BBC News - Britain's first black community in Elizabethan London.
The reign of Elizabeth I saw the beginning of Britain's first black community. It's a fascinating story for modern Britons, writes historian Michael Wood.
Walk out of Aldgate Tube and stroll around Whitechapel Road in east London today, and you'll experience the heady sights, smells and sounds of the temples, mosques and curry houses of Brick Lane - so typical of modern multicultural Britain.
Most of us tend to think that black people came to Britain after the war - Caribbeans on the Empire Windrush in 1948, Bangladeshis after the 1971 war and Ugandan Asians after Idi Amin's expulsion in 1972.
But, back in Shakespeare's day, you could have met people from west Africa and even Bengal in the same London streets.
Of course, there were fewer, and they drew antipathy as well as fascination from the Tudor inhabitants, who had never seen black people before. But we know they lived, worked and intermarried, so it is fair to say that Britain's first black community starts here.
There had been black people in Britain in Roman times, and they are found as musicians in the early Tudor period in England and Scotland.
But the real change came in Elizabeth I's reign, when, through the records, we can pick up ordinary, working, black people, especially in London.
Shakespeare himself, a man fascinated by "the other", wrote several black parts - indeed, two of his greatest characters are black - and the fact that he put them into mainstream entertainment reflects the fact that they were a significant element in the population of London.
And let's be clear - they were not slaves. In English law, it was not possible to be a slave in England (although that principle had to be re-stated in slave trade court cases in the late 18th Century, like the "Somersett" case of 1772).
In Elizabeth's reign, the black people of London were mostly free. Some indeed, both men and women, married native English people.
In 1599, for example, in St Olave Hart Street, John Cathman married Constantia "a black woman and servant". A bit later, James Curres, "a moore Christian", married Margaret Person, a maid.
The parish records of this time from "St Botolph's outside Aldgate", are especially revealing. Here, among French and Dutch immigrants, are a Persian, several Indians and one "East Indian" (from today's Bengal).
In this single small parish, we find 25 black people in the later 16th Century. They are mainly servants, but not all - one man lodging at the White Bell, next to the Bell Foundry off Whitechapel road, probably worked at the foundry.
Some were given costly, high status, Christian funerals, with bearers and fine black cloth, a mark of the esteem in which they were held by employers, neighbours and fellow workers.
Among the names are these:
An illustration of a scene from Othello
The lead character in Shakespeare's play Othello is black
Christopher Cappervert [ie from Cape Verde] - "a blacke moore"
Domingo - "a black neigro servaunt unto Sir William Winter"
Suzanna Peavis - "a blackamore servant to John Deppinois"
Symon Valencia - "a black moore servaunt to Stephen Drifyeld a nedellmaker"
Cassango - "a blackmoore servaunt to Mr Thomas Barber a marchaunt"
Isabell Peeters - "a Black-more lodgeing in Blew Anchor Alley"
"A negar whose name was suposed to be Frauncis. He was servant to be [sic] Peter Miller a beare brewer dwelling at the signe of the hartes horne in the libertie of EastSmithfield. Yeares xxvi [26]. He had the best cloth [and] iiii [4] bearers"
Among later names, we find:
Anne Vause - "a Black-more wife to Anthonie Vause, Trompetter"
John Comequicke - "a Black-Moore so named, servant to Thomas Love a Captaine"
And, the saddest in this list:
Marie - "a Blackamoor woman that die in the street"
Sometimes the detail in the Botolph's register is absolutely fascinating.
In 1597, for example, Mary Fillis, a black woman of 20 years, had, for a long while, been the servant of Widow Barker in Mark Lane. She had been in England 13 or 14 years, and was the daughter of a Moorish shovel maker and basket maker. Never christened, she became the servant of Millicent Porter, a seamstress living in East Smithfield, and now "taking some howld of faith in Jesus Chryst, was desyrous to becom a Christian, Wherefore shee made sute by hir said mistres to have some conference with the Curat".
