1. When did “Christian” become a label, rather than a lifestyle?

2. Are atheists intolerable to the Christian faith? Are Christians intolerable to other beliefs?

3. Why do Christians forget about God in the good times, but are quick to blame him in the bad?

4. Can you be a Christian without being “religious”?

5. Why are there so many splits within one belief system?

Okay, so here we go!

1. When did “Christian” become a label, rather than a lifestyle?

-This thought came to me today while I was watching a Youtube video about celebrity “Christians” in Hollywood. The person who uploaded the videos put a picture of the celebrity, and a quote they had given regarding their beliefs in God. I was surprised by the variations in answers. A lot of people mentioned having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ – and I believe that a number of them actually do. I know for a fact that there are several “high profile” Christians in Hollywood; Kirk Cameron, Stephan Baldwin, Justin Bieber (I can’t stand the fellow, but I know he does have a strong belief in God), Aly and AJ, Candace Cameron Bure, and so on. But it was also interesting to see that a lot of the “celebrities” who profess to be “Christians” are spending their days posing for Playboy. They always say that they believe in God, and thank Him for everything he’s given to them…but I have to ask the question: If you’re a “Christian”, and you read the Bible, how can you possibly justify your career choice? Posing for Playboy hardly qualifies as “treating your body as a temple.”

Now, I’d never go so far as to say that I can point out which people are being sincere by their answers. I don’t know their hearts, and where they truly stand with Jesus Christ, but I feel that many of them are using the fact that they believe in God, to justify calling themselves a Christian.

My pastor has a famous quote that I think everyone in our church has memorized at this point: “Going to church on Sunday doesn’t make you a Christian, any more than going to MacDonald’s makes you a hamburger.”

You can profess to believe in God – but that doesn’t make you a Christian. It simply makes you not an Atheist.

My main question for this point of my post is when did calling yourself a Christian turn into a label? When did it stop becoming a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and simply turn into something to call yourself?

It’s not just people in Hollywood either. Many people (even those in the church) have gotten into the habit of saying that they are “Christians”, but then completely live the opposite of the Christian lifestyle. Now, you know me – I hate labels. I try to stay away from them as much as possible. So, while I do follow the beliefs of the Christian faith, I try to stay away from introducing myself as a Christian. If someone asks me what I believe, I don’t say “I’m a Christian. I believe in God. I go to church.” What I try to tell them in so many words is that I have a relationship with Jesus, and try to keep him in the center of my life. You can do this without preaching to them. It’s simply a statement. They asked what you believe, and you told them. It’s not invasive. It’s the truth. I bet it will throw a few people for a loop if you do that next time someone asks.

The problem is that a lot of “Christians” can’t actually say that, because it would be a lie. I don’ t know when it happened, but somewhere down the line it became okay to say that simply having a belief in God, and actually walking with Christ were one and the same. I can assure you that they are two very different things. One can’t expect to get into heaven by simply believing that it exists. If you want to get into a school like Harvard, you can’t write to them and say that you should be accepted into their school because you know it’s one of the best places to go, and you believe that it’s there. You have to meet their qualifications – you have to EARN the right to get into their school. I could go out and buy a hoodie sweater with the Yale logo on it, but it doesn’t mean I actually went there. If someone walking down the street saw me wearing that hoodie, they would assume that I was a Yale scholar. Because I’m wearing the LABEL. I’m not smart enough to go to Yale, but if I wear the label, people will think I am.

We need to start getting back to basics here. Belief in God is great, but it’s merely a stepping stone to what can eventually become a way of life.

2. Are atheists intolerable of Christians? Are Christians intolerable of other beliefs?

-This point came to mind after watching a different Youtube video (yes, I spend a lot of time on Youtube…sue me.) It was a UK based talk show that tackles what they call “The Big Questions”. A lot of them have to do with religion vs. science, or something of the sort. This particular one was asking the very same question that I am. Are atheists intolerable of Christian beliefs?

There were obviously quite a variety of answers given by the different audience members – all of whom came from different belief backgrounds. A lot of the atheist members seemed to think that atheists aren’t intolerable…they simply want a debate.

This may be true. After all, atheism in its simplest form is nothing more than a lack of belief in God. It’s pretty much the exact opposite of Christianity. They have every right to want to debate Christians on the subject of God. Atheists consider themselves to be very rational beings. Most of them rely on the big word of “evidence”. If there is no evidence, it doesn’t exist. Obviously, it is very difficult to find any earthly evidence of God, unless you’re looking in the right mindset. Seeing God in the wind as a Christian, obviously doesn’t work the same in an atheist. While the Christian sees the hand of God, an atheist sees nothing more than science, and that’s okay.

While I know several atheists who are very tolerant human beings (and there I go using that word “tolerant” that I hate so much), I know that there are a certain…lets say…branch of atheists who basically get off on making Christians feel stupid about what they believe. They’re angry human beings – they may not think so, but that’s what I see. They need an argument. They need to make sure that Christians see how dumb they are for believing in something without proof. This was inherently apparent in one lady on the same show, but in a different audience. She was an outspoken atheist who jumped on the chance to try to disprove the existence of heaven. She goes on to say that each person’s representation of heaven is based on faith. She states (with quite the cheeky little grin on her face) that “Faith – by definition – is believing in things without evidence, and personally I don’t do that, because I’m not an idiot.”

Here’s a link to the video if you want to see her completely unnecessary and rude remark for yourself (Skip to around the 1:00 mark): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyA9f-rs1-M

Now, I personally have absolutely no respect for people like her, because the level in which she openly mocks anyone with an ounce of faith is completely unnecessary, and probably more to gain a reaction than anything else. Obviously, not all atheists are this way, and I have respect for those that are rational human beings, and can speak their mind without trying to ridicule me. That’s fine with me.

Most of the other panelists that spoke up on this show also pointed out that a lot of Christians were quick to judge and be intolerant of other beliefs as well – which led me to agree with them. The sad reality is that Christianity and “religion” has an incredibly bad reputation because of certain groups that feel the need to point out flaws in other beliefs in a very harsh and condescending way. While – like atheists – not all Christians are like this, there are enough of them that eventually the whole lot of us get painted with this image that is not reality. I won’t get into details, because I’ve spoken about them before, and most of you probably already know what I’m talking about.

So while I certainly don’t condone atheists that belittle us, and call our beliefs stupid just because they are based on faith, and not necessarily rational evidence, I can’t – in good conscience – condone people in my belief system for doing the same thing, but turning it around so it works for them.

“An eye for an eye, makes the whole world blind.” – Gandhi

3. Why do Christians forget about God in the good times, but are quick to blame him in the bad.

-It’s the age old question really. The one argument that non-believers (and believers) ask all the time: “If your God is a loving God, then why did he let (____________) happen?” It’s a hard question to answer, because – really – how do you justify it? If God can do anything, then why does he let so much pain and suffering happen? Why doesn’t he stop it? If you give someone the answer that “He’s God…he has his reasons”, they’ll probably laugh at you and say that it’s a huge cop-out.

The only way I rationalize these kinds of things, is to say that God doesn’t cause pain and suffering to happen in the world. This all happened when Adam and Eve screwed up in the garden and man became sinful. I have no solid reasoning as to why God doesn’t stop or prevent pain and suffering, since he is an all-powerful and all-knowing God, but the best explanation I ever heard was on the show “Touched By An Angel”. I won’t write out the whole transcript (again), cause it’s really long, but I’ll link to my Facebook notes page where I have it written down. Hopefully you can read it: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150106049239696

Basically, it’s talking about how God doesn’t cause pain, but God heals it. God doesn’t want bad things to happen, but sometimes they just happen. Instead of blaming God when things go wrong, try thanking him when things go right.

This is the second aspect to this point-within-a-point. How many times do you really hear someone thank God for their blessings? I know a lot of people do it, but if you really think about how often you hear someone thanking God, compared to how often he gets blamed, I think you’d find the numbers a little lopsided.

I’ll be honest – I forget to thank God for a lot of the things he’s given me. It’s just not our first nature as humans. A lot of the time, we think that all the good things that happen are the result of either luck, or our hard work. We can work towards making things happen for ourselves, but God is always the one at the reins. He’s the one that opens all the doors for our successes.

I’ll also admit that a lot of the times when things don’t go my way, I often wonder why God didn’t step in and fix things. But, if I really sit down and think about it, most of the time my failures are caused by my own stupidity. God may be ultimately in control of my life, but the beauty of free will is the fact that we can make decisions for ourselves. Think about it this way: You robbed a store, went to jail, and then the judge let you out on parole. If your buddy came up to you and said “let’s go rob a bank”, and you did it, got caught and went back to court, how would you rationalize your behavior? The judge would look at you and ask “Why did you rob that bank”? Would you blame your parole officer for not stopping you? You were the one with your own free will to CHOOSE to rob that bank with your buddy. It’s not the parole officers fault, it’s not the law’s fault, it’s not even your buddy’s fault. Just like a good parole officer, God doesn’t cause you to fail. God is the one you report to, to tell him when you’ve failed. The difference between the law and God, however, is that God will always forgive you.

