le blog rliamo144 par : Liam

So OverBlog tells me that I've had 36 unique visitors... of course, this being a French website, I'm not sure how many of those visitors have actually read any of my articles.   At any rate, my following article may challenge people from two different directions.... I'm going to talk about my take on morality.

Okay, so I've previously said that I am a Christian.  That means I value very much the teachings of Jesus and I use Christian teachings as the basis of my morality.  Upon recent reflection, I've come up with three things that I question about Christian morality, but I will get to that later.  First I want to talk about why I think Christian morality is valuable (besides the fact that I believe Jesus is the Son of God)

Some people out there are moral relativists.  With all due respect, if you are a moral relativist, you're wrong.  There are many arguments I could throw in here, but this is not the basis of my article... basically, morality would be meaningless if it was relative and so how would you react if someone killed your mother.  A lot of people criticise Christian morality.... but let's take a look at exactly what Jesus teaches (please note, that I'm using the teachings of Christ as the basis of Christian morality, and not Old Testament legalistic strucutres).  Some things are obvious.... I think that most people would agree that murder, stealing and lying are all totally wrong in that they cause major problems for society.  In fact, one of the basic cornerstones of Jesus' morality is what's known as the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have done unto you".... this is logical on so many levels.  Think about it: don't you prefer it when people treat you with respect?  Well if you prefer being treated with respect, then chances are your neighbour does too.... so, make it easier for the both of you!  Jesus also teaches humility, which I think also goes along with respecting other people.  Also, the fact is, we are all humans.  We are all inherently flawed, we all defecate, we all make mistakes and we all will eventually succumb to death.  We ought to recognise that we aren't any better than anyone else, and we ought to act that way.  Jesus also teaches against greed and materialism.  Well, I've already talked about how many of society's problems could be reduced if people weren't so greedy.  Physical objects can at best provide temporary or articifial feelings of pleasure, whereas resources otherwise used to atain such objects could be used to feed those who can't afford it otherwise.  Jesus also teaches against promiscuity.... and once again, SO many social ills would be solved if it weren't for people sleeping around.  Think about it: there'd be no more unwanted teenage pregnancy, single mothers and the outbreak of STDs would be GREATLY reduced.  The point is, these rules aren't just an arbitrary set of guidelines meant to take away our fun.... they are for our own benefit!

As I mentioned before, there are three things that I have yet to figure out why they are considered bad (or if they are considered bad).  The first is homosexuality.  It seems that homosexuality is quite explicitly condemned several times in the Bible.  But, why?  The fact is, contrary to what many Christians think, homosexuality is NOT a mental illness, and for the most part, it is NOT a choice.  Some people are simplly made to have an attraction for members of the same sex.  Some people choose to act on this attraction and some people don't.... but the point is, a percentage of individuals DO have this so-called devient mindset.  I sincerely believe that God made certain people like that.... but, why, if He would only condemn them?  This is not a question I can answer.... I can think of two possibile solutions though.  The first possibility is that English translations of the Bible are slightly flawed to reflect a bias against homosexuals.  It's possible that if we look at the original Greek, the words might have been referring to the homosexuals of Greek culture, who were often quite promiscious (which is not always the case with present-day homosexuals).  it's also possible that the original Greek word is rather vague and has alternate translations.  My other theory is that God made certain people homosexual as sort of an obstacle.... much in the way He makes some people blind.  I'm not really sure why He does, but there ought to be a reason.....

The Second thing is "Magic".  Magic is mentioned several times as being quite evil.  Well.... what does "magic" refer to?  Witchcraft is clearly evil..... in cultures which believe in it, witchcraft epitomises all that is evil.  Does that make people who believe in witchcraft themselves evil?  I think not.  Okay, well what about Shamanism?  I think that's a major grey area.  Shamans supposedly have supernatural assistance in healing of patients.  Does this necessarily come from demons?  Could it come from angels?  Could there be no actual spirits at all?  I don't know.  Honestly, I don't know to what extent there actually are angels or demons roaming around.  I personally believe that shamanism is more effective for psychological reasons and not because there is an actual spiritual presence.  And the fact is, it's extremely widespread throughout the world.  AND.... people are healed!  Is that really such a bad thing?

The last thing I'm going to talk about is, in my opinion, one of the biggest grey areas in morality in general, and something that is generally not talked about.  This thing is masturbation.  What do we make of masturbation?  There is no explicite mention of it in the Bible.  The fact is, a majority of males have masturbated at one point in their lives.... sometimes, it even happens during sleep (our bodies are really weird!).  Why does this happen?  What do we make of it?  Now, society definitely has turned it into a bit of a taboo.... but it also has with defecation, yet does that make defecation a sin?  Of course not.  I would never say that masturbation is a GOOD thing that should become someone's hobby, but are tehre some instances in which it can be useful?  Is it possible that it can prevent people from physical promiscuity?  If peopel can get their "passions" out of their system manually, I think it's certainly better than them sleeping around.  On the other hand, masturbation itself can (but does not necessarily have to) become an act of lust?  The point is, I don't know.