Examined in her faith by the vicar of St Botolph's, and "answering him verie Christian lyke", she did her catechisms, said the Lord's Prayer, and was baptised on Friday 3 June 1597 in front of the congregation. Among her witnesses were a group of five women, mostly wives of leading parishioners. Now a "lyvely member" of the church in Aldgate, there is no question from this description that Mary belonged to a community with friends and supporters.
The inside of St Boltolph's Church in Aldgate, east London
London's 16th Century black community is recorded in St Boltolph's Church's records
Despite the story of Fillis, the lives of others were far from sweetness and light, of course. The lives of some black people were as free as anywhere in the white European world, but, for many, things were circumscribed and very hard.
Some black women worked alongside their white counterparts as prostitutes, especially in Southwark, and in the brothel area of Turnmill Street in Clerkenwell. Here the famous Lucy Negro, a former dancer in the Queen's service, ran an establishment patronised by noblemen and lawyers. Lucy was famous enough to be paid mock homage in the Inns of Court revels at Gray's Inn.
Her area of London was notorious. "Pray enquire after and secure my negress: she is certainly at The Swan, a Dane's beershop in Turnmil Street," wrote one Denis Edwards in 1602. Shakespeare's acquaintance, the poet John Weaver, also sang the praises of a woman whose face was "pure black as Ebonie, jet blacke".
In around 1600, the presence of black people had become an issue for the English government. Their numbers recently increased by many slaves freed from captured Spanish ships, the presence of black people suddenly came to be seen as a nuisance. In 1601, among the Cecil papers still held at Hatfield House, we hear this:
"The queen is discontented at the great numbers of 'negars and blackamoores' which are crept into the realm since the troubles between her Highness and the King of Spain, and are fostered here to the annoyance of her own people."
Continue reading the main story
Britain's black community
Jamaican immigrants to Britain shortly after arriving in 1954
First recorded in the Tudor period
John Blanke was a black trumpeter during the time of King Henry VII and Henry VIII
In June 1948, Empire Windrush arrived at Tilbury Docks carrying 492 workers from the Caribbean
The "great numbers" were mainly galley slaves and servants from captured Spanish vessels, and a plan was mooted to transport them out of the country. Was this the first example of government repatriation? In July 1602, Cecil was putting pressure on the merchants, one of whom wrote:
"I have persuaded the merchants trading to Barbary, not without some difficulty, to yield to [ie pay for] the charges of the Moors lately redeemed out of servitude by her Majesty's ships, so far as it may concern their lodging and victuals, till some shipping may be ready to carry them into Barbary…"
Whether this actually happened is unclear. No more then than now, should we take a government's pronouncements on such matters at face value?
But it is at least worth noting that the authorities felt duty-bound to look after food and lodging while the freed slaves were in London. But it cannot be, as is sometimes claimed today, that this edict applied to the many black people who, like Mary Fillis, were living as citizens in London, as they were in Bristol.
Brief as they are, such hints suggest a surprisingly rich hidden narrative for black people in Elizabethan England.
From Lucy Negro to Mary Fillis, their numbers grew in the 17th Century as they were joined by large numbers of people from India and, in particular, Bengal.
Sadly, their own story, in their own words, is lacking, but by the time we reach the 18th Century, we have the remarkable works of prose, poetry and music written by black Britons, among whom the likes of Olaudah Equiano, Ottobah Cugoano and Ignatius Sancho deserve their place in any list of Great Britons.
By the 18th Century, it is thought as many as 20,000 black servants lived in London. They even had their own taverns where they greeted defeat of the "Somersett case" and the victories of the abolitionists with raucous good humour.
Their numbers were still small compared with the population as a whole, but they already had a role in our national story. What would Mary Fillis make of things today I wonder? And what would we give for her story?
BBC News - Britain's first black community in Elizabethan London.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Sunday, July 15, 2012
BSJ Marriage
What is the big deal about marriage and protecting it? Oh yeah, it's a holy sacrament in the eyes of God, right? WRONG.