So instead of always blaming God for not giving you everything you want, you should probably start to thank him for everything you have.

4. Can you be “Christian” without being religious?

-The simple answer to this is yes, in my opinion. Simply because that’s what I consider myself to be. I have absolutely no faith in the concept of organized religion, because I think more often than not it is used to serve man instead of God, and I don’t like that. Christianity is technically considered a “religion” because by definition, religion is: “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects”

One could say that “Christianity” is exactly that. A set of beliefs and practices that is generally agreed upon by a number of persons. But, as I said in the first part of this post, being a “Christian” can have many different interpretations. As I also said, I consider myself a follower of the general Christian beliefs system, but in no way do I consider myself to be religious. When I look at that definition of religion, I see one theme jumping out at me: Rules. Unfortunately, religion has mostly turned into a set of rules that you HAVE to follow in order to be accepted by the rest of the church. Obviously, there are rules in the Bible, and most of them are very good rules. But, whenever you have a bunch of people trying to interpret these rules and make them into a practice…it starts to get a little dangerous.

Which leads me right into my next and final point…

5. Why are there so many splits in a single belief system?

-Pentecostal, Baptist, Presbyterian, Catholic, United, United Baptist, Gospel Hall….MORE LABELS! SO…MANY…LABELS!! This is just within the Christian faith alone! And there are TONS more! It’s actually kind of ridiculous when you think about it. If we’re all under the same God, then why must there be so many interpretations of it? I’ve really never understood that. A lot of the time, it’s not even debate over God…it’s often debate over RULES! Baptists believe one thing, Pentecostals believe another. One church requires that women wear hats, another church has a smoking section out back. Can you eat red meat? Is Sunday the Sabbath, or Saturday? Should you have two services on Sunday? Should the carpet be green or blue?

It’s RIDICULOUS! The fact that churches have split over the brand of COFFEE they serve is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard.

Now granted, Anglicans did not form because of a coffee dispute. Each denomination has its own slightly tweaked version of the Bible that they have interpreted. Pentecostals believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues, while generally Baptists do not. Baptists believe in “once saved, always saved”, while Methodists do not. Things like that separate into so many different denominations, and the differences are so minute that it makes me wonder if they’re really necessary. I always believed that the basis of believing in and following Jesus Christ was to repent of your sins, try to live like Jesus did, follow his Commandments and your reward would be eternal life with Him in heaven. Fail to do these things, and you go somewhere else. It seems pretty basic. I don’t tire myself by looking into each individual interpretation of scripture, because I think I would just genuinely confuse myself.

At the end of the day, doesn’t it all boil down to loving Jesus, and loving one another? Doesn’t that seem like a simpler solution that wasting time arguing about whether or not you believe in the Holy Trinity?

Well, there you have it. A whole bunch of rambling about things that have been on my mind lately. I hope I haven’t completely bored you, and feel free to leave me any comments or questions you may have!

I am, of course, talking about the long running Casey Anthony murder trial that just wrapped up this afternoon, where she was found Not Guilty on the counts of murdering her three year old daughter, Caylee in 2008.

I’ve been following this story since it began, and on a completely personal level I am am stunned, disappointed and disgusted at the verdict. Since day one, I have had the gut feeling that Casey is guilty, but obviously a Florida jury saw things differently. After eight weeks of trial and testimonies, Casey was found innocent on all charges except for lying and withholding information from police.

Let’s jump back a few years. Here is a condensed version of the timeline:

June 15, 2008 – Caylee visits her great grandfather (video proof), and allegedly goes swimming at her grandmother Cindy’s home.

June 18, 2008 – Casey allegedly borrows a shovel from a neighbour.

June 24, 2008 – Casey’s father – George – calls the police to report that someone broke into his garage and stole two gas cans.

July 3, 2008 – Casey’s mother Cindy allegedly posts a message on her MySpace page about Caylee being missing. (The message has since been deleted.)

July 15, 2008 – Casey’s whereabouts are reported to her mother. Cindy accuses her daughter of stealing money and her car. She places three separate 911 calls, and on the third call she tells the 911 dispatcher “There is something wrong. I found my daughter’s car today [and] it smells like there’s been a dead body in the damn car.”

July 16, 2008 – It is discovered that Casey has been lying about her place of employment and other details regarding Caylee’s disappearance. The police also question a woman named Zenaida Gonzalez, whom Casey claimed was her daughter’s nanny. Zenaida says she doesn’t know Casey.

July 22, 2008 – At a court hearing, A Corporal claims to have smelt human decomposition while searching Casey’s car.

July 26, 2008 – Casey calls her brother from jail and tells him that she believes that Caylee is okay.

August 5, 2008 – Casey is formally charged with a felony account of child neglect and another misdemeanor offence.

August 21, 2008 – Casey is released from jail.

August 29, 2008 – Casey returns to jail on three new accounts – forgery, fraud and petty theft.

October 1, 2008 – Casey’s status is changed from “Person of Interest” to “Suspect”.

December 11, 2008 – Human remains are found that seem to belong to a young child.

December 19, 2008 – The skull and remains are announced to be those of three year old Caylee.

April 14, 2009 – The state of Florida says that they intend to seek the Death Penalty should Casey be found guilty.

May 1, 2011 – The Jury selection begins for Casey’s trial.

May 24, 2011 – The trial begins, and Casey’s father George is the first to take the stand. Casey’s lead defence attorney Jose Baez claims that Casey was sexually molested by her father, and that Caylee drowned in the family pool.

June 7, 2011 – A K-9 handler stated that one of his dogs indicated a high amount of human decomposition in Casey’s car.

June 8, 2011 – Computer searches in the Anthony home show that the terms “neck breaking”, “chest trauma” and “head injury” were searched. Also, a website showing how to make chloroform was accessed 84 times.

July 3/4, 2011 – Both sides present their closing arguments. The jury begins deliberations.

July 5, 2011 – The jury finds Casey Anthony not guilty on the account of murdering her daughter.

So, I am not a lawyer, nor do I have any experience in such matters. All I have is my common sense. My common sense tells me that Casey Anthony is not an innocent human being. While only Casey and God know whether or not she killed her daughter, I can sit here with great confidence and tell you that I believe that she was involved. Whether it was first degree murder, or she simply had a hand in it, or maybe just knowledge that it was going on, I believe that she is guilty. There are too many things in this story that do not add up.

1. If your child was missing for 31 days, why would you not report it? I don’t know about you, but if I was a parent and my two year old was missing, I would be on the phone in minutes – not days.

2. The story about Caylee drowning in the pool seems to be a lie. Video shows that during a visit to the jail, Casey’s parents told her that the theory of Caylee drowning was the newest idea. Casey simply rolled her eyes and replied “It figures.” Also, when Cindy Anthony called 911 to report that Caylee was missing, Casey took the phone after awhile and confirmed that her daughter was “missing”, and that she knew who had taken her.

3. If someone accused you of killing your daughter, and you were innocent…why would you need to fabricate all these lies? There are COUNTLESS lies that Casey has told over the course of three years. Countless, unnecessary lies that she didn’t need to tell unless she were trying to cover something up.

4. The fact that searches for neck breaking, chest trauma and head injury were searched on her computer is very concerning. No one should be searching those terms in every day life.

If Casey Anthony did not kill her daughter – who did? There are no other leads, and there will probably never be. Caylee’s death will remain a mystery.

Why did Casey get off? Most likely because there was a lack of physical evidence. There was tons of circumstantial evidence, but I suppose you can’t convict someone to death when there may be reasonable doubt. That’s a bunch of legal talk – but that’s what I gathered from watching the footage today.

Casey Anthony will walk free from all of this. Her defence attorney stated that he felt good about “saving a life” from the death penalty.

Well Mr. Baez – you managed to save the life of your client who may or may not be guilty of murdering her daughter. What you couldn’t manage to do was bring justice to a three year old girl was was more than likely murdered for no reason whatsoever.

An innocent life is gone. There are no winners in this case.

Now, you’re probably thinking: “What??”

That’s what I thought too. Apparently, the parent’s are so against roles being assigned to a specific gender, that they would rather their child not be associated with either boys or girls – but simply by the kind of person they are.

(On a side note: Here’s a link to the article if you would like to read it http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110524/ts_yblog_thelookout/parents-keep-childs-gender-under-wraps)

If you’re just as baffled by this as I am – FEAR NOT! Everyone who responded to the article both on the original website, and the site I found it on seemed just as confused as we are.

There are a couple of other aspects to the article that I feel the need to point out, just in case you don’t feel like reading it.

The couple already have two sons: Jazz (5) and Kio (2). Both children are “unschooled” – which is apparently a version of homeschooling, but without a timeline, or curriculum. To quote the article: “Not something that happens by rote from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. weekdays in a building with a group of same-age people, planned, implemented and assessed by someone else.”

Before I go any further, I just wanted to make a few comments on that.

