All Things Controversial

For women kids are, quite simply, the reason for our existence. We live, we work, occasionally we play-- if we can sandwich it between the changing of dirty diapers--and finally we die. If there are decisions to make or a future to look forward to, it's always about the kids. If there are choices to be made about how to spend money, it's always about the kids. In fact, you could almost say that children are 'national security' for women. There's just no questioning it. If you even try, the look you receive will make finding half a bitten worm in an apple a pleasant experience.

I'm guessing there might be a few guys reading this who think I'm exaggerating. Well, I hope the vacation you've been having on that deserted tropical isle for the last 10 years has been enjoyable. Welcome back to the real world.

Let me just give a small example that should bring the point home. Suppose you find yourself in a life and death situation (doesn't matter what it is) and your wife is presented with a choice of saving you or saving her child. You know how that plays out... and don't fool yourself that she would even have to think about it. I just picked a drastic example for illustration but, the truth is, the very same attitude applies in any kind of conflict involving her children. The kids win and you lose every single time.

You can't really blame women for being that way. Well, you can but it won't do any good because her 'protect the kids' instinct has been hardwired into her brain by the last several thousand years of evolution. A child who is protected by Mom tends to survive and prosper. A guy's instinct to want to hook up with every cute girl we see is a similar gift of evolution. It's a fact. Of course that particular instinct can be derailed sometimes in the case of gay men... but that is certainly another topic.

This evolutionary difference in attitude can really cause problems in relationships. I'll be the first to admit that I'm different from most other men in some areas. For example, I hate sports but, again, that's another topic. In the area of my expectations concerning relationships with women though I expect I am very much like a lot of other guys. After you realize you aren't going to be able to have every cute girl you run into, you look for someone to share long-term sex and companionship. What you really want is someone to share your life and do the things you want to do with you.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but kids don't really come into the equation. It's all about you and the girl and your companionship and enjoying your life together. And, sometimes women can even agree with that viewpoint... before they have any kids. AFTER the kid is born, you quickly become dirt beneath her feet and the child assumes paramount importance. Which, of course, is why so many marriages fail after the first child is born.

This problematic situation leads me to believe that, in all likelihood, true happiness in a relationship can only be achieved with a woman who can't have kids. Sure, she'd be unhappy, but probably not a lot more unhappy than you are likely to be taking second (third, fourth, hundredth) place to the kids.

I'd be wasting my time talking to the followers of people like Rush Limbaugh or John Hagee about tolerance, because their whole outlook is based on rejecting anything, and anyone, who doesn't fall in line with their narrow-minded philosophy. But, for the rest of us, tolerance is usually seen as a good thing. After all, no two people are exactly alike and diversity is what makes the world more interesting. As the saying goes: 'Live and let live.'

Ah, that's where the rub comes in. Unfortunately there are those who are such extremists in their intolerance that they feel justified in killing those who are vocal enough in their disagreement. This leads me to a modified viewpoint that, of course, tolerance is a good thing and that the only thing which CANNOT be tolerated is extreme intolerance.

This may seem like an exercise in twisted logic, but it really is quite a practical viewpoint. You might think that murder instigated by a disagreement in outlook is probably exceedingly rare these days. Probably so... unless something that inspires fanaticism-- like religion-- is involved.

Consider Amsterdam, which has been, arguably, the most tolerant place on earth. People from all walks of life and many different viewpoints have been able to get along very well there-- up until a few years ago. What changed? Muslim extremists targeted filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004 killing him and driving the Somalian-born female politician/screenwriter Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who wrote the script for his anti-Islam film Submission, into virtual exile.

Suddenly tolerance (of Muslim radicals) became the thing most threatening to the continued policy of, well-- tolerance-- in Amsterdam. Which, again, shows that 'live and let live' tolerance is a wonderful thing... but it just can't apply to those who are extremely intolerant.

This can be one of those 'where do you draw the line' issues as well. A case like the above-mentioned is pretty clearcut. If a group (such as Muslim extremists) is willing to kill to prevent aspersions being cast on their beliefs then obviously they need to be neutralized somehow. Otherwise their mere presence becomes an inhibiting force. That just leaves finding a practical solution for how.

The only one I can think of would be to throw them out of the country and exercise 'extreme prejudice' if they try to return. This seems pretty intolerant, in the case of someone who has merely expressed radical views of intolerance, and probably would also be a serious violation of human rights as they are now perceived... but it seems justified to me in the case of real fanatics who are likely to take another's life because they express different beliefs.

Let me be clear. I don't dislike Muslims. I dislike extremists of any sort who would seek to harm others of different beliefs because they openly express those beliefs. I also abhor fanatics who would try to forcibly influence the opinions or actions of others even if they stop short of physically harming individuals.

In my opinion Christian extremists and those of the Radical Right pose almost as great a threat to human individuality and freedom because-- even though they don't advocate killing people for thinking differently (at least not openly, yet)-- in the long-term every action they take is designed to shoehorn the human spirit of freethinkers into the cramped and sorry box of their narrow mindedness.

So, tolerance is great: But I have zero tolerance for extreme intolerance.

One of my favorite topics is religion because there are such strong opinions about the silliest things. Take, for example, the idea-- a veritable cornerstone of Christian theology-- that the same God who rules the Old Testament with an iron fist, (here a smite, there a smite) and is frothing-at-the-mouth jealous of ANYTHING that might challenge his authority, could possibly be reconciled with that of the peace-loving turn-the-other-cheek God of the New Testament, as seen through the eyes of Jesus. Talk about your rose-colored glasses!

Just think, for a moment, what the psychiatric diagnosis of a person with such a schizophrenic disorder would be. Serious insanity. Considering all the smiting tendencies of one of the personalities, probably 'lock-them-up-and-throw-away-the-key' insanity.

Consider jealousy. Not really a nice or loving emotion, is it? In fact, a person who is jealous to the point of the Old Testament Christian deity would be-- let's face it-- a VERY immature individual you probably wouldn't want to be around. And yet, there are congregations this very minute almost certainly celebrating the fact that their god IS most exceedingly jealous! Go figure.

Yet another example of the insanity of the Christian God would be in the choice of companions He created for Himself. (That'd be us.) Since He is such a jealous God He certainly wouldn't want to create anyone close to an equal. (Heaven Forbid, He already made that mistake with the angels when Lucifer decided the possibilities of advancement were too confining.)

So, since people were so far from being equal to a godly being, apparently He deliberately decided to make mankind REALLY inferior. And, if that weren't bad enough, He also decided that gaining knowledge might eventually make up for the planned inferiority of humanity-- so he threw them out of the Garden of Eden so they wouldn't be munching any more of THOSE apple-flavored tidbits of knowledge!

Whew! Sound like fiction? Well, that's what the Bible says to me. You've got an omniscient, omnipotent being powerful enough to create the entire universe... yet petty enough to get really peeved if someone challenges His authority. Oh, yeah. I can believe that... how about you?