Marriage has and will always be primarily about financial gain. Or must everyone forget that women didn't have any rights until just recently. Back then, women were no better than slaves and families made arrangements to marry them off so that the families could merge. A dowery(sp?) was needed in order to seal the deal. Most didn't marry until there was so kind of financial advantage to it, usually over real estate.
Not much has changed. Married people benefit from a slew of tax cuts and advantages. And add children to the mix and you have one pretty awesome tax shelter. And I honestly believe that conservatives are more worried about anyone being able to benefit than about the sanctity of an institution that allows you to thumb your nose up at God by breaking your vows.
How so? Glad you asked... remember the age old verse of "through thick and thin, until death do us part"? I don't know about you but that sounds like a life-long commitment that you just made to God to be together NO MATTER WHAT. So if marriage is so damn sacred, why do we tolerate divorce? Isn't that saying that you don't respect God and that you lied to "Him" and are only thinking about yourself?
How selfish and hypocritical to use God as a basis for your argument when you don't address the bigger issue... preserving the sanctity of marriage by abolishing DIVORCE!
Quite frankly, I believe that if you make marriage a life-long condition instead of allowing people to marry and divorce at will... you will see alot less people gay or straight wanting to marry. And that is a good thing as marriage is about love. Not lust and blinding passion that wanes a few days, weeks or months after tying the knot.
Would you just headlong into marriage knowing that you couldn't get out of it once the deed was done?
That would solve a host of problems like: marriages of convenience (green card, tax benefits, etc.), drunken/spur of the moment marriages for fun, and not respecting the institution as a life changing and permanently binding event.
If you took divorce out of it and made it the true sacrament of life-long partnership that it should be... you could see a big change in the number of people who just get married because of some misguided since of inevitability.
People would probably take that extra time to live together first so to really get to know their loved one before taking that "final" step.
On the other hand, you could see some people take the "death do us part" thing seriously and take matters into their own hands. I won't elaborate as you know what I'm referring to.
My main point is... you can't expect the public to take a religious argument against allowing gay people to marry without proving that it is an institution based on respect for God and his supposed will. Take away divorce and I'll respect that point of view.
Until then, marriage is good business sense and I think everyone should be able to benefit from it. I don't see a break down of civilization, as we know it, because we allowed two women or men to marry so that they can support their families (children, keeping property after death, etc.).
Hell, with the high rate of divorce among the gays that did marry... I don't think conservatives/religious right have anything to worry about. That in itself should show that it doesn't matter who you are... you all experience the same trials that come with marriage and use divorce as a quick fix.
Would you get married knowing that you couldn't get out of it if something went wrong?
Takes the novelty right out of it doesn't it? And that's my point. Fix marriage and this debate becomes a mute point, in my opinion.
For the record, I believe in marriage and was fortunate enough to be able to watch my parents stick together through their trials and tribulations. They fell in love, then out of love... then back in love again, leading me to believe that love comes and goes in cycles. Just stick together long enough and you will find your way back to that love. Think about it, if people just stayed together instead of breaking up... only to get back together later anyway, you will find this to be true.
You can "separate" yet stay married and committed. Communication is the key to fixing any problem. It's the most simple thing yet so hard for most people. And it goes for everything from taking care of your partner (sex, romance, etc.) regardless of whether you are "in the mood" or not to little things like leaving the toilet seat up. Compromise is a MUST. Without it, you are doomed to fail. It's never just about you. That's selfish. YOU do not exist in a marriage... it's WE.
Adhere to that and marriage becomes what it should be... a holy union that can weather anything.
This post was originally published in 2005
The Black Sovereign Journal | Marriage
Marriage has and will always be primarily about financial gain. Or must everyone forget that women didn't have any rights until just recently. Back then, women were no better than slaves and families made arrangements to marry them off so that the families could merge. A dowery(sp?) was needed in order to seal the deal. Most didn't marry until there was so kind of financial advantage to it, usually over real estate.
Not much has changed. Married people benefit from a slew of tax cuts and advantages. And add children to the mix and you have one pretty awesome tax shelter. And I honestly believe that conservatives are more worried about anyone being able to benefit than about the sanctity of an institution that allows you to thumb your nose up at God by breaking your vows.
