I am about half way through "Sorrows of Satan" and as reading about Countess Elton I was heavily reminded of all those Meth pictures that are mass distributed amongst HighSchool kids.
On page 159 of "Sorrows of Satan" we learn that Countess Elton is paralyzed because she suffers "the worst of all the physical punishment that can befall a 'rapid lady'. AS a 'rapid lady' she "did everything that could be done by a woman at her worst and wildest" (159). Of all her phyiscal ailments her husband descibes The worst as being the disfiguration of her face.
"She's dreadful to look at--positively dreadful!--no longer human, you know. She used to be a lovely woman,--now she is literally frightful. Her eyes especially;--the are as scared and wild as if she had seen the devil(164).
http://www.methmadness.com/facesofmeth.html
Drug use, including meth, often leads to death because of overdose or other a weakened system. Drugs lead to prostitution and other crimes such as car theft. All of this is of course common knowledge but it is to help make my point. Darwin claims that vices of the weaker people is an action of Natural selection itself. Even though the immoral breed more nature balances out because vice leads to death.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Short Skirts and Bling
hey guys, I found this link the other day and thought it related to descriptions of Mavis and Sybil and the clothes they wear. As we know, Mavis a symbol for traditional values and Sybil is the decadance of the era and there clothes represent this as much as their daily attitudes. I wonder what Corelli would say about todays fashions
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3784510
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3784510
Friday, October 26, 2007
Conspiracy- Part 2
Was Leonard Da Vinci involved in leaving coded messages for a secret religious organization?
Although it may seem like a conspiracy, to have so many influencial people involved in an elaborate cover up, there is a possibility that this conspiracy may have occurred.
The church is not free from scandal, and should not be regarded as perfect in any respect. Perhaps its safe to say that the church, like modern society, is degenerate.
There are positive aspects of the church- for a long time, the church provided those unfortunate individuals with a sense of purpose and belonging. The church was place were people could put their trust- their faith as it were- and believe in something that was beyond their own scope. When times were bad, or health, fortune or even faith was whithering, religion provided a foundation of hope for many.
However, it is difficult to believe in an institution that impells to have secrets- An institution that will go by any means necessary to cover up any negative or contradictory evidence that may prove their religion is flawed- No one likes to be flawed
But the truth remains to be seen. Whether reviewing a novel like "The Da Vinici Code" or viewing the film "V for Vendetta," conspiracy is alive and well in the world. Why society has not been made aware, or has chosen to turn a blind eye to the impertinance and impropriatey of the government and the church, is beyond knowledge. The truth is out there. And we, as a society, have not been told everything there is to know. Like all major institutions, the church has secrets, and wishes to retain those secrets to any extreame.
Whatever the result may be, we have been given an opportunity, all of us in the world, to examine those institutions we call sacred and call them to the mat. Demand them to answer the questions of Jesus, Satan and the everlasting unknown that the church skirts around on a continual basis. The truth remains to be found, because we do not have all the facts.
The question bears repeating. Does Dan Brown's novel lend a basis for analysis? Or is he simply attempting to open a can of worms that should be left closed?
Although it may seem like a conspiracy, to have so many influencial people involved in an elaborate cover up, there is a possibility that this conspiracy may have occurred.
The church is not free from scandal, and should not be regarded as perfect in any respect. Perhaps its safe to say that the church, like modern society, is degenerate.
There are positive aspects of the church- for a long time, the church provided those unfortunate individuals with a sense of purpose and belonging. The church was place were people could put their trust- their faith as it were- and believe in something that was beyond their own scope. When times were bad, or health, fortune or even faith was whithering, religion provided a foundation of hope for many.
However, it is difficult to believe in an institution that impells to have secrets- An institution that will go by any means necessary to cover up any negative or contradictory evidence that may prove their religion is flawed- No one likes to be flawed
But the truth remains to be seen. Whether reviewing a novel like "The Da Vinici Code" or viewing the film "V for Vendetta," conspiracy is alive and well in the world. Why society has not been made aware, or has chosen to turn a blind eye to the impertinance and impropriatey of the government and the church, is beyond knowledge. The truth is out there. And we, as a society, have not been told everything there is to know. Like all major institutions, the church has secrets, and wishes to retain those secrets to any extreame.
Whatever the result may be, we have been given an opportunity, all of us in the world, to examine those institutions we call sacred and call them to the mat. Demand them to answer the questions of Jesus, Satan and the everlasting unknown that the church skirts around on a continual basis. The truth remains to be found, because we do not have all the facts.