Do I think that there are flaws in the traditional education system? Of course! But, do I think there are more flaws in her way of thinking? Yes, absolutely.

You can’t put a five-year old child in a situation where you’re basically saying to him: “Learn whatever you want, whenever you want. If you don’t feel like learning how to count today, that’s okay. We’ll just go outside and follow some ants around for an hour.”

Not that there’s anything wrong with exploring a child’s curiosity, but there has to be some structure there. Do you know what’s going to happen when that child is 12 and 13? You’re going to tell him: “No, you can’t go to that party because it doesn’t get over until 3 in the morning, and because you’re only 13.”

What do you think that child is going to say?

When you tell a normal 13-year-old that they can’t do something, most parent’s will tell you that that’s hell in itself. What about a child who has never had any limits set for him? He’s going to look at you and say: “You know what? I don’t feel like listening to you. I’m going to go do what I want.”

The next part of the article that I want to address is the fact that these boys (again, 5 and 2) are allowed to buy any clothes they want; whether it be from the boys or girls section of the store, wear their hair any length they want, and basically play with whatever they want.

So, these two boys go out in public and are often mistaken for girls, because their hair is long and they wear pink. I guess that one of the interviewers asked the oldest boy if it bothered him that he was always mistaken for a girl, and the boy NODDED YES.

Obviously this little boy is bothered by this, but his parent’s don’t seem to care. They are so concerned about not putting their son in society’s “box” of conventional gender roles, that they’re causing him to be embarrassed and humiliated when he goes out in public.

So now, the main argument of my blog: Are these parents wrong for subjecting their children to this kind of lifestyle?

My opinion is this:  I can understand why these parents may have the viewpoint that they do. Society is a huge dictator in what children are supposed to act like. Boys are supposed to go out and play in the mud, get dirty and play sports. Girls are supposed to be pink and frilly and wear makeup by the time they’re 10. Do I agree with these rules? No! I was tomboy growing up. I went outside and played in the mud. I played catch with my dad, and street football with my friends. I don’t think I wore makeup until I was probably 15 or 16. I didn’t scream like a banshee when I saw a bug or wear frilly dresses or short skirts to school to show of my “assets”. I don’t regret that. If anything I enjoyed it. It was nice not worrying about breaking a nail, or having my makeup run. I didn’t have to spend hours in the bathroom every morning getting ready. But, as I’ve gotten older, I have started taking pride in my appearance, but NOT because I’m conforming to society, but simply because I want to. It was my choice.

There has to be a limit on how much we shelter our children from the world though. I know as parent’s (not that I’m a parent, but I’m speaking generally), we try to protect our kids as much as possible, but by sheltering them to the point of what these parents are doing is actually hurting their children more than helping them.

I have no problem with children being home schooled as long as they also have a social life with other children their age. I don’t have a problem with telling your kids that it’s okay for them to be whatever they want, and dress however they want (within reason), but there are LIMITS! The fact that this little five-year old boy doesn’t want to go to conventional school because people tease him is heartbreaking. Kids get teased in school all the time, but it’s not usually because of parental freedom.

Take a look at Brad Pitt’s daughter Shiloh. She’s around four years old I believe, and dresses like a boy all the time. She has her hair short, and wears very masculine clothes. I don’t know all the details behind why she chooses to do this, but if SHE is comfortable with it, and it’s how SHE wants to be seen then that’s fine with me. I don’t really think that Brad and Angelina told her to break stereotypes, but I think that they’re supportive of her, which is great. (Of course, when you have five other kids, sometimes you just let things slide…) If there comes a point when she turns eight or nine, and wants to buy a pink dress and start acting like the more conventional version of a girl, then she should be allowed to do so. Kids change their minds more often than Taylor Swift changes boyfriends. (Sorry, but I’ve always wanted a reason to use that analogy)

Now, I’m not saying that these parents purposely try to get their boys to break stereotypes. I’m not saying that the mother lures her sons over to the girls section and tells them to pick from there, but there has to come a point when your five-year old is looking at a pair of short shorts with the word “Gorgeous” written across the back that you have to say “Honey, those really aren’t appropriate for you (or anyone).”

I guarantee you there will come a point in this child’s life (maybe when he’s 16, but probably sooner), where he is introduced to the outside world, and says “Dear Lord, what has my mother done to me? I can’t go to that football game with my friends dressed like this. I can’t go to the movies wearing a Hannah Montana shirt! I need a whole new wardrobe!”

No matter how much you want to break your children out of a mold, at the end of the day boys are still boys and girls are still girls. There can be some leeway in terms of looks and activities, but the physiology is the same. You can’t change that! (Well, you can, but it costs a butt load of money).

Let me pose a question: When these boys go to a restaurant and have to use the bathroom…which one will they go to? They’ll look at mom and say “Which room?” What is she going to answer? She can’t say “You have to go to the boy’s room because you’re a boy.” Wouldn’t that defeat the whole purpose of the exercise?

This new baby that no one knows the gender of: When they need a babysitter, and the babysitter comes and has to change the baby’s diaper…doesn’t that defeat the whole purpose of the exercise?

When the boys hit puberty, and things start changing. How is dad going to explain it to his sons? Doesn’t that defeat the whole purpose of the exercise?

Letting kids choose their own paths is great. I’m all for kids having freedom to say that they would rather play football than Barbie, or maybe they would rather play Barbie than football. BUT THERE HAS TO BE LIMITS!

Your children will not be five forever. They are going to grow up and enter the real world. Do you think they’ll thank you when they show up to their first day of work in a skirt, instead of a suit? I don’t think so.

Society is conventional, but it’s not all bad. Certain gender stereotypes need to be enforced, simply because without them, there would be complete chaos. If we let all our boys dress like girls, and all our girls dress like boys – I dare say we would eventually die out as a human race. Maybe that’s a bit extreme, but if anything it would be a lot harder to get a date…

Basically, my message is this: It’s great to think outside the box, but you don’t need to completely smash the box in order to do so.

The Provincial Debt in Nova Scotia went from $525 million in 2009, to a projected 1.4 billion in 2012/2013

Nova Scotia is seeing a 1.65% cut to education funding in the coming year.

As many as 400 teachers will be let go.

Teachers in Nova Scotia make around $30 000-$65 000 a year depending on how many years of education they have.

Sidney Crosby earns around 9 million dollars a year for playing hockey…

Okay, now that I’ve completely disgusted you with statistics, I’ll get on to what I’m going to actually write about.

As you can see, the government is planning a MASSIVE cut to the education budget in the next couple of years. Now, education in general doesn’t exactly get a huge chuck of the budget anyway, but to cut it down any more is just ridiculous. We’re not just talking about teacher’s getting cut either – as many programs, and educational assistants are being let go as well.

Now, the Minister of Education – Ramona Jennex – released this statement:

“Based on this budget, a child in a classroom should see no difference in the delivery of the education they receive,” – Ramona Jennex

Um…what?

Wait a minute – let me see if I’m understanding this correctly. You’re telling me that cutting $17.6 MILLION dollars for the education budget is NOT going to affect the quality of instruction? Are you KIDDING me lady?!?

First of all – you’re planning on cutting up to 400 teachers. This will mean an increase in class size, and a larger teacher to student ratio. Instead of your child being in classroom with 16 children, he or she will now be sharing with up to 25.

Second – you’re cutting a huge chunk of educational assistants out of the mix. Now, I work in an elementary school, and I can tell you that every single classroom has AT LEAST one E.A – and believe me, they’re not just there for decoration. Each classroom in the lower elementary level has at least one child that needs extra attention. The reason for this could range any where from slight social problems, to full blown Autism, or learning disabilities. Can you honestly tell me that by cutting out their education assistant, they are going to benefit from that?

Let me break it down for you:

As of now, the E.A’s exist to work one-on-one with the child in need. This not only benefits the child by giving them special attention and help when they may not understand in a classroom setting, but it also benefits the teacher who will not have to spend 80% of their time working with one student. This in turn will benefit the other students because they will now get the full attention from their teacher.

I remember being in elementary school and having kids with special needs in my class. I can certainly sympathize with them, because it’s not fair for these kids to have to fend for themselves when they can’t learn the same way as the others. It’s also not fair for the rest of the class to have their instruction interrupted because the teacher must constantly be dealing with the special needs student.

Having an E.A in the classroom at all times with the student is beneficial to everyone, and cutting these jobs will only result in chaos. The classes will be bigger, and the child will be fending for himself. The teacher will not have the time or resources to create an entire special program for one or two students.

Some of these kids have such severe issues that they literally can not function in a public setting without one-on-one attention. What will this mean for the child? They’re probably going to be kept at home to be home schooled, which will not benefit their social skills. They will not have any interaction with other children their age, and what good is that going to do them when they eventually have to enter the real world.

