not that long ago; in some ways, it feels like it was a different lifetime.
Let me start off by saying that I hated high school. I went to a high school that was run by a church that we didn't attend. Having gone to Catholic school and having been picked on because I wasn't Catholic, I was looking forward to going to a school where I figured I would fit in better. How wrong I was.
I was shocked at how mean spirited and ignorant most of my classmates were. Most of the guys weren't bad; it was the girls. Some of them out downright nasty. This is NOT what I expected. I put my head down and did my work. I also had the "misfortune" to be a good student, so I got picked on almost every time I hit 100% on tests. Occasionally, the teachers held me up as an example of good behaviour and that "their" kids could learn a lesson from me. Oh, man. Did that ever do wonders for my social standing. Yes, the movie "Mean Girls" was fairly accurate. You know you were treated like crap when the most popular girl in school grabs you in a big hug at a reunion and the first thing out of her mouth is, "I'm SO sorry for how we treated you." I'll never forget that. She wasn't even, really, one of the "mean girls." She had a heart.
I was pretty lonely. I had no friends. The only people I hung out with were other "outcasts". The one time I remember ever being shown some friendship was during a school trip to Dallas in 1982. Part way through the trip, two girls took me "under their wing" and insisted that I bunk, eat, and go around Disneyland and Magic Mountain with them during the latter part of the trip. I've never forgotten that kindness, either. (I like to think it was because they wanted me to be with them and not because some teacher told them to).
It was completly opposite to my home church youth group. NO ONE there was nasty; we didn't treat outsiders that way. New friends were always welcome. At least that's how I remember it - and I'm sure that most of us from that youth group would say the same thing.
By the time I got to grade 12, the format of the curriculum and method of instruction had changed, making it easier to interact with classmates. That was when friendships started to form. Yet, once graduation happened, within a couple of years, a lot of us had lost touch with each other. I only kept in touch with one, but that was sporadic and we'd sometimes go for years without talking to each other.
Recently, I've reconnected with some of the people I went to high school with. Some of them I welcomed back to my life, others more reluctantly so. It's not that I judged them by what they were 25 plus years ago (as I certainly wouldn't want to be), it's just that other than the fact we went to the same school, there wasn't anything to talk about. Even then, our perspectives on the school would probably be quite different.
I look back at the intervening years and wonder, "So, what did I accomplish?" Sadly, I don't see a lot to be proud of. Because I lacked any self-confidence, I never went to university. That was because I was scared of math. Little did anyone know that I had a physicial disability that caused me to struggle with it. Yet, because I was good at everything else, it was swept under the carpet. I don't blame the school for that. No one would have known. I'm just sad that it wasn't caught early, for it would have made a huge difference in my life.
So, I guess today is a day to remember and look back, and also to "go home and rethink my life" to see if there is yet time to accomplish something I can look back at the end of my life and be proud of.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
Who's Afraid of The Big Bad Truth?
I remember getting warned in high school about studying the Bible outside the mainstream church. Studying it at university was bad because university was filled with arrogant intellectuals who would pick apart the Bible and try to cause people to lose their faith. And I believed it.
As I've said before, I was a mainstream christian who thought the Bible was inerrant, etc. etc. etc. until nine years ago when my faith was destroyed. In case you want to know a bit more, you can find more details on the story here.
After I'd walked away from mainstream christianity, the words from an old Amy Grant song had new meaning for me:
Recently, I've come to debate certain issues relating to the Bible truth with certain mainstream christians. Let's just say that these people come from a background that considers their denomination as "theology for the rest of us." In other words, the... um... not too intelligent. I'm not going to name the denomination, but it relies on a lot of "signs and wonders" there's a lot of "flash and boom" and "talking in tongues." I think you can read between the lines. When you try to point out that there are two different stories about Judas' death, two versions of the story of Jesus raising Jairus' daughter, two lists of Jesus' ancestry, they don't listen. One is told that anyone that dares to suggest such things is arrogant, deceived by logical sounding lies and that “the heart of all Biblical challenge is spiritual unbelief, not intellectual incompatibility, though the latter is often sited and held onto for dear life, ironic as that is, by those who professing themselves to be wise have become fools.”
This attitude bothers me. I consider myself a seeker, especially a seeker after truth. I want to know who Jesus is. There's a lot of details missing in the Bible about him, and I want to know as much as I possibly can. Is there anything wrong with that? I'm a very curious person and I want to know - not so I can say I'm smarter than anyone. I just want to know.
I have now come to appreciate those scholars at universities who write and teach on the subject of religious studies. One is Bart D. Ehrman, a graduate of Moody Bible Institute and was (In his own words) "a committed Bible believing christian" and was "certain that the Bible, down to its very words, had been inspired by God. Maybe that’s what drove my intense study… Surely knowing them intimately was the most important thing in life.” Does this sound like someone that's looking for contradictions, or a sincere seeker? Another is John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Bishop of Newark for many years before his retirement. Another is Elaine Pagels from Princeton University, an expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ms. Pagels has seen her fair share of tragedy, losing a young son. These are NOT scary people. In fact, they sound like seekers to me. My kind of people: intelligent seekers.