How so? Glad you asked... remember the age old verse of "through thick and thin, until death do us part"? I don't know about you but that sounds like a life-long commitment that you just made to God to be together NO MATTER WHAT. So if marriage is so damn sacred, why do we tolerate divorce? Isn't that saying that you don't respect God and that you lied to "Him" and are only thinking about yourself?
How selfish and hypocritical to use God as a basis for your argument when you don't address the bigger issue... preserving the sanctity of marriage by abolishing DIVORCE!
Quite frankly, I believe that if you make marriage a life-long condition instead of allowing people to marry and divorce at will... you will see alot less people gay or straight wanting to marry. And that is a good thing as marriage is about love. Not lust and blinding passion that wanes a few days, weeks or months after tying the knot.
Would you just headlong into marriage knowing that you couldn't get out of it once the deed was done?
That would solve a host of problems like: marriages of convenience (green card, tax benefits, etc.), drunken/spur of the moment marriages for fun, and not respecting the institution as a life changing and permanently binding event.
If you took divorce out of it and made it the true sacrament of life-long partnership that it should be... you could see a big change in the number of people who just get married because of some misguided since of inevitability.
People would probably take that extra time to live together first so to really get to know their loved one before taking that "final" step.
On the other hand, you could see some people take the "death do us part" thing seriously and take matters into their own hands. I won't elaborate as you know what I'm referring to.
My main point is... you can't expect the public to take a religious argument against allowing gay people to marry without proving that it is an institution based on respect for God and his supposed will. Take away divorce and I'll respect that point of view.
Until then, marriage is good business sense and I think everyone should be able to benefit from it. I don't see a break down of civilization, as we know it, because we allowed two women or men to marry so that they can support their families (children, keeping property after death, etc.).
Hell, with the high rate of divorce among the gays that did marry... I don't think conservatives/religious right have anything to worry about. That in itself should show that it doesn't matter who you are... you all experience the same trials that come with marriage and use divorce as a quick fix.
Would you get married knowing that you couldn't get out of it if something went wrong?
Takes the novelty right out of it doesn't it? And that's my point. Fix marriage and this debate becomes a mute point, in my opinion.
For the record, I believe in marriage and was fortunate enough to be able to watch my parents stick together through their trials and tribulations. They fell in love, then out of love... then back in love again, leading me to believe that love comes and goes in cycles. Just stick together long enough and you will find your way back to that love. Think about it, if people just stayed together instead of breaking up... only to get back together later anyway, you will find this to be true.
You can "separate" yet stay married and committed. Communication is the key to fixing any problem. It's the most simple thing yet so hard for most people. And it goes for everything from taking care of your partner (sex, romance, etc.) regardless of whether you are "in the mood" or not to little things like leaving the toilet seat up. Compromise is a MUST. Without it, you are doomed to fail. It's never just about you. That's selfish. YOU do not exist in a marriage... it's WE.
Adhere to that and marriage becomes what it should be... a holy union that can weather anything.
This post was originally published in 2005
The Black Sovereign Journal | Marriage
Friday, July 13, 2012
BSJ Overpopulation
The following post may offend or even shock some people who can't see the bigger picture beyond their limited ability to see beyond their own environment. It is intended to put light on a grave problem that needs to be addressed... and SOON!
The Bible states "be fruitful and multiply..." That was during a time when there were barely a million people on the planet. Not something that you should take literally in today's world faced with a resource crisis.
Today, in a world filled to the brim with billions of humans that unlike our fellow inhabitants do not participate in the natural food chain. Thus, no natural predators to keep our population in check. We actually recognize the dangers of overpopulation in the animal kingdom and actively participate in regular slaughters designed to restore balance. But it's funny how we don't apply that same mentality to the human race.