Now, they’re also planning on cutting a lot of reading programs and library staff. I take this part extremely personal, because this is my job. Not only do they want to cut the library in itself, but they want to cut the Reading Recovery program as well. What will this mean? Not only will students have very limited access to the library, but any child that is not up to par in terms of reading level will have nothing to help them. The whole point behind Reading Recovery is to help those kids who maybe don’t have the best reading skills, or maybe just don’t enjoy it. The books are easier, they get one-on-one attention, and it will help them catch up with the rest of their class.

I don’t think I need to explain why library staff are important, but I’ll do it anyway. My job is not just to sit behind a desk with a stamp and sign out books to the kids. I’m here to provide the kids with knowledge of books. They don’t learn all these things in English class, or in regular classroom time. They come to the library to read, and to be read to. They come here to do research, and I help them find the books they’re looking for. The teacher’s come here to ask me for books on a certain topic that they’re teaching that month. I can guarantee you that if I wasn’t here, the library would basically be dead, because I don’t think any one would ever come down.

Along with all these cuts (yes, there are more), the reduction in budget will also affect extra curricular activities – whether it be sports teams, music, art, field trips, etc.

So, basically you’re cutting instruction, individual instruction, extra curricular activities, and reading. What else is left Ramona? Even with dropping enrollment over the past few years which is expected to continue, you can’t honestly tell me that all of these cuts won’t affect the quality of instruction?

I mean, really?

I would like to know how the government became one billion dollars in debt. What are they spending money on that is unnecessary?

You know how I said that teacher’s make between $35 000-$65 000 a year?

Would you like to know how much your government officials made in 2010?

MLA’s can make up to $150 000 a year – a lot of which is tax free. They also get reimbursed for travel and other expenses.

Nine years ago, MP’s  made around $68 000 a year, but it was upgraded. .

To qualify for pension, you must serve for a mere six years, and your pension will be secure for life.

After they retire, they will make about $27 000 a year after they turn 55.

If they stay on for another four years, their pension will upgrade to around $45 000 a year.

Only 66% of MP’s have a University degree.

Cabinet Ministers make $233 000 a year.

Parliament members sit about 130 days a year.

Stephen Harper makes over $300 000 a year.

Sidney Crosby still makes $9 million a year for pushing a little black puck around an arena…

Now, all these numbers may be overwhelming, but they are factual. Does this seem fair to you? Should the government cut $17.6 million dollars from the education budget because they’re in debt?

And really, Ramona Jennex – do you HONESTLY think this won’t affect classroom quality?

There is a petition online for anyone who would like to sign it at www.kidsnotcuts.ca. I signed it, and I encourage you to do the same. The more people we can get to speak up, maybe the government will get the message.

While my initial reaction was “All right! Way to go, they finally got him!” It quickly changed to “This is great, BUT…what happens now?” It’s no secret that Osama bin Laden was not the only member of Al Qaeda to still be at large. He may have been the overall leader, but he is not the only one with power. With every American headline screaming “Justice has been served!” there are also headlines the exact opposite. I don’t think it should come as any surprise that Osama’s followers are not happy with their leader’s demise. Many have already vowed revenge, and warn countries to be “on guard” for similar 9/11 attacks to occur in the future, with a few going so far as to say “Killing Osama will only make us stronger”.

Is this true? Has American painted another huge target on their backs by killing the World’s Most Wanted terrorist? I certainly hope not, but I fear that this will be the case. As far as I’m concerned, Al Qaeda is like a colony of ants. Unlike a hive of bees, if you take out the ant’s Queen the colony can still survive. Certain ant colonies have several Queen’s and one is likely to take over if another dies. Will this be the case with Al Qaeda? How long will it be until another member takes over bin Laden’s duties? If one of bin Laden’s most trusted Al Qaeda members was the one hiding him in Pakistan all this time, what’s to say that someone else won’t step up and take control. Obviously these people have power and things that we don’t know about – and I fear that the world may discover it too late.

Now, I’m not trying to put a damper on anyone’s celebrations. Obviously this is a huge victory for the USA, and I’m glad that Obama is getting recognition for it. (Now really, for the people who were complaining about him not getting anything done in office? Did he not just accomplish something that Bush never could? But I digress…) However, I don’t think that we can be so bold as to say “We Won!” The fact of the matter is – this was a small victory in an otherwise large war that is not going to end anytime soon.

Moving off the path for a paragraph or two, I don’t think it’s news to anyone that the world is changing. Things are getting worse at a slightly alarming rate, and many people claim it to be “The End of the World”. Now, I’m not one of those 2012/giant asteroid/Mayan Calendar/”The-World-Will-End-On-This-Date” kind of people. I happen to believe in what the Bible says about End Times in that no one knows the day or the hour that the Lord will return. However, as Christians and believers in Christ we can see the signs. If you have any experience in the book of Revelation (or – like me - enjoy reading the Left Behind series) you know certain “signs” that must occur before the return of Christ. Let’s Recap:

1. “There shall be famines, and pestilences [strange diseases], and earthquakes in diverse places.” – Matthew 24:7

- From what I can tell these things have happened (although they’ve been happening for years and years), and are starting to get worse. I think of Japan getting hit twice. People are getting new illnesses all the time – by things that we didn’t even know could make us sick, and there have certainly been famines all over the world for a long time.

2. “Many shall come in My name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.” – Matthew 24:5

-False prophets have been around a long time as well. I have yet to personally experience seeing anyone claim to be “God”, but I have certainly been disgusted by some of the teacher’s I’ve seen on TV.

3. “As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be before the coming of the Son of Man.” – Matthew 24:37

-There was a reason that God wiped out the Earth in Noah’s time and started over. The world was so evil and corrupt that it needed to be done. I don’t know if our society has reached the point of Noah’s time, but as far as I’m concerned we’re close. Turn on the TV and watch what’s on, read the news, walk into a school. It’s shocking.

4. “You will hear of wars and rumors of wars … For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.” – Matthew 24:6-7

-Sound familiar? Has this not been going on for years now? Has American not been “at war” with Iraq since 9/11?

Now, there are others of course, but those are the ones that I think are the most relevant in this day and age. Now – again – I’m not trying to put a damper on your excitement, and I’m not trying to put fear into your hearts and minds, but the truth of the matter is: Things are never going to be 100% better until Jesus reigns over the Earth.

For anyone who is a true believer in Christ, you know that Jesus will return for his followers before things get really bad (Aka: The Great Tribulation). Now, there are theologists that will argue that the Rapture will occur “Mid-Trib” or “Post-Trib”, but I am a believer in “Pre-Trib”, simply because I don’t feel that God would condemn his followers to that level of suffering. Honestly, if you read the Bible about what the Tribulation is like…it will NOT be fun! You think it’s bad now? Multiply that by about 100 – and it will go on for seven years. I hold the hope in my heart that I will not be around to experience that level of suffering because I love and believe in Jesus, and will be raptured (or just dead) before that happens.

Now, if anyone is thinking “So, are you saying that the end of the world is going to happen next week?” No, I’m not saying that. I don’t know that for sure – if God chooses that to be the case, then it will happen. But, people have been claiming it to be the “End Times” since before most of us were born. It’s true that more and more prophecies are coming to pass in the more recent years, but some of them still have not.

What’s my point in all this? Actually, I’ve veered off track so much that I really am not sure myself. I guess what I have been trying to get at is simply this: Be ready. If you haven’t made the choice to become a follower of Jesus Christ, or you are one but only on Sunday – don’t put it off. No one knows when the Rapture will happen, and if you miss it because you’ve been too stubborn to admit that you know the truth in your heart, then I am sorry. God gives us so many chances. If you fall down 10 times, God will pick you up 11. He can never love you any more or any less than he does right now. There are all kinds of phrases like that, but they are all true. I – for one – would rather spend an eternity with Christ in paradise, then suffer through pain and torture simply because I wasn’t willing to give up living in the ways of the world.

I know that I started out taking about bin Laden, and somehow got onto the End of the World, but I feel that it all ties together. I’m not suggesting that the death of bin Laden sparks the end of the world, but it’s simply another milestone in society’s history that shows just what is happening with our world. How we now have no shame standing in the streets and celebrating about the government murdering a man. Bin Laden wasn’t innocent by far. He deserved to be punished severely. He killed thousands of innocent people. He was a terrible, terrible man. But there’s this little nagging voice in the back of my head that says “Should we really be celebrating a murder?” Doesn’t that just keep the cycle in motion? They murder us, we murder them, then they murder more of us? Like I said, it isn’t going to change the state of the world – it’s simply one less person to be concerned about, but it opens so many doors for other’s to take his place.

I realize this has turned into a rather pessimistic post, but it’s how I feel. I’ve even managed to depress myself if that’s any consolation. But as believers in Christ we can rejoice in knowing that we will be with him before any of this horrible stuff happens. That’s something to look forward to.

So, why should we care so much as a society that they are getting married? If we think about everything that’s gone on in the last couple of months (I’m thinking the tornadoes in the south, earthquakes, people dying, missing children…), does a Royal Wedding that most of us knew would happen eventually for years now, really take priority over those other things?