These are people that have gone through the Bible meticulously and some of them have come out with things that don't quite fit with the message that's preached by mainstream christianity. Bart Ehrman has pointed out some very interesting contradictions in his book, "Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them." None of these contradictions should be dismised lightly. They should be taken seriously. One thing that deeply disturbs me is the allegation that most seminaries now teach that Paul did not write all the epistles that are attributed to him. For example, it's well known in (most) seminaries that Paul didn't write I and II Timothy. Other people wrote those letters in his name. Yet, these pastors never tell their congregations that. That sounds like fraud to me.
So, who are the arrogant ones? The ones that refuse to listen to the facts, and open their eyes because they're frightened at what they might find, or is it those who are seeking? Personally, I think it's the former. I know that know-it-all attitude, for I, too, once thought that I knew all the answers and that anything that disagreed with the Bible was wrong and couldn't stand up to scrutiny. Isn't it arrogant to think you can't learn something from someone you may not agree with?
The beginning of wisdom is to admit you don't know. That's the place I come from. I admit that there is a LOT I don't know. Like everyone else, I have some pet theories about Jesus, but I'm also open to the idea that I might be wrong on some things. Everything I read influences me. How is that arrogant? I really hate the idea of being ignorant, and I think God gave us brains for a purpose - to use them. I consider education very important. I would rather know the truth - even if it hurts and disturbs my comfortable worldview than be misled. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
So, who are the arrogant ones? The know-it-alls, or the seekers who aren't afraid to challenge their boundaries?
May God guide us all in our pursuit of truth.
As I've said before, I was a mainstream christian who thought the Bible was inerrant, etc. etc. etc. until nine years ago when my faith was destroyed. In case you want to know a bit more, you can find more details on the story here.
After I'd walked away from mainstream christianity, the words from an old Amy Grant song had new meaning for me:
"All of my friends are happy to stay here in this yard day after day
But something inside me has called me away.
I don't understand but I know I can't stay...
'Cause I have felt for the first time
I can be myself
No more faces to hide behind
Just a smile and a dream that's mine
Even if I am the only one who wants to fly"
Recently, I've come to debate certain issues relating to the Bible truth with certain mainstream christians. Let's just say that these people come from a background that considers their denomination as "theology for the rest of us." In other words, the... um... not too intelligent. I'm not going to name the denomination, but it relies on a lot of "signs and wonders" there's a lot of "flash and boom" and "talking in tongues." I think you can read between the lines. When you try to point out that there are two different stories about Judas' death, two versions of the story of Jesus raising Jairus' daughter, two lists of Jesus' ancestry, they don't listen. One is told that anyone that dares to suggest such things is arrogant, deceived by logical sounding lies and that “the heart of all Biblical challenge is spiritual unbelief, not intellectual incompatibility, though the latter is often sited and held onto for dear life, ironic as that is, by those who professing themselves to be wise have become fools.”
This attitude bothers me. I consider myself a seeker, especially a seeker after truth. I want to know who Jesus is. There's a lot of details missing in the Bible about him, and I want to know as much as I possibly can. Is there anything wrong with that? I'm a very curious person and I want to know - not so I can say I'm smarter than anyone. I just want to know.
I have now come to appreciate those scholars at universities who write and teach on the subject of religious studies. One is Bart D. Ehrman, a graduate of Moody Bible Institute and was (In his own words) "a committed Bible believing christian" and was "certain that the Bible, down to its very words, had been inspired by God. Maybe that’s what drove my intense study… Surely knowing them intimately was the most important thing in life.” Does this sound like someone that's looking for contradictions, or a sincere seeker? Another is John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Bishop of Newark for many years before his retirement. Another is Elaine Pagels from Princeton University, an expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ms. Pagels has seen her fair share of tragedy, losing a young son. These are NOT scary people. In fact, they sound like seekers to me. My kind of people: intelligent seekers.
These are people that have gone through the Bible meticulously and some of them have come out with things that don't quite fit with the message that's preached by mainstream christianity. Bart Ehrman has pointed out some very interesting contradictions in his book, "Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them." None of these contradictions should be dismised lightly. They should be taken seriously. One thing that deeply disturbs me is the allegation that most seminaries now teach that Paul did not write all the epistles that are attributed to him. For example, it's well known in (most) seminaries that Paul didn't write I and II Timothy. Other people wrote those letters in his name. Yet, these pastors never tell their congregations that. That sounds like fraud to me.