Resource shortages in the near future, as a result of continued population growth, will make thinking "every life is precious and has a right to life" become the biggest failure in human history. I'm not a communist but China has it right by limiting the number of children a couple can have. Do you really need more than one child? Growing up I knew people who got pregnant on purpose just so they can get a welfare check. And these people would have like 10 kids... none of which they could afford to feed and properly take care of.
I believe the death penalty should be standard for ANYONE who premeditates a murder. I don't want my hard earned tax dollars going to housing and feeding these people who, in my opinion, lost their right to life. Prisoners (who are sentenced to LIFE in prison) should be considered free labor (slaves) and made to spend the rest of their lives stripped of their basic human rights. Am I saying bring back slavery? Not exactly but if you want crime to go down, that kind of consequence is as good of a deterrent to crime as any ever thought up. Some may cry out that it would take away from jobs but do you want a job cleaning up a toxic waste dump? Are you going to run out and apply to clean up a polluted landfill? My point exactly. Will you commit a crime knowing you could be forced to work in such dangerous and unhealthy conditions?
I'm getting off topic here... the more overpopulation continues to go unchecked, the closer we get to nature correcting the situation for us. And in ways that would be considered catastrophic. Disease, wars, and pandemics are on the rise. Most of the pandemics we are seeing started in nature.... while some were man-made. We make movies about some idiot in a science lab playing around with a super-virus, then the virus gets out and it's bye-bye human civilization as you know it.
I won't mention my support for abortion as that speaks for itself. My point is that there are too many people on this planet and just like we control "pests" by sanctioning killings to bring the populations back under control, we should sanction mass genocide to help protect the availability of our natural resources for the next generations to come.
I'm a realist and a clairvoyant. Respect the planet you live on for you are at it's mercy. Whether you agree or not. The time of man will have it's day of judgement. This planet is dying and nature is struggling to adapt. Eventually, nature will take care of the "problem".
PAY ATTENTION TO YOUR HISTORY!!!
Earth has experienced TWO mass extinctions and is over due for a "reboot". You can choose to believe what I say or not. But what I think or say won't matter once all of mankind is faced with the reality of its own destruction.
... whether by man itself or by the very planet we depend on for survival.
Like I said, this post may outrage some people but free speech and the right to express oneself is a god-given right. I have a right to my opinion and you have yours. The difference is... I RESPECT everyone's opinion (whether I agree or not), but very few people have the maturity needed to respect others.
To make it clear, I don't sanction genocide but enacting population control for the sole purpose of restoring the human population to a SUSTAINABLE level is critical to the long-term availability of our natural resources. Otherwise, mass extinction will happen on it's own anyway... as it is already in isolated occurrences.
What I believe does not matter as the future will take care of itself. Hopefully, I'll be long dead by the time of worst of it becomes a reality for mankind.
The Black Sovereign Journal | Overpopulation
The Bible states "be fruitful and multiply..." That was during a time when there were barely a million people on the planet. Not something that you should take literally in today's world faced with a resource crisis.
Today, in a world filled to the brim with billions of humans that unlike our fellow inhabitants do not participate in the natural food chain. Thus, no natural predators to keep our population in check. We actually recognize the dangers of overpopulation in the animal kingdom and actively participate in regular slaughters designed to restore balance. But it's funny how we don't apply that same mentality to the human race.
Resource shortages in the near future, as a result of continued population growth, will make thinking "every life is precious and has a right to life" become the biggest failure in human history. I'm not a communist but China has it right by limiting the number of children a couple can have. Do you really need more than one child? Growing up I knew people who got pregnant on purpose just so they can get a welfare check. And these people would have like 10 kids... none of which they could afford to feed and properly take care of.
I believe the death penalty should be standard for ANYONE who premeditates a murder. I don't want my hard earned tax dollars going to housing and feeding these people who, in my opinion, lost their right to life. Prisoners (who are sentenced to LIFE in prison) should be considered free labor (slaves) and made to spend the rest of their lives stripped of their basic human rights. Am I saying bring back slavery? Not exactly but if you want crime to go down, that kind of consequence is as good of a deterrent to crime as any ever thought up. Some may cry out that it would take away from jobs but do you want a job cleaning up a toxic waste dump? Are you going to run out and apply to clean up a polluted landfill? My point exactly. Will you commit a crime knowing you could be forced to work in such dangerous and unhealthy conditions?