This is the major problem that I have with society as a whole. We place priorities on things that are not the priority! We’re so quick to jump on every bandwagon we can find, that we miss some of the most important things that happen in the world. Once again, I’m going to have to blame the media for this. In the last few months, ever since the engagement was announced, you couldn’t turn on the TV without seeing something about the wedding. The craze escalated exponentially in the last week or so – because everyone wanted to know what Kate was wearing, who was doing her makeup, who was invited, etc. Quite honestly…I don’t care! I don’t care what she wears, I don’t care when the wedding starts, I don’t care that it has it’s own Youtube channel…I simply.don’t.care!

Now, I wasn’t even alive when Charles and Diana got married, but I know there was a ton of hype over that wedding as well. But as far as I’m concerned, it was for a different reason. I – for one – don’t believe that Charles and Diana really ever loved each other. Even watching footage of the wedding on Youtube, you can sense the atmosphere wasn’t that of “the happiest day of their lives”. Diana was also a very high profile figure (mostly after the wedding, but somewhat before as well). The difference is that William and Kate have been together on and off for years, and everyone pretty much assumed that when William decided to get married, it would be to Kate. Also, I see how much they love each other. You can just tell when you see the pictures and interviews – the genuinely look like they’re in love, and that’s fantastic!

Anyway, as I’ve said, society always gets caught up with these events, and they end up making them larger than life – when really…they’re not. When I get married, I’m not going to have merchandise with my face on it. I’m not going to have a commemorative DVD that sells for an outrageous price, and I am certainly not going to get my own Lifetime movie. For one, I’m not a Royal, and two – unless I marry someone famous, no one is going to care!

These bandwagons didn’t just start with the Royal Wedding though. People have been giving into media hype for years, and it’s irritating! I have a major pet peeve with media hype, and generally I refuse to participate in liking anything just because it’s popular. If I watch something, or read something it’s because I want to. It’s because I’ve tried it out on my own terms and decided that I liked it. There have also been reverse cases with certain things – where I’ve started out liking them, and then they got too popular and now they’re just annoying. Twilight is a great example of this. My friend told me I should read the books because they were really good. This was before the movies came out, and no one really knew about them. So, I read the first one and I absolutely loved it. Then the media hype started. Eight year old girls stood in line for twelve hours screaming for Robert Pattinson and throwing their underwear at Taylor Lautner, and after that I just couldn’t look at the series the same way. Yes, I’ve read all the books, and I’ve watched all the movies (and yes, I think Kellan Lutz is gorgeous), but I find it very hard to associate myself with something that has an average fan age of thirteen (or over 40 Twi-Mom’s which are even scarier).

In this day and age, things can be blown up in the media in a matter of days. Unknown people can become famous overnight, and have paparazzi stalking them when they go to the grocery store. This is one of the reasons I don’t think I could ever be a celebrity. I can’t imagine being on of the actors from something like “Twilight” or “Glee”, and not being able to do anything without having it photographed.

Why does society care so much about what other people are doing? I’m asking this as someone who does it too. I admit that I like to keep up on my favorite celebrities, but not to the point of borderline stalking them. When I like a show, I don’t need to get millions of merchandise items. I’ll buy the DVD’s eventually, but I won’t stand in line for six hours. Even with my most treasured show that I’ve been watching religiously for six years – Supernatural. I have all the DVD’s, and I’ve got some books, but I’ve never paid thousands of dollars to go to a Convention, or stood in line for six hours to get an autograph.

When did society become so bored with themselves that they have to rely on other people for all of their entertainment? Not that there’s anything wrong with entertainment, but as long as you moderate how much you take in. Why do you think so many young girls are making themselves sick trying to look like their favorite Disney star? It’s because that’s all they ever see. They’re bombarded with images everywhere they go – even if they’re not watching it on TV.

I think if we stopped placing so many people on a pedestal that don’t really need to be up on one, we’d soon start to realize that these “celebrities” are no more worthy of our attention than our next door neighbours…and probably less!

Now, tell me how someone who spent most of last summer catching up with the first season, and completely obsessing over the show, can go from that kind of reaction, to the one I’m having now? What’s changed?

Well, I’m here to tell you what’s changed. “Glee” is experiencing – what I like to call – the Sophomore Slump. Granted, I didn’t make that phrase up; it’s what most TV critics use when talking about shows. But I’ve actually never seen it be truer than with “Glee”. The Sophomore Slump is what happens when the first season of a show was so amazing and groundbreaking, and then season two comes along and…nothing. It’s still a hit show, but the “oomph” that is used to have is gone. For me, this is exactly what has happened with “Glee”.

Let’s backtrack to season one for a minute. The first season of “Glee” dealt with a high school Spanish teacher who took over coaching the school’s under appreciated Glee club. They started with four or five “nerdy” and “unpopular” students, and by the end of the year, they had included cheerleaders, football players, and other more popular kids. They overcame the odds, and made it to Regionals – however they didn’t win. That was the basis of season 1 – an underdog story about overcoming the odds.

Cut to season two: There really isn’t one plotline for the show at this point. The Glee club is still underappreciated, but now we’ve got cheating, gay bullying, two bisexual cheerleaders, a bunch of appearances by Gwyneth Paltrow, John Stamos as a dentist, and Kathy Griffin being a very stereotypical Catholic judge. A lot of the characters have had little to no development, and the other ones have been completely changed in order to bring in more “drama”.

Now, I’m not going to turn this into a “let’s-hate-on-Ryan-Murphy” post, but let’s be honest; from a creative standpoint, the show is just not up to par with what it used to represent.

So, what happened? Why has “Glee” suffered from the “Sophomore Slump”?

My theory is this: Basically, the show is trying to be something that it’s not. “Glee” started out as a musical comedy. There wasn’t a lot of drama, but enough that the show didn’t get really silly. It’s like “Friends” – “Friends” is primarily a comedy show, but every now and then they added a little spark of drama just to keep the audience intrigued. It was a nice balance, and in season one “Glee” had that. I think that “Glee” is trying too hard to be a “Dawson’s Creek”, when it really should stick to being a “Friends”.

“Dawson’s Creek” was known for being a very issue oriented show. It dealt with all those issues that normal teenagers dealt with – sex, drugs, being gay, cheating and all that – but it did it without being a mockery. The problem I have with “Glee” tackling all these issues, is that I don’t think they know how to do it seriously. They add in the comedic element at the wrong time, and basically make fun of all these issues (except for one, which I’ll get to later).

To slightly branch out into talking about current television in general, I don’t understand why all these shows seem to think that the biggest issue in the world is sex. Now, sex is a part of life, and I’m not denying that. I don’t have a problem with shows dealing with it, so long as they do it in a manner that it doesn’t end up overshadowing the rest of the plot. I’ve said it before in other posts, that I’m most certainly not a prude. However, just because sex is a part of life, doesn’t mean that I want to see it all over my screen every week. I’m going to steal a quote that I saw on a message board from someone who was basically saying the same thing. They said: “Lots of things are a part of life, but I don’t need to see them. Taking a crap is a daily routine, but you wouldn’t want to watch it on TV every week.”

I’ll go back to “Dawson’s Creek” (mainly because I love it so much). They dealt with sex from the very first episode. But the difference between them and “Glee”, is that they dealt with it in normal circumstances. They didn’t make a joke out of it. I remember that the biggest question of season four was whether or not Joey would sleep with Pacey. In my opinion, they dealt with that wonderfully. Instead of just having her say “Well, everyone else is doing it, and I’m not really sure if I love you enough or not, but hey – let’s go for it!”, she pretty much said “We’ll do it when I’m ready. I’m not going to rush into this.” Then when they finally got together, you were really happy, because you knew that she wasn’t just doing it  because she felt the need to. I also liked the fact that Pacey never made her feel pressure – he waited for her.

The biggest difference between that storyline, and the way that “Glee” handles it, is basically that “Glee” makes fun of the issue. They have their “celibacy” club, which consists of Rachel – the prude, Quinn – the once pregnant, now cheating on her current boyfriend cheerleader, Santana and Brittany – the bisexual cheerleaders, and Emma – the guidance counsellor that is afraid to have sex with her husband. To top that all off, you have Gwyneth Paltrow come in as the “sex education” teacher, and basically tell them that it’s okay to sleep around with a bunch of people when you’re in high school, as long as you use protection. Not to mention that some of her methods would get her completely fired if this was real life. It’s offensive to people like me, who believe that you don’t have to have sex with someone when you’re in high school (or out of high school). It’s not a rite of passage for me – and I don’t like seeing it taken so lightly, when you have young people watching this show who are going to be influenced by that.

The only issue that they seem to take seriously on “Glee” is the subject of gay bullying. I really don’t have much of a problem with this, because it is a very serious issue. I have a problem with the fact that this is the ONLY issue that they take seriously. I also have a problem with the fact that they overlook every other version of bullying as if it didn’t exist. For the majority of the first season, Rachel was bullied because she was considered a nerd, Finn was bullied by the rest of the football team because he joined the “Glee” club, Artie got bullied because he was in a wheel chair, and – although they didn’t show it – Mercedes probably got bullied because she’s a bigger girl. So why is it that Kurt gets bullied by ONE person for being gay, and suddenly he’s switching schools, and everyone pities him, and it’s this big hoopla for ten episodes?