So, who are the arrogant ones? The ones that refuse to listen to the facts, and open their eyes because they're frightened at what they might find, or is it those who are seeking? Personally, I think it's the former. I know that know-it-all attitude, for I, too, once thought that I knew all the answers and that anything that disagreed with the Bible was wrong and couldn't stand up to scrutiny. Isn't it arrogant to think you can't learn something from someone you may not agree with?
The beginning of wisdom is to admit you don't know. That's the place I come from. I admit that there is a LOT I don't know. Like everyone else, I have some pet theories about Jesus, but I'm also open to the idea that I might be wrong on some things. Everything I read influences me. How is that arrogant? I really hate the idea of being ignorant, and I think God gave us brains for a purpose - to use them. I consider education very important. I would rather know the truth - even if it hurts and disturbs my comfortable worldview than be misled. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
So, who are the arrogant ones? The know-it-alls, or the seekers who aren't afraid to challenge their boundaries?
May God guide us all in our pursuit of truth.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Three Visions of Grace
I posted a couple of months ago about "Amazing Grace". Grace is one of those things that it may be hard to put into words, but you know it when you see it - and when you don't. Here are some of my favourite visualizations of grace.
One of my favourites is a scene in the movie "Gone With the Wind". It's the scene were Scarlett shows up at Ashley's birthday party. Scarlett wasn't going to go, as gossip had ripped through the town earlier that afternoon regarding Scarlett and Ashley. Rhett makes Scarlett attend the party, and leaves her at Melanie and Ashley's front door to "enter the arena alone". Scarlett stands there proudly and haughtily, daring the gossip mongers to say something. Melanie breaks through the crowd and marches directly to Scarlett. There is a moment's tension: what will she do? Will she slap Scarlett across the face? Order her out of her home? No. She kisses Scarlett on the cheek, and welcomes her, saying, "Scarlett, darling. What a lovely dress." There is a moment of confusion on Scarlett's face. This was not what she expected. It was grace.
Another favourite is in "The Mists of Avalon" mini-series. King Arthur's wife, Gwenwyfar, a christian, never really trusted her sister-in-law, Arthur's sister, Morgaine. Morgaine was a follower of the Goddess, and in Gwenwyfar's eyes, a witch. Gwenwyfar had even gone so far as to manipulate a marriage for Morgaine in order to remove Morgaine from Arthur's court. Fleeing for her life after she's been caught with Lancelot, Gwenwyfar returns to the convent at Glastonbury where she had been before she married Arthur. Morgaine is also in the convent, and when she sees her sister-in-law, she doesn't hesitate. She embraces Gwenwyfar and welcomes her to her new home. The past was forgiven and forgotten. It was grace.
I found another one tonight - and it made me tear up.
Recently, I've discovered a new favourite tv program: "Glee". Being musical and being an awkward outcast in high school, I love it. Most (if not all) of the kids in McKinley High's glee club are social outcasts; they aren't cool. None of them have friends outside of glee club. They have to stick together and stick up for each other. There's a lot of grace on that show.
There's one character, Quinn, who is pregnant. She was a cheerleader until she got kicked off the squad due to her condition. She's also president of the abstinency club and she's too scared to tell her parents that she's expecting. When Quinn's parents (who are church-going christians) find out, they throw Quinn out of the house. "What went wrong? We raised you right. Who are you?" her father asks. With tears in her eyes, Quinn says, "I'm your daughter who loves you and I need my Daddy to hug me and tell me everything is going to be all right." Both parents walk out of the room. Quinn and her boyfrined, Finn (who thinks he's the baby's father) go to Finn's house. When Finn tells his mother that Quinn's parents have thrown her out, he asks if Quinn can stay there. Without a moment's hesitation, Finn's Mom hugs Quinn and says, "Of course". It was grace. Knowing that Quinn and Finn (who came up with that name combo?) are going through a rough time, the glee club expresses their feelings of friendship and support for them in a rendition of "Lean on Me". It was grace.
Why is it that in two of these three stories, it's the christians/church goers who just don't get grace? Is it because they've never "lived" and fallen down and scraped their knees? Perhaps, is it possible, they've *gasp* never been truly confronted with it, and if they did, they'd be confused - like Scarlett was. If Melanie had flown into a rage at Scarlett, or been icy cold, Scarlett would have understood and known how to deal with it. She was so haunted by Melanie's actions that she went home and paced the floor for hours. In Rhett's words, "So she stood by you, did she? How does it feel to have the woman you loathe cloak your sins?" I love the phrase, "cloak your sins" as that is what grace is: a mantle, a cloak, something to keep you warm.
