This is an excellent article that clearly points to the most significant issue for the human species. Our Earth can only provided for a limited number of humans before overpopulation will cause a major "die off". There are many factors that could cause this suffering to billions, including many different diseases, starvation, water and air pollution, and wars. Stabilizing and reducing the existing population should be a global priority.
By delaying births, we reduce population growth. The women who have early child births, especially prior to completion of high school which reduces their education, usually will live in poverty or near poverty unless they marry someone older and with an education. Without adequate knowledge, these immature women will suffer long-term consequences while raising their children, many times as single moms. This continues the cycle because their children may also be trapped in the lower economic brackets, as poverty begets poverty. Of course, there always are exceptions, but the poor are getting poorer.
By both delays in starting a family and reductions of the number in the family are critical for the future of our Earth! It's one person at a time, but delaying and extending the number of years between generations, is vital for the heath of our country and all countries. This is the best way to slow population growth.
As we continue to crowd out the other species, deplete the natural minerals and resources, our Earth and our neighborhoods, shrivel up and will die. Petroleum and natural gas are limited natural resources and can not be replaced.
Developing mines for minerals, such as copper, are very destructive of our lands, as the 10 miles of copper tailings that run parallel to I-19 make so vivid (see google earth for better views of the Green Valley mines) this permanent destruction. These mines presently deplete the Santa Cruz River groundwater aquifer, this necessity of life, by permanently removing 4 to 6 feet of water per year in the Tucson aquifer. With only 0.3% of all the world's water being potable and drinkable by humans, retention of this resource is critical for southern Arizona.
Population expansion must be contained, especially by the reduction of teenage mothers. Those teenage movie and rock star moms are a senseless aberration of prudent living without an understanding of their personal life changes. They are extremely poor role models for our junior and senior high school children! Graduating from college, or high school as a minimum, before having their first child should be a goal for all teenage girls.
For anyone interested in talking to Victor about his new book "The Way of Play", there is also a book signing and discussion scheduled at the UA BookStore (located in the Student Union on campus) on Tuesday, February 22 at 4:30 pm. Check out the Weekly's events calendar for more information.
I agree, that play is critical for our spiritual development. Play opens the heart.
As a frequent participant in the weekly chanting circle this is welcome news. Chanting with this group is truly a playful, spirit-filled healing time in my life.
Please note the time for the lecture on Friday, Jan. 7 is 6:30 p.m. It appears incorrectly in our print issue as 7:30 p.m.
Moochie, you have a right to your opinion of course but as long as this is a free country, what consenting adults do behind closed doors is STILL between them. Live your life anyway way you choose and everyone else will live theirs as they choose. No one is forcing you to do, watch or read anything. Choose to go elsewhere where you can find your happiness. Otherwise, there's always a war somewhere to join if your bored. Pick your battles. By the way, the cap's lock button is on the left... press it.
I love this column because I always feel inspired and stimulated to new perspectives. I agree that greiving is not well done in this country so it hangs around us long after the loss. I too saw the movie "HereAfter" and found it to be a thoughtful and moving treatment of the big subject of how we handle transition. It's time for change and films and articles like this nudge us along. Thanks again.
Yet another advancement of women as objects. Well done.
The fire department uses poles whats the difference?
Wow retrorv, Sounds like somebody either missed their nap or didn't do very well on the firefighter's entrance exam. If you would have studied as hard for the test as you have researching the inner workings of firefighter's compensation, you would probably be out helping somebody in their time of need instead of whatever it is you do. By the way is that a picture of you polishing your assault bus. Sorry, no more personal attacks. If you need any help with that studying let me know, even I passed the test.
"Ridings says they wish to fill in the gap where benefits and pensions fall short." Must be referring to firefighters who don't work for Tucson. Their pay and benefits, along with their overpaid cohorts at TPD, have escalated much higher than the rest of City employees. Firefighters' pension, the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System, is much more lucrative than the City's or State's AND allows retirement at only 20 years of service AND contains a COLA. Along with base pay, which is what most City employees earn as the only part of their wages, fire fighters receive "premium pay". Education allowances, uniform allowances, generous overtime rules, off duty pay (using City resources), not to mention their shift work which allows most to have 2nd jobs. Firefighters do have a dangerous job, sometimes, but I'm not going to feel sorry for their pay and allowances which are VERY generous.
These photos are amazing, and from someone who proclaims they've only been doing this for three years?
Wow, you always make me think and feel more deeply with greater understanding. This article is a stellar example of how you inform and educate with words that open the door of compassion inside of me. You have done a nice job of supporting firefighters through spotlighting the art and the efforts of others who are doing their part to assist these front line modern day hero's. Thanks again.