They’ve already established the fact that Karofski was bullying him because he was actually gay himself, and was taking out his anger on Kurt. This happens, I’m sure in real life, and it’s sad. But is it grounds for a ten episode story arc? No. Last season, Mercedes had ONE episode (and it wasn’t even a full episode), where they dealt with her being self-conscious about her weight.

I think that Ryan Murphy needs to get off of his soap box, and realize that being gay in high school is not the biggest issue that people face. Or if he’s going to continue making that the primary focus of the show, he should take a hint from “Dawson’s Creek”, and handle it better. “Dawson’s Creek” had one of the best gay storylines that I can remember in television. Jack McPhee realized he was gay in high school after writing a poem about a guy. He was made fun of by a mean old teacher, and bullied for a while by some of the people at school. He came out to his very conservative father in one of the most powerful scenes of the whole series, and then WENT ON ABOUT HIS LIFE! They didn’t focus on him for every single episode! He had storylines throughout the rest of the series, and had relationship problems, and discrimination problems, but no more than the rest of the characters. He also had the first gay kiss on Primetime Television, but they did it without sounding trumpets and throwing confetti. He stood up for himself when the need arose, and defended his rights when the issue was raised. But…that was it! He wasn’t put on a soap box above the rest of the characters, he didn’t have ten times the amount of storyline (if anything, he had less in the later seasons, which is a shame because he was such a good character), and the best part is THEY DIDN’T MAKE HIM ANNOYING!

I liked Kurt in season one of “Glee”.  To be honest, I liked how they dealt with him coming out to his father, and accepting himself for who he was, but once season two came around they made him into a diva. As soon as anyone said anything that could be taken as even the slightest bit “homophobic”, they may as well have alerted the National Guard. It was blown so far out of proportion , that it made the character irritating. And then he goes to this other school,  falls in love with another gay student who I find equally as irritating (Darren Criss fans, please don’t hunt me down and kill me for that!). The problem I have with the character of Blaine (besides him having more screen time than necessary), is the reaction the fans have had to him. They act as if he’s the greatest thing since sliced bread. He’s so brave because he stood up for Kurt, and so awesome because he’s confident in himself. But, he flirts with Kurt for almost the entire time they’re in the same school, and then has the nerve to ask him to help basically stalk and sing to his crush at the mall?

Anyway, I’m getting a little off topic, but that’s more or less how I feel.

So, getting back to “Why Glee is suffering from an identity crisis”: Even though I’ve been rambling on for pages, it basically comes down to one thing:

“Glee” is trying to be something it’s not.

I think they need to go back to the lighthearted show they had in season one. Focus more on the music, and on developing ALL the characters, instead of just one or two. Stop making every episode about sex, and start dealing with different issues. Remember that these characters are supposed to be in high school – not in their 20′s like the actors are. Just make the show FUN again. If I wanted to watch a drama filled, issue oriented show, I would re watch ”Dawson’s Creek”. I’d enjoy is more, because they handle it better, and because that’s what “Dawson’s Creek” was from day one. They didn’t change their formula after one season – they just expanded on it.

So, Ryan Murphy – here’s my message to you: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!

I recently came across a video of a high school senior speaking to her classmates during an assembly about Martin Luther King Jr. The girl took this opportunity to publicly come out to the rest of the school as a lesbian. Now, I will say this: the speech was very moving, the girl is very brave, and she has every right to be who she is, and be proud of it. However, as I was listening to her speak, I kept thinking that most of  her words could be changed slightly to accommodate my life.

First and foremost – I have to point this out: I have absolutely no problem with someone being gay. I believe that every person has the right to be exactly who they want to be, and no one should try to tell them otherwise. I believe that they should be allowed to love whom ever they want to love, and do so without being persecuted, harassed, bullied or ridiculed. Would you like to know the reason I say this? It’s because that is truly the way I think Jesus would’ve treated them.

Now,  before you get yourselves worked up into a frenzy – I’m not saying that the Bible agrees with people being gay. You can argue with me all you like, but facts are facts. It’s clearly stated in the Bible that being gay is a sin, and there’s nothing I can do to change that. However, it doesn’t say in the Bible that being gay is a sin, and therefore anyone gay must be bullied mercilessly, have less rights than other people, and not be able to live their lives. God will deal with them when the time comes, and it is not our place to judge at all. JESUS DOESN’T HATE! It’s been proven time and time again that Jesus loves the sinners, that Jesus ate with the sinners – the prostitutes, the liars, the cheaters, etc. He didn’t judge them, he didn’t condemn them, he simply loved them!

Okay, so where am I going with this? As I was saying about the video – most of what she said hit home with me. Not because I’m a lesbian by any means, but because I understand what it’s like to live in a world where it’s not acceptable to be who you are. I can not say that I’ve experienced the horror’s of racism, or been abused because I’m a woman, or been bullied because of my orientation. But, I can say that I know what it is like to be made fun of for my beliefs. I’ve gotten the stares, the eye rolls, the sympathetic “oh, look at that good little Christian girl believing in her fake God…such a shame.” looks.

The world is so good at preaching tolerance – and day after day it bombards me everywhere I turn. I’m 100% pro tolerance. As I’ve said, I believe everyone was created equal in God’s eyes, and therefore should be treated as equals. But it absolutely baffles me (and actually infuriates me now that I think about it), that the world basically preaches tolerance for everyone except me. When I say “me”, I’m encompassing everyone that has the courage to believe in something they can’t see.

Everyone in the world has rights. We’re living in such a “pro-diversity” age now, that if you so much as begin to question that, you’re labeled as intolerant.

Now, I really hate the word “tolerance”, and I’m going to tell you why: The word “tolerant” to me, sounds as if it’s acceptance, but only because you’re forced to. It’s like me saying “I tolerate walking to work in -30 degree temperatures, only because it means I get paid.” I’m doing something that I really don’t want to, but only because I have to, and am getting something beneficial out of it. If I were to say that I “tolerate” the gay lifestyle – that’s really putting me back into Stone Age Christianity, because I’d basically be saying “I’ll tolerate what you’re doing, but only because if I don’t, I’ll look like a horrible person and no one wants that.” I’d rather be able to say “Look – what you’re doing, doesn’t line up with what I believe. But, you know what? I love you. I love you because you’re a person. I love you because God made you just the way you are, and nothing God makes is bad. Even if I don’t agree with what you’re doing, I wouldn’t dare go so far as to tell you that you can’t do it. I have respect for you, and you being gay doesn’t define who you are. It shouldn’t define who you are.”

So, for me – I’m willing to be “acceptant” of a lot of things in this world. Some I agree with, and some I don’t. Obviously, there are practises in this world that are so unacceptable to me, that I can’t even say I “tolerate” them. Human/animal sacrifice, necrophilia, beastiality…that’s just the beginnings of a list. However, who someone choses to love doesn’t make my list. I have no control over it – it’s not my life. As I’ve said: God is the only one who can judge another person, and he’ll get to that in time. He’ll judge me, and what I did with my life as well – and goodness knows it probably won’t be pretty. I’m the farthest thing from perfect you can find (I haven’t sacrificed any animals though – don’t worry).

Anyway, I’m kind of getting off topic, but I had to make my stance known before I continue. So, to press forward – the world preaches acceptance of pretty much everyone. If you don’t like black people – you’re racist. If you don’t like gay people – you’re homophobic. If you don’t believe in God – you’re an atheist. Now – tell me – out of those three terms: Racist, Homophobic and atheist, which one seems out of place? I’ll tell you – atheist. You know why? Because in this day and age, it is perfectly “acceptable” for someone to not believe in God. And you know what? That’s okay. I don’t have a problem if someone doesn’t believe in my God. That’s their prerogative. What kind of person would I be, if I sat here and said “I don’t believe that it’s right to be gay, but you have to believe everything I believe!”  The one thing that I don’t understand, is if someone bullies a gay person – it’s the end of the world. If someone makes fun of someone else’s beliefs – it’s just another day at the office. Why can everyone else be whomever they want, but not me?

Over the last few months, there’s been a string of teens committing suicide. A lot of the time, it’s been brought on by bullying at school, and more often than not – it’s because they were gay. This is tragic in so many ways – you have no idea how much this hurts my heart. However, I can tell you right now – I’m pretty certain that the people bullying these teens had nothing to do with God. I’m fairly sure they were just teenagers – uneducated, intolerant, insecure, cruel – yet unknowing – teenagers. I don’t think that teenagers truly know how powerful words can be. I work in a school that goes up to grade 9, and you’d be surprised how much I hear being said. It’s not just gay bullying – it’s just bullying in general. Now, I have yet to hear of any “Christian” suicides: meaning people committing suicide because they were being bullied for believing in God. You know what though? In the Bible, we didn’t commit suicide…we were just stoned to death.