The question bears repeating. Does Dan Brown's novel lend a basis for analysis? Or is he simply attempting to open a can of worms that should be left closed?
Love? or lusting for it?
The virgin woman is widely viewed in the Victorian era as the purest of all women. Corelli suggests that it is man’s urge to gratify himself that ultimately robs women of their virginity and thus their purity. Man’s moral choices come under question in Corelli’s work. Through Satan’s dialogue Corelli supports this theory. “(Man) will even deify the loss of chastity in woman by the name of purity.” Corelli does not necessarily claim that all mankind suffers from the moral and unethical impertinance suggested above. Rather, the moral concerns relate to Victorian England. Corelli suggests that there is a common trend among men of this time period to pursue the fulfillment of their “brutal lust” rather than relgious obligation as seen in "Sorrows of Satan."
The Da Vinici Code
The concept of the Da Vinci Code, a prophecy and underlying conspiracy theory covered up by religious patriarchs, has planted the seed of difference in the minds of many religious and non-religious individuals. The novel created widespread controversy within the catholic church. Faithful religious individuals believed the novel was an interesting tale- that there was no basis for the conclusions or implications that author Dan Brown illuded to. However, throughout history, philiosophers, journalists, writers and leaders have all reached their own conclusions based on evidence that has been discovered by the church or through other means. This does not change the meaning of the evidence, but mearly the intent.
Politicians and the Environmental Bandwagon... Who are they kidding?
Warning: the following commentary may be considered 'opinionated'...
The environment is changing, most can admit to that even if they don't want to admit to the 'Armageddon' of environment collapse that some conservationists have been warning for years. So our options are fairly straightforward. We can either do something about it, or not.
Lately, it seems that a slew of politicians and celebrities are waking up to the idea that may-be we might want to keep some of that Arctic ice shelf around, and not just for those cute little polar bears. When one picks up the newspaper, one can see the pretty picture of our premier shaking hands with David Suzuki, and hear Al Gore commend him on his revolutionary goals to reduce BC carbon emissions. In Ottawa, Harper has recently been quoted as saying he wants Canada to be
"a world leader in the fight against global warming and the development of clean energy."
We, an "energy superpower," have been too busy making money on fossil fuels to care much about alternatives....
A McGill Biology professor, Joe Rasmussen, commented on a recent debate over water trade, Kyoto and GMO's:
“You can see the questions on the Kyoto Agreement are not really answered by most parties. Today, most major parties platforms are more centered towards tax cuts than environmental issues. They think that’s what attracts voters the most. Only the Green party’s platforms are more centered towards environmental protection. They know they are not going to get elected. It’s ironic that a hundred years ago, environment protection was an important issue [in North America] during the election. Look at today’s election. The society kind of degenerated,” he observed...
“I’m worried but at the same time optimistic. My first question approaching this election is: “Is it acceptable to accept the principle that the only way to solve environment problems is to get richer? So after we can clean up the mess we made?”
The environment is changing, most can admit to that even if they don't want to admit to the 'Armageddon' of environment collapse that some conservationists have been warning for years. So our options are fairly straightforward. We can either do something about it, or not.
Lately, it seems that a slew of politicians and celebrities are waking up to the idea that may-be we might want to keep some of that Arctic ice shelf around, and not just for those cute little polar bears. When one picks up the newspaper, one can see the pretty picture of our premier shaking hands with David Suzuki, and hear Al Gore commend him on his revolutionary goals to reduce BC carbon emissions. In Ottawa, Harper has recently been quoted as saying he wants Canada to be
"a world leader in the fight against global warming and the development of clean energy."
Hooray!!! Yippee!!! It seems our politicians are jumping on the 'Environmental Bandwagon'...
Or are they?
A recent article in the Georgia Straight by Charlie Smith suggested we all might want to take a closer look at Campbell's objectives and consider the fact that last year the Liberal parties' policies were considered the most 'brown' of all provinces. (I personally prefer the fact that the Liberal Campaign's number one contributor is the BC Automobile Association, hmmm...)
As to Harpers objectives, as the article states:
"Uh, too late. While our politicians dithered over climate change, other countries went about inventing, marketing and selling green technologies. Most of the giant windmills that increasingly dot our countryside come from Germany....