Jim - The secularist’s ability to generate and agree with a set of operational definitions in support of a “philosophy” and argument(s) only demonstrates the ability of people to live in a delusion. Ask anyone in a mental institution whether they are sane, and regardless of “who” they think they are (Neapolitan Bonaparte for example); they will always argue strongly in an effort to convenience themselves and others that they are correct (and thus not mad as a hatter). This is a demonstration of the reasonable mind, which is built into humans, presumably to assist in survival. The reasonable mind will not allow one to be, let’s say wrong about reality. This is a human condition that cannot be denied. A human will always argue their philosophy or what they think they believe and who they think they are. The test is to support one's position with history and facts. So, the only thing left is to divine truth as inspired by inquiry by real scholars (regardless of the subject). The Judeo-Christian and Muslim religions developed over the centuries beginning and based on the Septuagint around 4169 B.C. when Abram entered Canaan during the early Kingdoms of Egypt. This long history of scholarly effort is documented and supported, however fraught with argument and differences of opinion, it has passed through the threshing floor of historical review to arrive in our current understanding about God and the human condition here on the cutting edge of time and history.
The first 250 colleges and universities built in the United States were 99% Christian and Christian churches and Jewish synagogues (and beginning last century, Islamic mosques) have been built on every corner of our cities and towns since our founding. The Christian experience in America supports our understanding of our incredible human adventure since the time Abram and God first spoke. However well documented and reviewed by scholars throughout the timeline of human civilization, God is not what we believe, but what I and many believe in. To say you can develop a modern secularist philosophy and simply erase this human struggle and understanding to then decide the fate of the United States, regardless of the founding of the USA under the unalienable rights given by our “creator” (the supernatural entity stated in our Constitution) which include the right of the religious to live, vote, work, politic, govern, speak, write and worship whenever or wherever we want, is quite frankly ridiculous.
Your view of Constitutional history is slightly skewed and incomplete.
1. That the United States was founded by Christians is an accident of history and culture. It is not any sort of evidence of a divine plan for a Christian Nation. It is not evidence of the existence of any deity.
2. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and a good many other of the founding fathers are rightly described as "Deists," not Christians. Yes, they had beliefs that might be described by religious, but they were not at all comfortable with the comingling of Church and State. Jefferson, in particular, is credited with coining the phrase "Wall of Separation."
3. Our Constitution does not mention the words "God," "Jesus," "Christ," or "church" anywhere in the body of that august document. In particular, the Preamble specifically states that the authority to govern is derived from "We the People" and their informed consent, not divine fiat or ecclesiastical approval.
4. Article VI, para 3 of the U.S. Constitution: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
5. Historically, the First Amendment has been interpreted to mean a position of absolute neutrality with respect to religion, not that the government cannot interfere with religious institutions when their practices run afoul of our secular laws (consider, for example, the sexual abuse of children).
The rest of your arguments constitute the usual litany of insults and scapegoating that we have come to expect from religious bigots, and are not worth any further comment.
In 1906, France decided that "public affairs cannot tolerate religious views or anything religious for that matter", and therefore enacted a law on a complete separation between government and religion.
Does anyone understand Steve's use of the term "dichotomies"? Where is the dichotomy in being secular (respecting the freedom to believe or not as one chooses) and support for the Constitutional principle of Separation of Church & State? Steve, how is it that "secularists are misguided"?
Steve also misses a rather important point. Secularism is a philosophy, not a religion. To be a religion, it would have to include some belief in the supernatural, which it does not.
Steve claims that we secularists don't like God because we don't want to submit to His authority. False. We simply don't see any empirical evidence of an all-powerful, benevolent creator of the universe who interacts in human affairs and protects the innocent and vulnerable. Because people like Steve do, we think of them as gullible and superstitious.
The members of CFI of Southern Arizona don't really care what others believe. None of our business. Until they make it our business by forcing their irrational Christian worldview and Bible morality on the rest of us through law and public policy. Jim Gressinger
It is difficult to understand how members of the Center for Inquiry of Southern Arizona (CFI-SAZ) can justify ending the influence that religion has on public policy in America. They say their mission is "to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry and humanist values." So, how can they demonstrate science, reason, freedom of inquiry and humanist values when they attempt to separate the fact that religious people founded this country; our Constitution supports keeping government from interferring with religious freedoms; and our cultural/social creed is "IN GOD WE TRUST?" Obviously, these questions represent only a few of the dichotomies involved in this topic.
Understanding that America was originated to get away from religious persecution, I believe that it is possible these "secularists" are misguided to say the least. Nevertheless, they have the right to believe not in God, but only themselves; and code words like "reason" and "science." This is their religion, however pitiful. Obviously, I am playing along here with the topic as the secularists would have me react, because the truth of the matter is that they dislike God and they will not have God tell them what to do. So, their issue is with God and not the faithful. However, they will continue on their path to try to remove the rights of the American Citizen with the argument that public affairs cannot tolerate religious views or anything religious for that matter. Strange. Perhaps they should move to a country where religion does not interfere with their intolerance. Let’s see, what country doesn’t believe in God in one name or another?
Samhain, re No. 4: None of your comments have been removed, save the two that you said were out of context--and I removed those after this comment was posted.
1) There are phone plans that let you pay for unlimited texting and unlimited features without contract
2) People years ago would say why write a letter to someone accross the street when you can simply pick up the phone and call them.
3) Texting is a preference just like anything else.
4) Why are my comments being deleted?
Tucson Weekly |
3280 E. Hemisphere Loop, Suite 180, Tucson AZ 85706 |
(520) 294-1200 |
Powered by Foundation