Tuesday, February 24, 2009

People are Amazing

From the Associated Press:

Police said a 58-year-old man stabbed his teenage son after he refused to take off his hat at church earlier in the day. The father and his 19-year-old son got into an argument on Sunday afternoon. That's when police said the father went to a car, got a knife and stabbed his son in the left buttock and fled.
I think it's safe to assume that there was more going on between these two than who wears what to where, but still, seriously?! Wearing a hat to church? I don't even know where this rule comes from, actually. Perhaps one of my readers can enlighten me. It can't be the Old Testament, seeing at the men have to wear yarmulkes, can it? Anyway, it's a stupid and irrelevant rule. Certainly no reason to stab your damn son, d-bag.

Colossians 3:21 says:
Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.
That's probably more important than the hat thing. Just sayin'.

2 comments:

Rose Connors said...

I Corinthians 11:4-16

Before I lapsed, they used that passage to say that women should wear hats in church. Since women didn't want to wear hats, they changed it to hair, and it's what most conservatives will cite as the reason men shouldn't have long hair. I can't make heads or tails of why it should matter whether men or women have long or short hair or wear hats or not.

Jocelyn said...

For the record, 1 Corinthians 11:4-16 says:

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Yikes. Well thanks for letting me know where that rule comes from. But jeeze, I have to say I'm not a fan of this verse.

It did get me thinking, though. All this "woman is of man but man is of God" stuff. Obviously a reference to the whole Adam's rib thing in Genesis. But the interesting thing that just occurred to me is that this is a clear case of men trying to demean the act of giving birth by saying "Oh yeah? Well you ladies all came from us originally anyway, and we came from God so poo-poo." Whatever, men. Get a life.

(Am I being too feminist-y?)

Anyway, thanks again for the info, Rose!

Design by Dzelque Blogger Templates 2008

WTF WOULD JESUS DO? - Design by Dzelque Blogger Templates 2008