A majority of the fuel-efficient, or hybrid, cars nosing their way onto Canadian streets are Japanese. California companies are pioneering solar technology, green building codes and sustainable farming methods. And, while we continue to experiment with carbon capture and storage, as Harper mentioned, so do other countries.We, an "energy superpower," have been too busy making money on fossil fuels to care much about alternatives....
Nor are innovation, or the changes required to make our economy sustainable, likely to accelerate on Harper's watch, despite his change in tone. His government's regulations for large emitters have been widely described as timid -- a leisurely stroll toward an unverifiable 60-per-cent reduction in real emissions by 2050, when Harper is long gone. This is the model he recommended to his fellow APEC members, who had the courtesy not to smirk.
Yet for them, for anyone befuddled by a complex topic, Harper may sound plausible. What he is doing, along with retooling Liberal notions, is trying to reframe the climate debate, implying that the Kyoto accord is some wildly impractical, job-crushing monster on one side, while fossilized climate-deniers and corporate polluters occupy the other extreme.
He positions himself in the middle, the champion of "balance" -- of "realistic benchmarks," market-driven solutions, a global gentlemen's voluntary agreement to behave sustainably, rather than crude arbitrary targets."
What's that? Kyoto? Did you say it might actually cost us something to clean up our mess? The future of the world? No way, I'm not paying for that, it's not my problem. I'd much rather you just lower my taxes please...A McGill Biology professor, Joe Rasmussen, commented on a recent debate over water trade, Kyoto and GMO's:
“You can see the questions on the Kyoto Agreement are not really answered by most parties. Today, most major parties platforms are more centered towards tax cuts than environmental issues. They think that’s what attracts voters the most. Only the Green party’s platforms are more centered towards environmental protection. They know they are not going to get elected. It’s ironic that a hundred years ago, environment protection was an important issue [in North America] during the election. Look at today’s election. The society kind of degenerated,” he observed...
“I’m worried but at the same time optimistic. My first question approaching this election is: “Is it acceptable to accept the principle that the only way to solve environment problems is to get richer? So after we can clean up the mess we made?”
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Victorian and the gothic rise of literature in Corelli's stories
Part of Victorian literature was the rise of the gothic novel. After reading a gothic short story, parellels were drawn between telelvison programs such as "Meduim", "Ghost Whisperer" and "Ghostly Encounters" and novels existing during the Victorian age. The similarities are everywhere. Corelli is one author who borrows from the gothic writings that appeared during that time period. One conventions Corelli, like so many other writers of her time uses was that of the unknown. Society as a whole constantly suspects the unknown, the stranger, as the primary target of suspicion. In fact, Lucio, in "The Sorrows of Satan", is the epitome of a foreign stranger. No one (but the author) knows his background, though, as we witness, Lucio says and does things throughout the novel that put attention on himself.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
The Battle For Christmas
Merry Christmas!
It maybe 37 days away but might just be a controversy this year as it has been in the past. Questions arise(especially in the all-tolerant Canada) that should we just assume that the majority is Christian? If so should we accommodate the masses?Should private companies advertise Christmas sales? Should public areas be Nativity free? Is Christmas offending anyone?
This issue has caused a million billion websites to be formed and many books written about the issue. The Issue even made it into Lord Bill O'Reilly's book "Culture Warrior".
The question I am trying to raise is this; Is removing Christmas from the public sector an example of Society's progression or degeneration?
In O'Reilly's book he blatantly points a finger at the ACLU for stirring up problems. He puts out very specific examples about how the ACLU has litigated and intimidated people into doing what they want. One example he refers to is about a Santa Claus visit in Baldwin City, Kansas. One year the Santa who visited the local elementary school was a protestant clergyman--and that is when the ACLU started interfering.
Unfortunately O'Reilly's book does not cite this--but the story was easy enough to find via Google. Apparently the ACLU has been trying to ban Christmas carols in public schools as well.
"Culture Warrior" has many more examples about the public sector being influenced but O'Reilly also dabbles and the private sector. Many companies such as Sears, Future Shop, and Best Buy have made the decision to take Christmas out of Christmas shopping. Christmas Trees--Now are Holiday Trees. Christmas vacation is now winter vacation. Companies are so afraid to offend people that do not celebrate Christmas that they forget that the majority of their business at this time is for people who celebrate Christmas--Many who are not Christian!