I'm getting off topic here... the more overpopulation continues to go unchecked, the closer we get to nature correcting the situation for us. And in ways that would be considered catastrophic. Disease, wars, and pandemics are on the rise. Most of the pandemics we are seeing started in nature.... while some were man-made. We make movies about some idiot in a science lab playing around with a super-virus, then the virus gets out and it's bye-bye human civilization as you know it.
I won't mention my support for abortion as that speaks for itself. My point is that there are too many people on this planet and just like we control "pests" by sanctioning killings to bring the populations back under control, we should sanction mass genocide to help protect the availability of our natural resources for the next generations to come.
I'm a realist and a clairvoyant. Respect the planet you live on for you are at it's mercy. Whether you agree or not. The time of man will have it's day of judgement. This planet is dying and nature is struggling to adapt. Eventually, nature will take care of the "problem".
PAY ATTENTION TO YOUR HISTORY!!!
Earth has experienced TWO mass extinctions and is over due for a "reboot". You can choose to believe what I say or not. But what I think or say won't matter once all of mankind is faced with the reality of its own destruction.
... whether by man itself or by the very planet we depend on for survival.
Like I said, this post may outrage some people but free speech and the right to express oneself is a god-given right. I have a right to my opinion and you have yours. The difference is... I RESPECT everyone's opinion (whether I agree or not), but very few people have the maturity needed to respect others.
To make it clear, I don't sanction genocide but enacting population control for the sole purpose of restoring the human population to a SUSTAINABLE level is critical to the long-term availability of our natural resources. Otherwise, mass extinction will happen on it's own anyway... as it is already in isolated occurrences.
- Famine
- World Wars (over resources)
- Natural Disasters (occurring more frequently)
- Fresh Water Depletion (coming soon to a water source near you, if things don't change)
- Plagues/Pandemics
What I believe does not matter as the future will take care of itself. Hopefully, I'll be long dead by the time of worst of it becomes a reality for mankind.
The Black Sovereign Journal | Overpopulation
BSJ Religion
Everyone has an opinion... about everything. What makes us different from the rest of the animal kingdom is our ability to think singularly and affect our own destiny. Of course, there are people who feel that everyone should believe and think the same way they do. And will do just about anything (by hook or by crook) to make sure you only see (and abide by) their point of view (think the Spanish Inquisition).
... this is where the problems and issues humans face today originate.
Religion, or should I say organized religion, is the great con of mankind. Any institution that chooses a central character (yes, that's right, I meant it just as it sounded) to act as a conduit or channel to "God" is pulling your d@#$. Why do I feel this you might ask? Simple. I was forced to attend Catholic school.
Don't get me wrong. I received a great education there and they were fair in teaching an adequate amount of info on other religions but I have a hard time believing in a supreme being who doesn't make himself known. Especially one that wants me to follow "man-made" rules in order to be allowed into so-called Heaven at the end of my life.
While religion works for some... it is repressive for others. My view on the free will issue is that if we were created to "serve", why give free will? Just make us mindless slaves that follow the call of the wild just like the rest of the animal kingdom. Problem solved. But, of course... it's never that simple.
My biggest gripe is the Bible. How can you trust a man-made object that has been written and rewritten so many times? Hell, there are even "lost" chapters that were excluded during translations because they didn't coincide with what the Church (at that time) wanted people to believe.
Another example that you can't take what you read or hear as gospel truth. If you didn't live during the time the events of the Bible happened, how do you know what you are reading is the honest to God truth? It's like the communication experiment I remember from Grade school (elementary) where you tell someone a phrase and have them repeat it to the next person... and so on and so on. Eventually, the phrase is related back to you by the last person to hear it. I've done this exercise several times and the original phrase is never repeated in it's original form.