One of my favourites is a scene in the movie "Gone With the Wind". It's the scene were Scarlett shows up at Ashley's birthday party. Scarlett wasn't going to go, as gossip had ripped through the town earlier that afternoon regarding Scarlett and Ashley. Rhett makes Scarlett attend the party, and leaves her at Melanie and Ashley's front door to "enter the arena alone". Scarlett stands there proudly and haughtily, daring the gossip mongers to say something. Melanie breaks through the crowd and marches directly to Scarlett. There is a moment's tension: what will she do? Will she slap Scarlett across the face? Order her out of her home? No. She kisses Scarlett on the cheek, and welcomes her, saying, "Scarlett, darling. What a lovely dress." There is a moment of confusion on Scarlett's face. This was not what she expected. It was grace.
Another favourite is in "The Mists of Avalon" mini-series. King Arthur's wife, Gwenwyfar, a christian, never really trusted her sister-in-law, Arthur's sister, Morgaine. Morgaine was a follower of the Goddess, and in Gwenwyfar's eyes, a witch. Gwenwyfar had even gone so far as to manipulate a marriage for Morgaine in order to remove Morgaine from Arthur's court. Fleeing for her life after she's been caught with Lancelot, Gwenwyfar returns to the convent at Glastonbury where she had been before she married Arthur. Morgaine is also in the convent, and when she sees her sister-in-law, she doesn't hesitate. She embraces Gwenwyfar and welcomes her to her new home. The past was forgiven and forgotten. It was grace.
I found another one tonight - and it made me tear up.
Recently, I've discovered a new favourite tv program: "Glee". Being musical and being an awkward outcast in high school, I love it. Most (if not all) of the kids in McKinley High's glee club are social outcasts; they aren't cool. None of them have friends outside of glee club. They have to stick together and stick up for each other. There's a lot of grace on that show.
There's one character, Quinn, who is pregnant. She was a cheerleader until she got kicked off the squad due to her condition. She's also president of the abstinency club and she's too scared to tell her parents that she's expecting. When Quinn's parents (who are church-going christians) find out, they throw Quinn out of the house. "What went wrong? We raised you right. Who are you?" her father asks. With tears in her eyes, Quinn says, "I'm your daughter who loves you and I need my Daddy to hug me and tell me everything is going to be all right." Both parents walk out of the room. Quinn and her boyfrined, Finn (who thinks he's the baby's father) go to Finn's house. When Finn tells his mother that Quinn's parents have thrown her out, he asks if Quinn can stay there. Without a moment's hesitation, Finn's Mom hugs Quinn and says, "Of course". It was grace. Knowing that Quinn and Finn (who came up with that name combo?) are going through a rough time, the glee club expresses their feelings of friendship and support for them in a rendition of "Lean on Me". It was grace.
Why is it that in two of these three stories, it's the christians/church goers who just don't get grace? Is it because they've never "lived" and fallen down and scraped their knees? Perhaps, is it possible, they've *gasp* never been truly confronted with it, and if they did, they'd be confused - like Scarlett was. If Melanie had flown into a rage at Scarlett, or been icy cold, Scarlett would have understood and known how to deal with it. She was so haunted by Melanie's actions that she went home and paced the floor for hours. In Rhett's words, "So she stood by you, did she? How does it feel to have the woman you loathe cloak your sins?" I love the phrase, "cloak your sins" as that is what grace is: a mantle, a cloak, something to keep you warm.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
It's Oscar Night in Hollywood
Well, it's that time of the year again when Hollywood hands out the hardware. As in past years, I'm going out on a limb and predicting tonight's winners in some of the major categories:
Best Picture: Avatar;
Best Animated Feature: Up
Best Actor: Jeff Bridges;
Best Actress: Sandra Bullock (even though I'm hoping Meryl Streep wins);
Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz;
Best Supporting Actress: Mo'nique;
Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow.
Best Special effects: Avatar
Best original score: Up
Best Costume Design: The Young Victoria;
I'll update this post later to see how I did, and my impressions of the show.
Edited to add:
Well, with one exception, my predicitons were bang on. I was wrong in the best picture category, as The Hurt Locker won. I haven't seen it yet, but I knew it was Avatar's biggest competitor in the best picture race. I agree with the awards that Avatar did win: special effects, cinematography and art direction. Those were its strong points. (even though, personally, I thought the art direction in Sherlock Holmes was excellent and would probably have voted for it or The Young Victoria).
I missed hearing the nominated songs being performed. I generally enjoy those. I wasn't overly impressed with the dancers performing during the performance of the nominees for best original score. I didn't feel they added anything to the music; in fact, I found them distracting. Glad to see Up win for best animated feature and score. I *loved* that movie.
Though I really enjoyed Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side, I still think that Meryl Streep was robbed. She was fantastic as Julia Child. I didn't care for Mo'nique's acceptance speech: "I would like to thank the Academy for showing that it can be about the performance and not the politics." Um, you just DID make it political.
Best dressed list: Sandra Bullock, Cameron Diaz (surprise, surprise!), Anna Kendrick. I liked Rachel McAdams' and Kristen Stewart's dresses, but not their hair. I liked Sarah Jessica Parker's dress and hair, but not her makeup (looked like it was sprayed on). Another pleasant surprise was Jennifer Lopez.