The ACLU has gotten a very bad rap about this whole debacle and of course they have a response:
As part of our justice mission, we work hard to protect the rights of free religious expression for all people, including Christians. For example, we recently defended the First Amendment rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets in southern Indiana. The ACLU intervened on behalf of a Christian valedictorian in a Michigan high school, which agreed to stop censoring religious Stat-Holiday. Perhaps the government should put the holiday on another day (perhaps yearbook entries, and supported the rights of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at their school.
The question is why are people so easily offended? If someone were to wish me Happy Hanuka I would say thank-you. Why are people so worried about it? I mean it is a we could have another Earth Day) like say--DEC 16 in honour of my birthday--and I am certainly no religious icon (Merry-Kat day! well that's a little to close to "Marry" and that's no good). Should business embrace the Christmas holiday and embrace their demographic or should they continue with the "Happy Holidays" message that is kinda bland.
Is Santa Claus even a religious icon. I certainly have not read about him in the bible. After all, the modern Santa we know is a creation of the all powerful Coca-Cola corporation.
This issue is certainly a hot-bed and is certainly not answered easily. Both sides play on people's emotions. I was raised celebrating Christmas (including the whole Jesus part). It was a magical time of year and just thinking about it brings on the nostalgic goosebumps. So when I hear campaigns like "Help Save Christmas" it does play on my emotions. When I hear the ACLU claim that they are preventing religion from invading public spaces I am also in support of that: both Canadians and Americans pride themselves on separation of Church and State. So this campaign also plays on my emotions.
Personally--I have to side with the religious zealots on this one. Santa Claus is not a representation of Christianity but more of a symbol of Western Values-- the very values that appreciate rights such as free speech. The Christmas "I'll be Home for Christmas" brought hope to troops and their families during World War Two. This is a part of our heritage--can it be excluded. There is also a vast majority of Secular Christmas Carols--should they be banned--they are after all not religious. Schools celebrate other holidays--like St.Patrick's Day (emphasis on the SAINT) should they be banned too? I am sure if you asked the kids at school if they are offended--and the majority of the parents--they will answer no.
Christmas also seems like a great way to teach multi-cultural ism and diversity. How many countries celebrate Christmas in their own unique way? Learning about them also brings out the sentimental quality Christmas has. This sentiment is about uniting people. For example slogans like "Peace on Earth" or "Good Will to ALL Men" are a great traditional -Christian-message.
My Problem with the Christmas season is how commercial it has become. I think the corporate side of Christmas should be exempt from schools.
The question still remains; Is this a sign of social degeneracy or progress? What might the consquences be if we eliminated Christmas from the public sphere? (I hope they still run "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" on the CBC !!!)
http://www.cafepress.com/merrychristmas9
http://www.conservativebookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6824http://signal.baldwincity.com/section/archive/story/3252
http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/22324res20051207.html
http://www.savingchristmasinmass.homestead.com/
It maybe 37 days away but might just be a controversy this year as it has been in the past. Questions arise(especially in the all-tolerant Canada) that should we just assume that the majority is Christian? If so should we accommodate the masses?Should private companies advertise Christmas sales? Should public areas be Nativity free? Is Christmas offending anyone?
This issue has caused a million billion websites to be formed and many books written about the issue. The Issue even made it into Lord Bill O'Reilly's book "Culture Warrior".
The question I am trying to raise is this; Is removing Christmas from the public sector an example of Society's progression or degeneration?
In O'Reilly's book he blatantly points a finger at the ACLU for stirring up problems. He puts out very specific examples about how the ACLU has litigated and intimidated people into doing what they want. One example he refers to is about a Santa Claus visit in Baldwin City, Kansas. One year the Santa who visited the local elementary school was a protestant clergyman--and that is when the ACLU started interfering.
Unfortunately O'Reilly's book does not cite this--but the story was easy enough to find via Google. Apparently the ACLU has been trying to ban Christmas carols in public schools as well.
"Culture Warrior" has many more examples about the public sector being influenced but O'Reilly also dabbles and the private sector. Many companies such as Sears, Future Shop, and Best Buy have made the decision to take Christmas out of Christmas shopping. Christmas Trees--Now are Holiday Trees. Christmas vacation is now winter vacation. Companies are so afraid to offend people that do not celebrate Christmas that they forget that the majority of their business at this time is for people who celebrate Christmas--Many who are not Christian!
The ACLU has gotten a very bad rap about this whole debacle and of course they have a response:
As part of our justice mission, we work hard to protect the rights of free religious expression for all people, including Christians. For example, we recently defended the First Amendment rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets in southern Indiana. The ACLU intervened on behalf of a Christian valedictorian in a Michigan high school, which agreed to stop censoring religious Stat-Holiday. Perhaps the government should put the holiday on another day (perhaps yearbook entries, and supported the rights of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at their school.
