Of course my mother's absolute conviction that a degree is a necessity for a successful life is the prime reason that I didn't go to university.
Posted at 4:19PM on 10 Mar 09. Permalink.
Is N/A somehow different from "None"?
It seems to be to me. "None" in the context of the way the questions generally are seems to say 'no organized religion', but leaves the possibility of other spiritual beliefs. N/A says that the question has no applicability to me.
Now, if she wants a big market... just take the steampunk version and make it work for Concealed Carry and you'd be busy, busy, busy shipping them to the US. :-) Even more so if you make it out of one of those magic new fabrics for bullet-proof vest construction. :-D
Posted at 3:28PM on 6 Mar 09.
A friend of mine put it like this: atheism is not a religious belief any more than not collecting stamps is a hobby.
I have always put Not-Applicable or N/A on forms which query my religious status. Religion, for me, is something other people do. I have no emotional concept within me that allows me to understand what religion is to one who has religion.
I don't answer either atheist or agnostic as both those are words that seek to define something within the context of religion - something I have no concept of, so cannot describe myself in that context.
To me it's the same as putting a question like "What WoW guild are you", and giving me a list of choices like richmen, poormen, beggarmen, thief, other (specify), I think guilds are wrong, I think guilds don't exist.
Just to be clear, to me asking me what religion I am is *exactly* like asking how I fit into WoW. I've never played WoW, I wouldn't know if there are guilds in it or not - so I'd answer N/A.
My two missionary experiences:
1. When I was in secondary school a couple of Morom boys came to the door and talked to my mother for a short while as I lurked and listened. I commented on what they said after to my mother, and she said I should have talked to them, that I could have convinced them that they were wrong. I pointed out that I couldn't try doing that as I had nothing to offer to replace their belief system. I think that was a disappointment to my mother (my parents actively regected religion).
2. I was waiting across the street from the local Deka waiting for my then G/F to finish work. Next to the wee urban-park there was a trailer of missionaries from a new-wave fundamental church that had come over from a neighbouring town to bear witness. About when they wrapped up for the night a guy I was at school with in the 3rd form sat down beside me. He had been one of the party crowd. Well, apparently he had found his god, and it was much better than all the other things he had found when he was at school. When my G/F arrived he finished his sermon and went on his way. One of the people from the other town, who had born witness earlier, came over and *sympathised* over what I had just had to listen to!
I think my Sydney Scientology story doesn't fit the 'missionaries' thread....
Here in the US South, I just don't mention religion, and I duck the question if it's in my direction. It's a scary place to be sometimes, and there are people who will damn well make religion applicable to you!
When I was a librarian (assuming one ever quite stops being one) I read the last 2 sentences of every romance that was returned for a week. Furthermore, I got a number of the other librarians to also do so - and keep records of what happened in that sentence.
After day one, we did the last 2 sentences.
In the last sentence the protagonists kissed (IIRC) in something over 50% of the book. It was up in the high 90% in the last 2 sentences.
I also knew (as did the other librarians that were interested in the work, as opposed to the paycheck) what sort of books any regular patron read, including what authors you might like etc.
That's part of being a librarian (IM(ns)HO) - understanding your customer base, and your collection. Those who work in a library and take no interest in either the books, or the usages of said books are some form of clerical workers, perhaps even shelvers - but I'd be hard pushed to call them librarians.
Perhaps more on topic, the wife is hugely capable, and does all the important putting up with and caring for me (including managing the interface between me and the Medical Profession (aka the Ritualistic Blood-Letters)). She is a good driver, and can deal to large insects.
However when we are together she prefers me to drive, and to deal to said insects. Which I am happy to do (depending on the insect in question for some value of 'happy'). What makes this work for me is that should I not want to drive, aging stiff back, head-ache etc, she is happy to do the task.
My ex refused to drive if I was available to drive - even when I had a blinding headache that caused me to have to stop to puke at the side of the road. Just the fact that I know that if I need a break from driving it won't be an issue makes the drive easier and less stressful - and hence less likely that I will need to be spelled from the task.
I am probably a slow learner in such things but my experience seems to say to me that roles are not a bad thing, but in-flexibility of roles can tip the balance over to bad. Where that balance should be? Different for each partnership, in my view.
Any, I've seen the bug zapper version of the bug vacuums in Real Life. Sadly, they were such cheaply made pieces of crap that I think the kind of bug that is eating my firewood, or indeed the large-enough-to-make-me-uncomfortable spiders, would just be energized by the zap and bust up the plastic on the way back out.
What I really, really want is a perimeter fence that would zap any approaching fire ant. Does Not Like fire ants.
Robert A Heinlen was a big advocate in his writings of many-to-many marriages, and one of the prime rationals for it was to provide for the children. When ol' Lazurus Long was swanning off adventuring, or Mama Maureen was back at school learning how to be a rejuvanateress, then there were adults to look after the juveniles. It's just another variation on the traditional extended family thing that is approved of - keeping granny around to babysit.
Having a family grouping of more than 2 adults can certainly mitigate some of the risks in supporting a family, it is likely that there is more than one 'breadwinner' - so a job loss may not be so cataclysmic. There would be more options to provide support for a parent at home to look after children.
If one one wanting to spend the time and effort I am sure a case could be made that a traditional marriage being of only two adults is not in the best interests of the children, and should be discouraged :-). I for one would love to see politicians explain why they thought providing less protection and support for children was better.
*(Regardless of using RAH's writings as an example, I do NOT advocate using RAH's writings as a guide to life)
Insofar as advocating* any form of marriage goes, I'm against that. I am also against someone else telling me what sort of marriage I can have.
Morally (without getting into whose moral code we are standing on here :-)), I can't see a difference between one-to-one relationships, one-to-many, and many-to-many relationships. If the entities are equal in the eyes of the law, and there is protection against coercion then who cares how much trouble they are going to have buying a large enough bed?
On the other hand I think one of the big stumbling blocks with recognising marriages other than one-to-one is the extra complexity in providing sound legislation to protect the rights of the parties in the relationships.
It's not like politicians are particularly clever as a group, and look how much trouble they had with various 'gay' marriage legislations - essentially taking the existing marriage laws and removing gender references. They could have given the task to someone that passed the grammar exam back when we taught people how to write, and had the job done in an afternoon.
*(advocating != allowing. Totally different concepts :-))
But I do want something pretty on me. Don't we all?
Well, I certainly like something pretty on me... but she doesn't have to be tattooed....