"Sam went to the beach to find some sea shells for Eleanor" comes back sounding like "Sam sailed out to sea to find the beaches of Equador". Since the Bible started out as a collection of stories passed down from generation to generation until it was finally recorded as a book to preserve the stories, how can you truly believe word for word what a book says you should believe in?
The answer is... you can't. Unless you are a mindless, emotionally disturbed iditot who can't think for themself. But I do have to admit... what better way to control the masses than to give them something to believe in. Something to make sense of creation and the age old question of why are we here? Although, I have my misgivings about religion, in some ways, it is a means to an end.
Without religion for people in authority to use to impose their will... there would be chaos and anarchy.
The Puritans were persecuted in England for their beliefs and so to be allowed the freedom to practice what they believe... they fled to the New World. What happened when they got there? They ended up being just as uncompromising and intolerant of any idea or behaviors that weren't sanctioned by the Church. Did you know that married couples could only have sex on certain days, in that culture? Also, if you didn't attend Church, you were labeled a heretic and could face jail time or even worse. Is it any wonder that the Salem witch trials were just diabolical disguises for mass murder and revenge? Of course not. Too much power in the hands of a few is DANGEROUS (remember the Spanish Inquisition, anyone?).
My point with this is... although I respect a persons right to believe in what they want to believe in, I don't agree with the same people trying to force their beliefs on others.
Abortion is a no brainer... let the woman decide. She can make many babies during her cycle so why bring unwanted children into this world that's already overpopulated? Sorry, but every life is not precious... if the parents can't take care of it or worse yet... don't want them. Why subject a child to foster homes and orphanages when you can halt the process of birth until the timing is right and the condition is right to support a child. Of course, no one thinks about this... only that they feel abortion is murder and all life is precious and should be protected.
I've got issues with that too. If that was the case, why doesn't anyone bat an eyelash when you hear about civilians mass murdered in civil wars and drug wars? Why is a new baby of higher priority than people who are already alive? A life is a life. The value is the same. Babies can't defend themselves, I agree but so can't those who are caught in the middle of something they didn't start.
In my view, you can't be pro-life and stand by and do nothing when you hear of such atrocities going on in the world. If you are anti-abortion then be anti-violence against humans of all ages as well. We were all newborns at one time... so that makes EVERY HUMAN LIFE precious and worth saving.
Personally, I don't believe in abortion as an answer. Abstinance or proper birth control is the answer. But, although I would rather see a baby born to a family that can support it... it is ultimately the woman who this affects whose decision is the most important.
... not the anti-abortionists. Not the politicians. And definitely not YOURS. Would you want someone telling you what you can or cannot do with your own body?
I thought not.
My mother always taught me to stop, take a deep breath, and then try and look at BOTH sides of an issue before reacting. It's sound advice and one that makes life and the choices you make everyday a bit easier to reconcile with.
The Black Sovereign Journal | Religion
... this is where the problems and issues humans face today originate.
Religion, or should I say organized religion, is the great con of mankind. Any institution that chooses a central character (yes, that's right, I meant it just as it sounded) to act as a conduit or channel to "God" is pulling your d@#$. Why do I feel this you might ask? Simple. I was forced to attend Catholic school.
Don't get me wrong. I received a great education there and they were fair in teaching an adequate amount of info on other religions but I have a hard time believing in a supreme being who doesn't make himself known. Especially one that wants me to follow "man-made" rules in order to be allowed into so-called Heaven at the end of my life.
While religion works for some... it is repressive for others. My view on the free will issue is that if we were created to "serve", why give free will? Just make us mindless slaves that follow the call of the wild just like the rest of the animal kingdom. Problem solved. But, of course... it's never that simple.
My biggest gripe is the Bible. How can you trust a man-made object that has been written and rewritten so many times? Hell, there are even "lost" chapters that were excluded during translations because they didn't coincide with what the Church (at that time) wanted people to believe.
Another example that you can't take what you read or hear as gospel truth. If you didn't live during the time the events of the Bible happened, how do you know what you are reading is the honest to God truth? It's like the communication experiment I remember from Grade school (elementary) where you tell someone a phrase and have them repeat it to the next person... and so on and so on. Eventually, the phrase is related back to you by the last person to hear it. I've done this exercise several times and the original phrase is never repeated in it's original form.