The question is why are people so easily offended? If someone were to wish me Happy Hanuka I would say thank-you. Why are people so worried about it? I mean it is a we could have another Earth Day) like say--DEC 16 in honour of my birthday--and I am certainly no religious icon (Merry-Kat day! well that's a little to close to "Marry" and that's no good). Should business embrace the Christmas holiday and embrace their demographic or should they continue with the "Happy Holidays" message that is kinda bland.
Is Santa Claus even a religious icon. I certainly have not read about him in the bible. After all, the modern Santa we know is a creation of the all powerful Coca-Cola corporation.
This issue is certainly a hot-bed and is certainly not answered easily. Both sides play on people's emotions. I was raised celebrating Christmas (including the whole Jesus part). It was a magical time of year and just thinking about it brings on the nostalgic goosebumps. So when I hear campaigns like "Help Save Christmas" it does play on my emotions. When I hear the ACLU claim that they are preventing religion from invading public spaces I am also in support of that: both Canadians and Americans pride themselves on separation of Church and State. So this campaign also plays on my emotions.
Personally--I have to side with the religious zealots on this one. Santa Claus is not a representation of Christianity but more of a symbol of Western Values-- the very values that appreciate rights such as free speech. The Christmas "I'll be Home for Christmas" brought hope to troops and their families during World War Two. This is a part of our heritage--can it be excluded. There is also a vast majority of Secular Christmas Carols--should they be banned--they are after all not religious. Schools celebrate other holidays--like St.Patrick's Day (emphasis on the SAINT) should they be banned too? I am sure if you asked the kids at school if they are offended--and the majority of the parents--they will answer no.
Christmas also seems like a great way to teach multi-cultural ism and diversity. How many countries celebrate Christmas in their own unique way? Learning about them also brings out the sentimental quality Christmas has. This sentiment is about uniting people. For example slogans like "Peace on Earth" or "Good Will to ALL Men" are a great traditional -Christian-message.
My Problem with the Christmas season is how commercial it has become. I think the corporate side of Christmas should be exempt from schools.
The question still remains; Is this a sign of social degeneracy or progress? What might the consquences be if we eliminated Christmas from the public sphere? (I hope they still run "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" on the CBC !!!)
http://www.cafepress.com/merrychristmas9
http://www.conservativebookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6824http://signal.baldwincity.com/section/archive/story/3252
http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/22324res20051207.html
http://www.savingchristmasinmass.homestead.com/
Thursday, October 18, 2007
The Naked Devils in Langley
I thought I would attempt to get the ball rolling on this project with a little story that remembered sparked by a conversation which Deb and I had during last class about how The Devil is still present in today's society and how decadance is also still very apparent. We can choose to keep or delete this post later...
This is something that happened to me August 2006 during my first week at a new job. I was running slight late so I decided to take the freeway, I turned off the 200th exit in Langley and continued down the street until I had to stop at a red light at what I believe is the intersection of 200th and Willow Dr (or something along those lines), basically if you've been to Langley, it's the intersection on 200th with the KFC. It was a strange atmosphere. People were honking their honks and I could hear shouting. I noticed a group of protesters on the sidewalk in front of the KFC holding signs along the lines of "Stop Animal Cruelty" and "KFC is the Devil." The signs were all held by what I thought at the time to be scantly clad females wearing red. This is when I got a jolt which has kept with me for over a year now. I was in the middle lane of traffic and on my passenger side a figure seemed to appear. It was the Devil! And he appeared to be naked! I am slightly embarassed to admit I screamed from fright all alone in my car. After regaining my composure, I noticed that the ladies were not scantily clad... they were not clad at all! They were wearing nothing more than body paint and black panties, the male devil was also decked out in body paint and boxers. Although attention grabbing, I couldn't really grasp the point of the nudity... where these people protesting against clothing or against animal cruelty? I have a link to the story for anyone interested (it has a picture of one of the body painted ladies ;) ) it's on page three and it is written from the activist point of view.
http://www.vancouverhumanesociety.bc.ca/files/images/Fall2006.pdf
So the questions I'm asking is this: was the decadence of nudity really necessary to protest animal cruelty? Can anyone else think of an occasion when they came across The Devil in everyday life? What were your reactions to it?