Dresses/ensembles I didn't like: Maggie Gyllenhal, Miley Cyrus, Nicole Richie, and Charlize Theron (what *were* those things that looked like they were grabbing her breasts, cupcakes?). I didn't like all the fruff of the bottom half of Zoe Saldana's dress, either. Made her look like a Zigfeld girl.
Best Picture: Avatar;
Best Animated Feature: Up
Best Actor: Jeff Bridges;
Best Actress: Sandra Bullock (even though I'm hoping Meryl Streep wins);
Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz;
Best Supporting Actress: Mo'nique;
Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow.
Best Special effects: Avatar
Best original score: Up
Best Costume Design: The Young Victoria;
I'll update this post later to see how I did, and my impressions of the show.
Edited to add:
Well, with one exception, my predicitons were bang on. I was wrong in the best picture category, as The Hurt Locker won. I haven't seen it yet, but I knew it was Avatar's biggest competitor in the best picture race. I agree with the awards that Avatar did win: special effects, cinematography and art direction. Those were its strong points. (even though, personally, I thought the art direction in Sherlock Holmes was excellent and would probably have voted for it or The Young Victoria).
I missed hearing the nominated songs being performed. I generally enjoy those. I wasn't overly impressed with the dancers performing during the performance of the nominees for best original score. I didn't feel they added anything to the music; in fact, I found them distracting. Glad to see Up win for best animated feature and score. I *loved* that movie.
Though I really enjoyed Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side, I still think that Meryl Streep was robbed. She was fantastic as Julia Child. I didn't care for Mo'nique's acceptance speech: "I would like to thank the Academy for showing that it can be about the performance and not the politics." Um, you just DID make it political.
Best dressed list: Sandra Bullock, Cameron Diaz (surprise, surprise!), Anna Kendrick. I liked Rachel McAdams' and Kristen Stewart's dresses, but not their hair. I liked Sarah Jessica Parker's dress and hair, but not her makeup (looked like it was sprayed on). Another pleasant surprise was Jennifer Lopez.
Dresses/ensembles I didn't like: Maggie Gyllenhal, Miley Cyrus, Nicole Richie, and Charlize Theron (what *were* those things that looked like they were grabbing her breasts, cupcakes?). I didn't like all the fruff of the bottom half of Zoe Saldana's dress, either. Made her look like a Zigfeld girl.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Something has changed...
When I was growing up, Canada always sucked at the Olympics. It seems we came in third - at best - to either the USSR or the US. It seemed that we couldn't compete with the best in the world. And we accepted it, or at least seemed to.
Now things have changed. Ever since the Calgary Olympics in 1988, Canadian medal counts have slowly gone up. The only thing that was missing was an olympic gold medal won in Canada. This time, in Vancouver, everyone knew it would be different. It wasn't "if" a Canadian athlete would win a gold medal, it was a question of who and when. Thankfully, we didn't have to wait long. Alexandre Bilodeau won his gold medal on the second day of competition. The whole nation rejoiced. Our embarressing legacy of being the only host country not to win a gold medal was over. Bilodeau predicted that more would follow. By the end of the first week of the games, Canada had nine medals - at least one per day. There were those who criticized this, saying it wasn't good enough. I was happy - as I remember a final total of five or six medals for the whole games.
Then, the floodgates opened: the women's hockey team won gold, two gold medals and a bronze in men's short-track, a silver in women's curling, followed by a gold in men's curling. The crown jewel awaited: the men's hockey. In some ways, no matter how many gold medals were won, if this one eluded Canada, it would be disappointing.
The men didn't make it easy on themselves, getting by Switzerland in a shootout and losing to the US in round one. We waited nervously with bated breath to see what they would do against the Russians. Turns out, we needn't have worried. It was a rout: 7-3 Canada. Next up were the Slovakians. After going up 3-0, Slovakia got two late goals in the dying minutes, and Canada hung on to advance to the gold medal game against the US. Once again, the men kept a nation in suspence: after going up 2-0, the US tied it in the third period, and it went to over-time. Thankfully, it was settled quickly. Sidney Crosby was the hero and scoring seven minutes into it. For the second time in three Olympics, Canada was double gold medal winners in hockey. The nation went nuts. It was delirious. By the end of the games, we won 26 medals, our best haul over - and 14 of those were gold - a record for *any* country.
Canadians are quiet patriots. We aren't pushy about it. Yet, you could sense in the air with this Olympics - even before the opening ceremonies - that there was something special about to happen. There were splashes of red and white all over: flags waving from cars, homes and office buildings, people dressed in red and white, etc. We just needed the occassion to show it off, that's all.
We've changed these last three weeks. We are no longer meek and mild and just happy to be invited to the big dance. We are now fiercely competitive and can definitely say that we can compete with the best. The days of Canada sucking are long gone.