I hope this article has made you think.  The majority of Christian morality is clearly beneficial to society as a whole, regardless of the validity of Christianity as a faith.  However, there are certain things which seam to fall into a "grey area" and instead of blindly condemning people, I think it'S important to further delve into these things.  Thanks for reading, and I encourage you to leave comments. 

Hello.  Those of you in Canada (and also those of who from around the world if you read BBC) have probably heard quite a bit about the debate on Quebec Nationhood.  For those of you who aren't aware of what's happened lately, the Canadian Parliament has recently passed (with quite an overwhelming margin) a new measure, which officially recognises Quebec as a nation.  Today, I'm going to write about why I think that not only this "debate" is stupid, but why I think this new measure is also really stupid.

The important thing to know about this new "measure" (I don't know what else to call it...) is that it's purely symbolic.  I.E., it has no power, whatsoever.  It does not in any way alter the extent to which Quebec is sovereign over her citizens.  It has no impact on the international community.  All it does is say "We Canadians recognise that Quebec is a distinct society from the rest of provinces".  That said, why in the hell did they have to waste people's time and pass something pointless like this?  It's a political football.... that's it.  My only hope is that Quebecers are smart enough not to be duped by this.  The wording of this "measure" is very careful.  Harper and the Conservatives tell Quebecers what they want to hear more than anything: that they are DIFFERENT from the rest of Canada.  However, Harper also stresses that Quebec is a nation WITHIN Canada, thus calling for a more unified country.  I hope people can see that this is simply a ploy to legitimise the power of the Conservative party.  Harper wants to fool Quebecers into having sympathy for him (by saying that he recognises and appreciates Quebec's distinctiveness) AND using this sympathy for his party's agenda.  Basically what I'm saying is this: Harper doesn't really care about Quebec as being a nation, he just wants their votes.

Ok, so I said that the "debate" on Quebec nationhood is stupid.  That was a misstatement: it's NOT a debate.  Anyone who does not think that Quebec is a nation either does not know what the definition of a nation is, or does not understand Quebec.  Coming from North America, it is easy to misunderstand the definition of nation.  We, as North Americans, usually use it colloquially to mean "country" or "state", i.e., a politically recognised territory within the global sphere.  That does not necessarily coorelate with what a "nation" truly is.  A nation is more better defined as a society which sees itself as different from "others", they share a language, history and other elements of culture.  They may or may not be geographically concentrated.  Oftentimes, as they identify with members of their own nation and not of the over-powering state, they seek sovereignty (i.e., autonomy) and on some occasions even independence.  The former Yugoslavia, for instance, was made of up several NATIONS, some of which have broken off and formed new STATES (or countries).  There are several nations on the planet which are currently seeking increased autonomy or independence, such as the Basque nation in Spain. 

Anyone who knows anything about Quebec should be able to tell you that it's almost more different than the ROC (i.e., Rest of Canada) than it is similar.  The history is different (at least until the late 18th C), the language is different, the religious heritage is different.  What more could you ask for?

Therefore, I think the PQ's goals of increased sovereignty for Quebec are ENTIRELY reasonable.  The fact is, the culture IS different in Quebec than in the ROC, just as the culture in Canada is different in the US and just as the culture in Texas is different than, say, that in Vermont.  I think we need to ACKNOWLEDGE and RESPECT these differences.  Harper's "measure" was great for this purpose, but I personally believe he did it for all the wrong reasons.   Furthermore, I don't believe that a truly united Canada (or US for that matter) is super important.  The fact is that there are many subcultures and subnations within these countres- people in different regions simply have different values in some cases.  Increased provincial and state sovereignty would appropriately reflect this.  The goal should NOT be assimilation.  The goal should be RESPCT and the allowance of autonomy.

In ideal circumstances, separation would be beneficial, for the said reasons.  HOWEVER, it is not reflective of reality.  Quebec would become a semiperipheral country, compareable to, at best, Portugal.  It would not become part of the third world, but living stanards would be reduced subsantially.  The fact is, Quebec does NOT have the resources to maintain the economy of a core country (which Canada does).  Aoart from hydro power, tourism and the ubiquitous maple syrup (which I do admit, is quite good), Quebec does not have the tools for a robust economy, especially given it's socialistic spending habits (which are NOT bad).  How will Quebec be able to afford maintaining universal health care, and subsidising university education for all provincial students?  I would be hard-pressed to see how it would work out.  Also, foreign investment would probably decrease.  Think about it.... given the language issue, why would the UK or US want to keep operations in Quebec, if they could just easily relocate a few hours west to Toronto?