This is something that happened to me August 2006 during my first week at a new job. I was running slight late so I decided to take the freeway, I turned off the 200th exit in Langley and continued down the street until I had to stop at a red light at what I believe is the intersection of 200th and Willow Dr (or something along those lines), basically if you've been to Langley, it's the intersection on 200th with the KFC. It was a strange atmosphere. People were honking their honks and I could hear shouting. I noticed a group of protesters on the sidewalk in front of the KFC holding signs along the lines of "Stop Animal Cruelty" and "KFC is the Devil." The signs were all held by what I thought at the time to be scantly clad females wearing red. This is when I got a jolt which has kept with me for over a year now. I was in the middle lane of traffic and on my passenger side a figure seemed to appear. It was the Devil! And he appeared to be naked! I am slightly embarassed to admit I screamed from fright all alone in my car. After regaining my composure, I noticed that the ladies were not scantily clad... they were not clad at all! They were wearing nothing more than body paint and black panties, the male devil was also decked out in body paint and boxers. Although attention grabbing, I couldn't really grasp the point of the nudity... where these people protesting against clothing or against animal cruelty? I have a link to the story for anyone interested (it has a picture of one of the body painted ladies ;) ) it's on page three and it is written from the activist point of view.
http://www.vancouverhumanesociety.bc.ca/files/images/Fall2006.pdf
So the questions I'm asking is this: was the decadence of nudity really necessary to protest animal cruelty? Can anyone else think of an occasion when they came across The Devil in everyday life? What were your reactions to it?
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Divorce Rate
I was recently forwarded a link from one of my staunch Catholic friends about Divorce. http://www.divorcerate.org
It is more interesting to read the web page with the theme to "People's Court" running through your head.
50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri.”
These numbers are no longer astounding--I have heard it all of my life time; everyone is getting a divorce. It is apparent that many people who get married don't hold this as a "sacred institution" any more so why are people so keen on limiting who can get married and how.
Some argue that the reason the divorce rate is so high is because society does not keep "traditional values". There is a valid point to this argument. If spouses remained loyal and avoided websites such as http://www.ashleymadison.com people would there be as many divorces? If people were not caught up in Capitalism and the gaining of material goods--would a partner stay home and make sure things run smoothly? As Lady Sibil, from Marie Corelli's "Sorrows of Satan", says about love
To love for love's sake only, is becoming really an obsolete virtue(page 204).
ABC News published a story about the benefits of being married in August 2006. This is the link: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Depression/story?id=2298049
MARRIED PEOPLE LIVE LONGER A new study finds that people who have never married have the highest risk of death in the United States, contrasting with other studies that have found the highest risk in divorced, separated or widowed populations. There are many reasons married people tend to be healthier, not the least of which is they tend to be wealthier.
In a Darwinian perspective one can see that those who stick by their marriages live longer and are able to have more children--and natural selection does the rest. But the numbers of divorce are staggering--and that is a sign of degeneracy.
It is more interesting to read the web page with the theme to "People's Court" running through your head.
50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri.”
These numbers are no longer astounding--I have heard it all of my life time; everyone is getting a divorce. It is apparent that many people who get married don't hold this as a "sacred institution" any more so why are people so keen on limiting who can get married and how.
Some argue that the reason the divorce rate is so high is because society does not keep "traditional values". There is a valid point to this argument. If spouses remained loyal and avoided websites such as http://www.ashleymadison.com people would there be as many divorces? If people were not caught up in Capitalism and the gaining of material goods--would a partner stay home and make sure things run smoothly? As Lady Sibil, from Marie Corelli's "Sorrows of Satan", says about love
To love for love's sake only, is becoming really an obsolete virtue(page 204).
ABC News published a story about the benefits of being married in August 2006. This is the link: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Depression/story?id=2298049
MARRIED PEOPLE LIVE LONGER A new study finds that people who have never married have the highest risk of death in the United States, contrasting with other studies that have found the highest risk in divorced, separated or widowed populations. There are many reasons married people tend to be healthier, not the least of which is they tend to be wealthier.
In a Darwinian perspective one can see that those who stick by their marriages live longer and are able to have more children--and natural selection does the rest. But the numbers of divorce are staggering--and that is a sign of degeneracy.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
The Truth Will Set You Free!!...
If you don't believe that money is the root of all evil, take a look at this movie; this is the 'War on Religion' (and US politics) done Hollywood style... check this out!!! Zeitgeist: The Movie!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