Now the world is going to argue with me: “Why are you complaining about us? We let you have your churches – you can worship wherever you want, and we don’t bother you. All we ask is that you don’t shove it in our faces. You can be who you want, but just not while we’re around. It’s OFFENSIVE!”

Please.

What part of that makes any sense whatsoever?

Am I telling gay people that they can love who they want, marry who they want, do what they want as long as they don’t do it in front of me because it’s OFFENSIVE? NO!

I’ll give it to you – there are extremes on both ends of the spectrum. There are “Jesus-lovin”, “Bible-thumpin”, “Soul-savin” groups out there *cough WestboroBaptistChurch *cough* that gives the rest of us a horribly bad image. But, I’ll tell you right now – those people are not portraying the God I know and love. What they’re portraying is a God of hatred, and wrath and it makes me sick. That is not my God. If that were my God – John 3:16-17 would not exist. In case you need a reminder, let me jog your memory:

“For God so LOVED the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God DID NOT send his Son into the world to CONDEMN the world, but to SAVE the world through Him.” – John 3:16-17 NIV

When I talk about my faith, I’m not talking about the kind of faith that runs up and down the street waving a Bible and telling people they’re going to hell. My faith is a quiet, gentler faith, because that’s the kind of person I am. I would get nowhere if I simply ran around condemning people, and telling them everything they were doing wrong. If I spent all my time doing that, I fear I would overlook things in my own life that needed to be changed – and if that happened, everything I’d be doing for “the glory of God” would prove worthless.

There’s also the extremes on the other side of the spectrum. The people that are so “Pro-Gay” that they become “Anti-God.” Since the Christian faith is the one that’s easiest to pick on, they turn to that in order to automatically get what they think is a group of people against their cause. Everyone needs someone to blame, and we seem to be the simplest target.

While I don’t think that anyone needs to run up and down the street preaching and yelling whatever it is they believe – whether they be staging an Anti Prop 8 rally, or a Sunday morning service – I believe that everyone should have the right to live however they chose, without fearing the wrath of the world around them. That goes for everyone – regardless of what you believe.

I want nothing more in my life, then to be able to praise my God – the saviour of my soul, the One who found me when I was broken and alone, picked me up and made me whole, the One who never left me no matter how many times I screwed up, the One who always listens to me no matter how trivial what I have to say may seem, the One who cares about even my smallest needs, the One who deserves every ounce of praise and respect I can muster in my body, the One who loves me no matter what I do, and most of all the One who made me who I am.

I want to be able to thank him for that without having to worry about what others think.

I want to be able to express my love for the person I chose to love without being told it’s wrong.

I want to be able to believe what I believe without being condemned.

I want to be who I am without people giving me a look of disgust.

Does this sound familiar? Doesn’t this sound like the usual “gay rights” plight? Doesn’t it sound like I’m having a harder time being “accepted” and “tolerated” than anyone else? I’m not trying to turn this into a pity party for myself – honestly, I’m not. I’m just trying to point out that I feel what you feel. I understand.

The world sucks. That’s just a fact. People are cruel – people will always be cruel, and the world will always suck until God makes everything new again. The Bible has told me that I will be persecuted for what I believe – that the world will never understand:

“If the world hates you, you know that it hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love it’s own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I say to you: If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you, because they do not know Him who sent me.” John 15: 18-21

The world is looking for love. The world is looking for acceptance. I think everyone in the world is just looking for…something. Any form of comfort. Why is it considered a crime that I’ve already found mine?

“For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us” – Romans 8:18

So, to quote what seems to be the popular phrase in this day and age: “It gets better.”

Since I am not an American citizen, there is not much I can do when election time comes around other than sit back and watch that country slowly self destruct – which would be funny if it didn’t directly affect us as well.  As much as Canadians like to believe that we’re a separate entity from the States, that simply is not the case. A lot of the decisions that Americans make, will somewhat affect us as well.

Let’s go back to 2008. The U.S has election fever. It’s like a major boxing match – on the right, you have the smooth talking, charismatic, young Barack Obama. On the left, the slightly older, probably wiser John McCain. One of them will have the daunting task of cleaning up a disastrous eight years thanks to Mr. George W. Bush. At this point, America is ready for a change. They’ve had a Republican government for eight years, and nothing good had come out of it. This is a direct example of American activities affecting Canadian lifestyle – we’re at war now. I personally don’t think there was any question that Obama would be the next President. Had the American people elected another Republican, they would have been rendered insane.

Barack Obama came on the election scene with a fire and a passion that the American people so desperately wanted. He promised change – better health care, ending the war, getting the country out of its financial slump – and the people ate it up. Obama was a god to them. He inspired the younger generation, which resulted in a huge spike in terms of voting numbers – especially among younger people. Finally, after living under Bush for eight years, there was a light at the end of the tunnel.

Now, Obama didn’t rise to power without a fight. Let’s be honest – McCain gave him a good run for his money. Enter Sarah Palin – people were captivated by the Alaskan governor who preached about abstinence while her 17-year-old daughter was knocked up with her boyfriend’s baby out-of-wedlock. (Now, Bristol is on Dancing With The Stars, and her douchebag of an ex-boyfriend is apparently running for Mayor in Alaska…okay then.) People make mistakes – not passing judgement on her. However, on a side note, I came across an interesting article that said that the McCain-Palin camp tried to make Bristol not announce the pregnancy because it wouldn’t be good for their image. Then, they tried to make her get married so it would look better. Just thought I’d put that out there. McCain had a lot of the southern voters under his wing. We all know that the south is full of highly religious people, and just like everything else in this world – politics are influenced by religion. George W. Bush was a proud Christian (which ironically enough, so is Obama, but no one focuses on that do they?), so it would make sense that a lot of these “Christians” would flock to McCain who shared a lot of the same values as Bush did (By that I mean, anti-gay, pro-life and all that fun stuff). Now, I consider myself to be a Christian, but I really didn’t agree with a lot of the Bush/McCain platforms. I’ve pro-life by choice (obviously, I’m adopted. It’s something close to my heart), but I’m not anti-gay…not by a long shot. How can I profess to be a follower of Jesus Christ, if I don’t accept and love my neighbour? However, that’s just an aside on my part – has nothing really to do with this blog post.

Anyway, so come November 4, 2008, the people are ready to make their decision. I actually stayed up late that night watching the numbers, and I have to say, I was very excited, relieved and pleased that Obama came out on top. Had I been an American citizen he would have gotten my vote. America had something they had never had before – the first African-American president. Let the games begin.

Let’s cut to November of 2010. Moral in the U.S is not exactly where you would picture it after all the hoopla over the election. The natives are getting restless – their leader isn’t fulfilling all the promises that he once so firmly stated. The economy – though slightly improved – is not up to par. We’re still in Iraq, although we’re nearing the end. The gays aren’t happy – Obama hasn’t gotten equal rights that allow them to marry in every state yet. So, the big question is: Do the American people have a right to be angry?

I look at it this way. They have every right to be annoyed that their country is in the crapper. However, I don’t think that Obama is the person to blame for this. The country was already in the crapper when he got there. As much as the people looked at him as a god, the thing is, HE’S NOT! Obama is one man – he is not God. He can’t snap his fingers and make everything better. He’s been there for two years, and you expect him to clean up a mess that took eight years to create? Your country is at war, your country has no money, and heaven forbid your gays can’t get married. I may get some flack for that – but it’s the truth. I’m all for equal rights – I think that everybody should have the right to be married, but people, there are more serious issues than that. If I were the President, I’d be focusing my energy on not having my people die in roadside bombs, and making sure that people can get medical insurance when they’re diagnosed with cancer. Your ability to marry is not going to sustain your lifespan. You will still be alive even if you can’t marry your partner – I know it sucks, but quite frankly, GET OVER IT!

From what I’ve observed, the American people are a lot like toddlers. They want what they want, when the want it, and they want it right here right now. If they don’t get it, they throw a tantrum and threaten to vote their President out of office. Think about this people – if you vote out you Democrat President, all you are going to get is another Republican one. There isn’t some magical political party waiting in the wings that can sprinkle fairy dust over the country and solve everything. Voting out your President – or subsequently voting in more Republican candidates – is not going to help you. All you’re doing is prolonging your agony. You can’t start from scratch every time something doesn’t got the way you want it to – you won’t get anywhere at all that way. Even if you vote for whoever is running in 2012, you’re still going to end up with the same result – Democrat or Republican. Hilary Clinton or – God forbid – Sarah Palin is not going to fix your country any better than Obama or McCain could. They may be the “President”, but they have so many people telling them what to do, that they may as well not be. Why do you think they’re called “Advisors”?