Thank you, Canadian Olympians. You made us all proud.
Now things have changed. Ever since the Calgary Olympics in 1988, Canadian medal counts have slowly gone up. The only thing that was missing was an olympic gold medal won in Canada. This time, in Vancouver, everyone knew it would be different. It wasn't "if" a Canadian athlete would win a gold medal, it was a question of who and when. Thankfully, we didn't have to wait long. Alexandre Bilodeau won his gold medal on the second day of competition. The whole nation rejoiced. Our embarressing legacy of being the only host country not to win a gold medal was over. Bilodeau predicted that more would follow. By the end of the first week of the games, Canada had nine medals - at least one per day. There were those who criticized this, saying it wasn't good enough. I was happy - as I remember a final total of five or six medals for the whole games.
Then, the floodgates opened: the women's hockey team won gold, two gold medals and a bronze in men's short-track, a silver in women's curling, followed by a gold in men's curling. The crown jewel awaited: the men's hockey. In some ways, no matter how many gold medals were won, if this one eluded Canada, it would be disappointing.
The men didn't make it easy on themselves, getting by Switzerland in a shootout and losing to the US in round one. We waited nervously with bated breath to see what they would do against the Russians. Turns out, we needn't have worried. It was a rout: 7-3 Canada. Next up were the Slovakians. After going up 3-0, Slovakia got two late goals in the dying minutes, and Canada hung on to advance to the gold medal game against the US. Once again, the men kept a nation in suspence: after going up 2-0, the US tied it in the third period, and it went to over-time. Thankfully, it was settled quickly. Sidney Crosby was the hero and scoring seven minutes into it. For the second time in three Olympics, Canada was double gold medal winners in hockey. The nation went nuts. It was delirious. By the end of the games, we won 26 medals, our best haul over - and 14 of those were gold - a record for *any* country.
Canadians are quiet patriots. We aren't pushy about it. Yet, you could sense in the air with this Olympics - even before the opening ceremonies - that there was something special about to happen. There were splashes of red and white all over: flags waving from cars, homes and office buildings, people dressed in red and white, etc. We just needed the occassion to show it off, that's all.
We've changed these last three weeks. We are no longer meek and mild and just happy to be invited to the big dance. We are now fiercely competitive and can definitely say that we can compete with the best. The days of Canada sucking are long gone.
Thank you, Canadian Olympians. You made us all proud.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
An Olympic Moment
I love the Olympics. Whenever they are on - summer or winter - I try to watch as much as I can. It's rather odd, as I'm not a sporty person. I always sucked at sports. I figure skated as a kid, but failed my second badge as I couldn't perform a certain manuever for the required amount of distance on the ice. Thus ended my Olympic dreams. Pity, as I would have been the perfect size for a pairs skater.
Every now and then, you come across a moment at the Olympics that really epitomizes what it's all about - the true Olympic spirit. Tonight was one of those nights. Tonight was the free dance segment of the ice dancing competition. The Canadian team of Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir were in the leading heading into tonight's competion. Their closest rivals were the American team of Meryl Davis and Charlie White. Turns out the teams train together and are the best of friends. White and Davis skated first to the music of "Phantom of the Opera." They laid down the proverbial gauntlet and skated a fantastic routine. They received excellent marks, with a slight deduction as one of their lifts was too long (like anyone other than the judges would have caught that). Then came Virue and Moir. They were magical and skated flawlessly. The look on their faces at the end of their routine was priceless. He could be seen saying, "I love you so much" to her. Canada held its collective breath. Would their marks be enough to move them into first place with two teams left to skate? Yes!
CTV hypothesized that the two teams had performed so well that perhaps double gold medals might be in order. When it was all decided, Virtue and Moir were first, Davis and White, second and the Russian team of Domnina and Shabalin were third. It was a historic night as no North American team had ever won gold in ice dancing before. While being interviewed backstage after the win by CTV, Virtue and Moir were interupted by Davis and White who came by to say "Hi!" and then proceeded to hug, kiss, and congratulate them. They were genuinely happy for their rivals. Apparently at some point they said, "We're so proud of you." Wow. The feelings were reciprocated, as Moir told CTV that they were proud of Davis and White and, "without them... we wouldn't be here." During the medal presentation both teams were glowing and very excited with their medals. The skating and the conduct of all four skaters impressed me. After the medals had been handed out, the teams went for a victory skate. I felt slighly embarressed for the Russian team as they were the only team that didn't have a flag to skate with.
It's good to see that sometimes at the Olympics, the Olympic spirit does, indeed, shine through. Congratulations to both Virtue and Moir and Davis and White. All four of you are a credit to your families, your countries and your sport. I wish both teams well and I look forward to watching them skate for many years to come.