"Sam went to the beach to find some sea shells for Eleanor" comes back sounding like "Sam sailed out to sea to find the beaches of Equador". Since the Bible started out as a collection of stories passed down from generation to generation until it was finally recorded as a book to preserve the stories, how can you truly believe word for word what a book says you should believe in?
The answer is... you can't. Unless you are a mindless, emotionally disturbed iditot who can't think for themself. But I do have to admit... what better way to control the masses than to give them something to believe in. Something to make sense of creation and the age old question of why are we here? Although, I have my misgivings about religion, in some ways, it is a means to an end.
Without religion for people in authority to use to impose their will... there would be chaos and anarchy.
The Puritans were persecuted in England for their beliefs and so to be allowed the freedom to practice what they believe... they fled to the New World. What happened when they got there? They ended up being just as uncompromising and intolerant of any idea or behaviors that weren't sanctioned by the Church. Did you know that married couples could only have sex on certain days, in that culture? Also, if you didn't attend Church, you were labeled a heretic and could face jail time or even worse. Is it any wonder that the Salem witch trials were just diabolical disguises for mass murder and revenge? Of course not. Too much power in the hands of a few is DANGEROUS (remember the Spanish Inquisition, anyone?).
My point with this is... although I respect a persons right to believe in what they want to believe in, I don't agree with the same people trying to force their beliefs on others.
Abortion is a no brainer... let the woman decide. She can make many babies during her cycle so why bring unwanted children into this world that's already overpopulated? Sorry, but every life is not precious... if the parents can't take care of it or worse yet... don't want them. Why subject a child to foster homes and orphanages when you can halt the process of birth until the timing is right and the condition is right to support a child. Of course, no one thinks about this... only that they feel abortion is murder and all life is precious and should be protected.
I've got issues with that too. If that was the case, why doesn't anyone bat an eyelash when you hear about civilians mass murdered in civil wars and drug wars? Why is a new baby of higher priority than people who are already alive? A life is a life. The value is the same. Babies can't defend themselves, I agree but so can't those who are caught in the middle of something they didn't start.
In my view, you can't be pro-life and stand by and do nothing when you hear of such atrocities going on in the world. If you are anti-abortion then be anti-violence against humans of all ages as well. We were all newborns at one time... so that makes EVERY HUMAN LIFE precious and worth saving.
Personally, I don't believe in abortion as an answer. Abstinance or proper birth control is the answer. But, although I would rather see a baby born to a family that can support it... it is ultimately the woman who this affects whose decision is the most important.
... not the anti-abortionists. Not the politicians. And definitely not YOURS. Would you want someone telling you what you can or cannot do with your own body?
I thought not.
My mother always taught me to stop, take a deep breath, and then try and look at BOTH sides of an issue before reacting. It's sound advice and one that makes life and the choices you make everyday a bit easier to reconcile with.
The Black Sovereign Journal | Religion
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Random Reflections 071112
GOD! I HATE JURY DUTY!!!
I know its a civic right and but I would prefer that it be more of a choice than a random one. Yes, I am waiting to either be selected or sent home. That process alone is inhuman. Two hours and still no decision! If it was me making the decision, I would have included the questionnaire with the summons so to speed up the damn process. Being a Dominant, I am used to people waiting for me to make a decision not the other way around. Then again, I'm dealing with a system developed by inferiors so I shouldn't be surprised.
*sigh* The wait continues...
I know its a civic right and but I would prefer that it be more of a choice than a random one. Yes, I am waiting to either be selected or sent home. That process alone is inhuman. Two hours and still no decision! If it was me making the decision, I would have included the questionnaire with the summons so to speed up the damn process. Being a Dominant, I am used to people waiting for me to make a decision not the other way around. Then again, I'm dealing with a system developed by inferiors so I shouldn't be surprised.
*sigh* The wait continues...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)