I can't say I've ever met a hard-core seperatist.  They do-exist, but, realistically-speaking, they make up a minority.  It's hard to say exactly how many separatists there are.... in 1995 about 49,5% (or something like that) voted FOR separation.  However, the separatist fervour has died down since then.  Even the PQ does not promise separation.  In fact, separation is not a realistic goal for the PQ.... what they work for is SOVEREIGNTY, which is entirely different. 

In short, Quebec is a nation.  It's impossible to make an intelligent argument for the contrary.  Furthermore, as any nation, she ought to be entitled to her own state and all the perks that go along with it (particularly autonomy and self-determinism).  However, as is the case with many other marginalised nations throughout the world (such as aboriginal nations in Canada and the US), secession is horribly unrealistic and completely impractical.  If you don't get anything else out of this article please understand this: It is important to RESPECT and UNDERSTAND Quebec.  Quebecers are not just a bunch of Canadian-hating Frenchies.  First of all, never call a Quebecer French: it's like calling an Ontarian English (given thats his first language).... you just look stupid.  Understand that Quebecers see themselves as very much distinct to those in the ROC.... and they are!  Those in the ROC have more in common with Americans than they do with Quebecers (particularly with respect to language, music and religion).  A person's identity is extremely important to his life; in many respects, it gives meaning to it.  Taking away someone's identity is one of the worst things you can do to an individual.  Quebec, like all other places, deserves to have its place in the world acknowledged.  And if that place is to be a nation within Canada, so be it.  Regardless of whether or not it will ever become independant, Quebec is a nation just as much as, say Japan and ought to be treated as such!

Thank you.  If you disagree with anything I've said here, or have some point to bring up in regards to Quebec nationhood, I encourage you to leave a comment.  Cheers. 

Hello everyone.  I've decided to, once again, start a blog.  First I will try to answer the question on everyone's mind: why am I using a francophone website?  The answer is twofold.  Firstly, as I'm currently living in Quebec, when I use google, the francophone websites automatically come first.  So, it was just a matter of laziness on my part.  Secondly, I'm anti-unilingualism and I'm very much interested in how people who speak other languages categorise their world and think about things.  That said, English is my first language and it's the only language I claim to speak fluently, although I am currently trying to learn French.

Now the next question probably on your minds: why am I starting a blogue?  I must start by confessing that like most North Americans born after 1984, I too have previously experimented with blogs, usually with little success.  So why am I trying again?  Well, let me tell you what this blog will NOT be.  It will not be for gossip.  It will not be for recounting the daily events of my life, as they usually aren't very interesting, and I don't think anyone really cares at what time I take my coffee each morning.  In fact, unless I'm doing something inherently exotic (such as, teaching English in a refugee camp on the Thai-Burmese border), this blog will not really be about me.

What this blog WILL be, is a centre for idea-exchange.  A very good friend of mine told me that university is meant to be an exchange of intellectual ideas.... and I've thought a lot about that since he said it.  And it's true!  But the sad thing is, the way our culture is set up, university is more a time for partying.  While partying is not inherently a bad thing, I'm going to use this blog for some of my ideas about the world.  I'm thinking almost all the time and I have a pretty radical take on our world.  It's surprisingly hard to find people to listen to me, so I thought I'd just type my ideas down here.  That way, also, people can feel free to bash my ideas mercilessly (sp?) without the awkwardness of doing it in person.

Now, for contextual purposes, I will tell you all a little about myself.  First and foremost, it is important to know that I consider myself a follower of Jesus.  While "Christian" is a word I tend not to like, that's probably how many of you could describe me.  I believe in Jesus as my personal Lord and Saviour.  However, it is also important to know that I'm an anthropology student.  That means I seek to recognise the value and validity of EVERY culture on the planet and I believe practices should be morally evaluated within the context of a particular culture itself, and not vis-à-vis Western values.  Alas, you can probably guess that this might cause somewhat of a dilemma for me.  I DO believe the two sides are reconcileable, partially by avoiding extremes on either side.  This is an issue that will probably come up in several of my articles.

Lastly, I am, at least by legal definition, an American (i.e., a citizen of the USA).  I was born in Trenton, NJ and spent the entirety of my childhood in a small town in suburban Trenton.  In essence, as much as I scorn American practices, as critical I am of American politics and foreign policy and how much I generally don't identify with many American values, I am ultimately a product of American culture.  Currently, I am a university student at McGill University, in Montreal, QC.  I do consider myself an American expatriate, as I have little attachment to my "homeland" (besides a family with which I don't really get along), although I would hardly consider myself a "Quebecer" and much less a Canadian.

I don't want to tell you my life store.... just to establish context for my writings in the future.  I will not get into anything really serious for this article, as you've had enough to deal with already.  I also can' t gaurantee any regularity whatsoever in my updates, as I'm a university student, and ultimately school work most take priority over my blog.  That said, if you're interested in reading my ideas, I encourage you to check this blog every so often.  Until next time, take care.