Every now and then, you come across a moment at the Olympics that really epitomizes what it's all about - the true Olympic spirit. Tonight was one of those nights. Tonight was the free dance segment of the ice dancing competition. The Canadian team of Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir were in the leading heading into tonight's competion. Their closest rivals were the American team of Meryl Davis and Charlie White. Turns out the teams train together and are the best of friends. White and Davis skated first to the music of "Phantom of the Opera." They laid down the proverbial gauntlet and skated a fantastic routine. They received excellent marks, with a slight deduction as one of their lifts was too long (like anyone other than the judges would have caught that). Then came Virue and Moir. They were magical and skated flawlessly. The look on their faces at the end of their routine was priceless. He could be seen saying, "I love you so much" to her. Canada held its collective breath. Would their marks be enough to move them into first place with two teams left to skate? Yes!
CTV hypothesized that the two teams had performed so well that perhaps double gold medals might be in order. When it was all decided, Virtue and Moir were first, Davis and White, second and the Russian team of Domnina and Shabalin were third. It was a historic night as no North American team had ever won gold in ice dancing before. While being interviewed backstage after the win by CTV, Virtue and Moir were interupted by Davis and White who came by to say "Hi!" and then proceeded to hug, kiss, and congratulate them. They were genuinely happy for their rivals. Apparently at some point they said, "We're so proud of you." Wow. The feelings were reciprocated, as Moir told CTV that they were proud of Davis and White and, "without them... we wouldn't be here." During the medal presentation both teams were glowing and very excited with their medals. The skating and the conduct of all four skaters impressed me. After the medals had been handed out, the teams went for a victory skate. I felt slighly embarressed for the Russian team as they were the only team that didn't have a flag to skate with.
It's good to see that sometimes at the Olympics, the Olympic spirit does, indeed, shine through. Congratulations to both Virtue and Moir and Davis and White. All four of you are a credit to your families, your countries and your sport. I wish both teams well and I look forward to watching them skate for many years to come.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Truth vs. The Lesson
Recently, I was sent a youtube video called, "This will make us all think" and an invitation to join a group called "Keeping Christ in the Classroom" ("KCITC"). This person also posted it in a public place where other people could see it. You can see it here, and the group that posted it. I hate to ask this, but I'd encourage you not to watch the video and give them the readership in order to inflate both their numbers and their egos. I'll provide a link to the complete story in the next paragraph. I'd heard the story years ago; this was nothing new, but alarm bells went off in my mind because the story claimed that the events happend "recently". Me, being me, I went to snopes.com - that great debunker of urban myths and legends. It's a great resource for checking out all those stories that you come across on the internet.
Just as I thought: It's false. They had the story posted there with different variations. It's nothing but an urban legend. I hit the roof; I was so angry.
I was angry that this KCITC would post such a story without either (a) checking their facts or, (b) posting this propaganda knowing it was myth and legend in order to further their cause, which is a blatant violation of the separation between Church and State and a violation of the U.S. constitution and is illegal. If you want Christ in the classroom, send your children to christian school. Either that, or home school them. Your choice. There is room for both secular and relgious education in this society. Even if you agree that Christ should be in the classroom, don't you want your viewpoint represented by solid facts and not urban legend? The fact that they would use myth and legend to propagate their illegal agenda just made me livid with rage because most christian people wouldn't even bother to check the story; they'd just blindly accept it.
Let me define what I mean by myth and legend. Merriam-Webster describes myth as: a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society. It's a belief not facts. Legend they define as: a story coming down from the past; especially : one popularly regarded as historical although not verifiable. In this case, the story is insupportable. I don't mean to say that myths are lies just because they didn't happen. They are just stories and often there is a moral or lesson to them. They are that: just stories.
I let the person know that forwarded this story and invited me to join this KCITC (obviously she hadn't even bothered to read my blog, or she'd know where I stood on such things) that this was just legend and guess what I was told? It didn't' matter. It was the lesson that was important - standing up for what one believed. Several other people chimed in the same. Not one other person had an issue with it. I couldn't believe it. If the story was told as an anecdote or prefaced with, "There is a story about a professor..." but it wasn't. It was told as an actual event that happened USC.
I was told that this was no different than a movie or a novel where the lesson was what was imporant. I disagree. Novels and movies often have disclaimers stating that "This is a work of fiction. Any resemblance between the characters or actual events is mere coincidence." Or, if the story is based on actual events, they will say certain parts of the story/dialogue were changed for dramatic purposes. There is NO such disclaimer here. Jesus spoke in parables, but he didn't try and pass the stories off as actually having happened - and his audience knew that.
I was told that "I once knew the truth" and that I'd been "deceived by a logical sounding lie." Yet, I've done far more research, reading and study on all these topics than the lot of that group put together. In any other field, I'd be regarded as an amateur expert and my knowledge taken seriously. But not when religion's myths are exposed as just that and people's worldviews are in jeopardy. No way. Then it's me who's in the wrong.