Basically, what I’m trying to say is: Give the poor guy a chance. Like I said, he’s been there for two years. He’s not perfect – he’s doing the best he can under the circumstances. If I was American, I would have had the sense enough to know that even though I voted for Obama, things aren’t going to be fixed overnight. As the great Yoda says: Patience, young Padawan, patience…

For anyone that doesn’t know, or doesn’t follow what’s been happening – these three actors (who are all in their 20′s), posed for GQ (which is known for being geared at a more “male” audience let’s just say). The cover of the magazine itself is a tad bit racy, but nothing that we haven’t seen before. Cory Monteith is posed in between Lea Michele and Dianna Agron, who are wearing skimpy school girl uniforms. The photo’s on the inside of the magazine spin a slightly different – racier – tale. Mostly Lea Michele posing in overly sexual poses in nothing but underwear and a skimpy top. There are a few shots of Dianna as well, but I don’t find them to be as overly sexualized. For one thing – she is consistantly in a skirt, and never shown directly in her underwear. Cory – of course – is consistantly clothed (much to my inner fangirl dismay ).

The Parents Television Council (known for it’s conservative image) openly denounced the maker’s of Glee, and the people of GQ for allowing such a photoshoot to be made. They claim that the entire second season of Glee so far has been pushing too many buttons, and turning down a more sexual path. While they make a decent arguement, there are several other factors that must be taken into account.

First, let’s look at the points that the PTC makes:

1. “It is disturbing that GQ, which is explictly written for adult men, is sexualizing the actresses who play high school aged characters on ‘Glee’ in this way. It borders on pedophilia.”

-While it is true that both Lea and Dianna portray high school characters on the show, I think that pedophilia is a strong word. Yes, there are sick, perverted people out there that would look at this magazine and think of them as their characters – but for the most part, I think that people will be looking at them simply as actresses. Actresses who are both in their mid 20′s. It is not as if Lea and Dianna were wrongly forced into doing this spread. They are old enough to know what they are doing.

2. “Sadly, this is just the latest example of the overt sexualization of young girls in entertainment.”

-This, I do agree with. However, it has been happening for years. Britney Spears/Christina Aguilera were being “overtly sexualized” in the 90′s. And, hello? Anyone seen the latest Miley Cyrus videos? The girl is not exactly the vision of purity (though she may like you to think she is). Females have been being “overly sexualized” in the media for years – its just the way that it is.

3. “Many children who flocked to ‘High School Musical’ have grown into ‘Glee’ fans.

-The key word here is “grown”. High School Musical ffirst came out in 2006. That’s four years ago. If the majority of fans of that movie were – let’s say – 12 at the time (that’s just a rough guess), they are now somewhere around the age of 16/17. I think that’s generally old enough to be a Glee fan. Even if you argue that this is still overly sexual for a 16 year old, you have to remember that they have probably been bombarded with sexual images since they were 13, and probably younger. This is nothing new to them.

4. “By authorizing this kind of near-pornographic display the creators of the program have established their intentions with the show’s direction. And it isn’t good for families.”

-Very true. It isn’t good for families – BUT – I don’t think that Glee was ever intended to be a “family” show. It’s aimed at more mature teen/young adult audiences. I wouldn’t let my 13 year old watch it if I was a parent. I probably wouldn’t let my 15 year old watch it. But, by the time a teenager gets to be 16/17, you can’t really force them to watch all “family friendly” shows. They need to start making their own judgement calls.

Now, let’s look at the facts:

1. Glee has been pushing the envelope this season.

-Very true. The first few episodes alone made references to such things as masturbation, girl-on-girl action, getting to “second base” and dedicated an entire episode to Britney Spears. This is certainly “pushing the envelope” for primetime television. For me, I did feel that certain elements of episodes were innapropriate. Not because I’m a prude – but simply because there isn’t a need to show or imply certain things on television. You have to respect that even older, more mature audiences have some sort of filter and line that shouldn’t be crossed while watching a TV show.

2. Children under the age of 16 probably shouldn’t be watching Glee

-This is a fact as far as I’m concerned. Unfortunately, this is not the case. I know a lot of younger people (some as young as 12) that are in love with the show. I can’t speak for every parent, but when it comes to my future children, I will be very cautious of what I allow them to watch – especially on FOX, and especially on Primetime. I think that if a program is on at 9 at night, parents should be very careful of letting their youngster watch it – especially without supervision.

3. Lea Michele is the main culprit in this

-This is just my opinion. But, the photos don’t lie. Out of the three actors that posed, Lea is the only one that – in my opinion – posed way over provocatively. Let’s look at the pictures. While Cory remains consistantly bundled up (and only makes an appearance in a couple of photos), Dianna poses with cheerleading equipment (echoing her character on the show), wearing a short cheerleading skirt (nothing that isn’t seen in the average high school), and a tied up top (showing minimum cleavage and midrift). Lea – on the other hand – is shown in nothing but panties and a shirt posing by lockers seductively sucking on a lolipop. In another shot, she is sitting spread eagle (in said panties and shirt) on a locker bench. I think that if you cropped Lea out of the magazine entirely, parents would not be in an uproar (at least no in such a big one.) While Dianna’s photo’s are a little sexy, they are also playful. She is shown smiling in each photograph. I think facial expressions play a huge role in the atmosphere of these photographs. Lea’s face is constantly in a “trying-to-be-sexy” sense – and I think that attributes to them being overly provocative. I do not know if this was the choice of Lea herself – so I will not pass blame or judge – but it seems to me that she took this spread as a way to show off some skin, and her more “sexy side”, because she doesn’t get to do so on the show. (Her character is kind of a prude).

4. Dianna Agron apologized for the photos.

-Fact. She stated that “If you are hurt, or these photos make you uncomfortable, it was never our intention.” However, she also makes some other valid points such as:

“If your eight year old has a copy of our GQ cover in hand, again, I am sorry. But I would have to ask, how on earth did it get there? There are parental locks, and ways to get around this.”

“I am twenty-four years old. I have been a pretty tame, and easy going girl my whole life. Nobody is perfect, and these photos do not represent who I am.”

She makes good points. If your eight year old (or even your 12 year old) has a copy of GQ at any time, that is on your shoulders as a parent. I mean, GQ is no Playboy, but it’s certainly the type of magazine that needs to be monitered. It’s also no “Teen Beat” – you won’t be seeing Selena Gomez or the Jonas Brothers in GQ.

5. There have been FAR worse magazine covers that have gotten less outcry.

This is true. In fact, I came across a whole slideshow of magazine covers that are worse than this one: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/images/celebritology/10/glee_gq.jpg

a) Lady Gaga on “Rolling Stone” http://www.dailystab.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/lady-gaga-rolling-stone-july-2010.jpg. Nothing better than a half naked chick with a gun…

b) The Dixie Chicks on “Entertainment Weekly” http://www.morethings.com/images/dixie_chicks/dixie_chicks_entertainment_weekly-5-2-2003.jpg. Three naked woman cleverly covering themselves, while graffiti is written over their body.

c) Britney Spears on “Rolling Stone” http://spd.fotolog.com/photo/61/51/102/divasmor/1231719712568_f.jpg. What’s disturbing about this, is the fact that Britney WAS only 17 when this was done…

d) The cast of “True Blood” on “Rolling Stone” http://www.dailystab.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/true-blood-rolling-stone-cover.jpg. This is probably the most provocative cover I’ve ever seen. Two guys and a girl – all naked, and covered with fake blood. Random body parts strategically covering up other ones. Very racy, very sexual.  Some may say that the “Glee” spread has nothing to do with music. Well, the “True Blood” spread (other than the fake blood) certainly has nothing to do with vampires.

6. There have been younger stars who have younger fanbases that have done much worse.

-Fact. Fact. Fact. Are we forgetting Vanessa Hudgens (from High School Musical) nude pictures that circulated on the internet when she was still a teenager. Sure, they were meant for her boyfriend, but that doesn’t change the fact that they were innapropriate. How about Miley Cyrus’ music video for “Can’t Be Tamed”. The video certainly lives up to the message in the title. How about Miley’s random cell phone pictures of her posing seductively in short shorts, and a belly shirt? Let’s be honest, Miley isn’t 24…she’s not even 20. She certainly has a younger fanbase, and should be taking that into account.

7. Other shows that have a teen fanbase are sending out bad messages as well.

-Fact. Gossip Girl, 90210, Melrose Place. They all have very sexual storylines (even more so than Glee). I would argue that they have the same age (if not younger) fanbase. One of Gossip Girl’s promotional posters for the show was pretty much on target with the GQ spread.

After all is said and done – it is the parent’s responsibility to moniter what their children are watching on TV. If you are a parent, and this magazine spread has caused you to forbid your teenager from watching Glee – that’s your call. When the day is done – I don’t think that these actors were trying to send a message to their fans that Glee is all about the sexuality, because that’s not the case. While I agree that there have been some more adult themes in the show this season, they are minimal, and do not overshadow the other 35 minutes of the show. I am almost 21 years old, and a Glee fan. While I am not a prude by any means, there are certainly certain elements that I don’t find appropriate on TV (not just Glee, but other shows as well). The fact remains that I am almost 21…not 14. I can make up my own mind as to what I find appropriate. If your 14 year old is watching Glee, then you should be prepared that there will be adult themes, and moniter the show accordingly. If it gets too adult for your teen to watch – simply turn it off.