I posted again asking the people that had responded saying they were fine with the story being just a lesson, "Which one of you would have checked this out? I bet you none of you would have. You would have just accepted this as fact if it hadn't been for me doing some research". Do I get any thanks? No. Guess what? I got an email entitled "enough venom spitting" and the thread was deleted - with the exception of the original post. This person obviously isn't interested in truth or rational discussion but simply propagation.
I love the hypocrisy of KCITC's statement, "...if we simply have faith and one person stands up for him. There is a lot of power in faith and we need to keep it strong so that when people do try to break it we can hold on". I seem to be one of the only ones that's interested in standing up truth against these devious manipulators.
This really bothers me. Deeply. On many levels. First, that KCITC is using myth and urban legend to affect public policy. If that's the best they have as evidence, they shouldn't be taken seriously. Any judge would dismiss this in court. Second, that when the story is exposed as urban legend that it doesn't bother people. Third, that someone would shut down a discussion leaving the story in place without the disclaimer that the story is just legend thereby helping propagate this myth leading others to believe it's true.
So who is right? Is it important to expose things like this as myth and urban legend that are told as historical events when the group telling the story is using it for political ends, or is it the lesson that's important? I'd really like to think I'm not the only one who thinks the way I do.
Just as I thought: It's false. They had the story posted there with different variations. It's nothing but an urban legend. I hit the roof; I was so angry.
I was angry that this KCITC would post such a story without either (a) checking their facts or, (b) posting this propaganda knowing it was myth and legend in order to further their cause, which is a blatant violation of the separation between Church and State and a violation of the U.S. constitution and is illegal. If you want Christ in the classroom, send your children to christian school. Either that, or home school them. Your choice. There is room for both secular and relgious education in this society. Even if you agree that Christ should be in the classroom, don't you want your viewpoint represented by solid facts and not urban legend? The fact that they would use myth and legend to propagate their illegal agenda just made me livid with rage because most christian people wouldn't even bother to check the story; they'd just blindly accept it.
Let me define what I mean by myth and legend. Merriam-Webster describes myth as: a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society. It's a belief not facts. Legend they define as: a story coming down from the past; especially : one popularly regarded as historical although not verifiable. In this case, the story is insupportable. I don't mean to say that myths are lies just because they didn't happen. They are just stories and often there is a moral or lesson to them. They are that: just stories.
I let the person know that forwarded this story and invited me to join this KCITC (obviously she hadn't even bothered to read my blog, or she'd know where I stood on such things) that this was just legend and guess what I was told? It didn't' matter. It was the lesson that was important - standing up for what one believed. Several other people chimed in the same. Not one other person had an issue with it. I couldn't believe it. If the story was told as an anecdote or prefaced with, "There is a story about a professor..." but it wasn't. It was told as an actual event that happened USC.
I was told that this was no different than a movie or a novel where the lesson was what was imporant. I disagree. Novels and movies often have disclaimers stating that "This is a work of fiction. Any resemblance between the characters or actual events is mere coincidence." Or, if the story is based on actual events, they will say certain parts of the story/dialogue were changed for dramatic purposes. There is NO such disclaimer here. Jesus spoke in parables, but he didn't try and pass the stories off as actually having happened - and his audience knew that.
I was told that "I once knew the truth" and that I'd been "deceived by a logical sounding lie." Yet, I've done far more research, reading and study on all these topics than the lot of that group put together. In any other field, I'd be regarded as an amateur expert and my knowledge taken seriously. But not when religion's myths are exposed as just that and people's worldviews are in jeopardy. No way. Then it's me who's in the wrong.
I posted again asking the people that had responded saying they were fine with the story being just a lesson, "Which one of you would have checked this out? I bet you none of you would have. You would have just accepted this as fact if it hadn't been for me doing some research". Do I get any thanks? No. Guess what? I got an email entitled "enough venom spitting" and the thread was deleted - with the exception of the original post. This person obviously isn't interested in truth or rational discussion but simply propagation.
I love the hypocrisy of KCITC's statement, "...if we simply have faith and one person stands up for him. There is a lot of power in faith and we need to keep it strong so that when people do try to break it we can hold on". I seem to be one of the only ones that's interested in standing up truth against these devious manipulators.
This really bothers me. Deeply. On many levels. First, that KCITC is using myth and urban legend to affect public policy. If that's the best they have as evidence, they shouldn't be taken seriously. Any judge would dismiss this in court. Second, that when the story is exposed as urban legend that it doesn't bother people. Third, that someone would shut down a discussion leaving the story in place without the disclaimer that the story is just legend thereby helping propagate this myth leading others to believe it's true.
So who is right? Is it important to expose things like this as myth and urban legend that are told as historical events when the group telling the story is using it for political ends, or is it the lesson that's important? I'd really like to think I'm not the only one who thinks the way I do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)