A little humor to warm us up for the post Presidential Debate analysis.
Funny parody on The Most Interesting Man in the World ads – 3 mos. old but timeless.
I like dogs. Humans have had a good relationship with dogs for a long time and I approve of them, wholeheartedly. I don’t really approve of cats. I don’t know anyone that went hunting with a cat and besides, they scratch. However, I am showing a prejudice for dogs and do feel mighty ashamed for having these unpleasant thoughts associated with cats. Therefore, the idea came to me that I might feel better about cats if I just changed their names from cats to dogs. That just might make things right.
From now on, I would prefer that everyone I know refer to cats as dogs. Both cats and dogs will be called exactly the same, though it could cause some confusion here and there. But this new rule will make it possible to pass laws that make any public reference to cats paramount to hate-speech against any dog that was formerly called a cat. That way we can have a new civil rights bill that will give the new dog the right not to be called a cat. Wow! What a brainstorm I’m having.
I’m not a real smart guy (some call me a moron) and you might have guessed that from the above paragraphs. But I think this just about sums up my understanding of homosexual marriages. At no time in the history of mankind to my recollection have these types of relationships ever been called a marriage. So in my simple way of thinking about things, I wonder why our society thinks they have a right to redefine something just about as fundamental and easy to understand as cats and dogs. It is a complete puzzlement to me.
Is it hate-speech to call homosexual relationships abnormal or disordered? Because if I saw two male birds building a nest together I would probably say that I discovered something that was really unusual and I might want to take pictures of it to send to a bird magazine or something. Would that be wrong? Or if a cat loved to ride in the back of my pickup truck and go hunting, I’d think someone might soon take notice and say that I have a pretty strange cat. So should I get mad at them? Maybe so, because it looks to me that it is hate-speech if you just want to call something what it really is without making up a new word for what it isn’t. But I must be wrong because the world seems to say that a new meaning for a word changes the entire nature and character of a thing. It magically makes something that is abnormal, ordinary and quite normal in behavior. It must be one of those concepts they study at the big universities, ‘cause I find it way too complicated for me to understand. Might be that algebra stuff.
That’s really pretty neat though. Wait just one second then! (And y’all thought I was dumb), why don’t all of you just redefine my name to Emperor? It ought to work for me too, shouldn’t it? That would mean that my nature and character would change magically and I’d be in charge of everything and everyone. I’ll be filthy rich and live in a castle. And as the new Emperor I might just get me one of them new fangled dogs ‘cause he might just come in handy if someone tries to break into my magic kingdom.
This changing the nature of things by some law or ‘other has got to be true otherwise our whole society wouldn’t be so darn eager to change the meaning of stuff by redefining some words I thought I understood. So if I’m now the Emperor and if you still don’t see my new clothes or my new dog for that matter, you might just find yourself getting arrested. You’d better say that you admire my clothes and my dog even if you don’t. Well, OK, I’ve given you fair warning. I think I might start liking this.
So, for the sake of equality, there will no longer be any cats in this world; only different kinds of dogs. That should end my disapproval of cats. So, as your Emperor (I assume you are calling me Emperor now), I decree that there will no longer be any such thing called a cat. Well that should just about do it as far as I’m concerned. One more problem solved. Now they can go back to the important work of redefining the word marriage.
Boy, after all this deep thinkin’ my head’s hurtin’. So, in ending, please don’t get mad at me. I know I’m just a simple fella asking some simple questions. I’m not nearly so smart as all these politicians who are hard at work on all these vital issues of national importance. After all, that’s why they make the big bucks, ain’t it? As for me, I’m gonna take some Goody’s powder and take a nap.
P.S. Do you think the Supreme Court will vote favorably for my idea of banning the word cat? I sure hope so, but if I could just get them to change my name to Emperor, I could do it all on my own. That would be just to my liking. I think redefining words could work out real good. And it might be fun at that. On that note, I think I’ll just sleep on it and see what they end up doin’.
Here we go! It’s time for the sermon I bet most of us have heard at least once in our lifetime.
This Sunday we will hear the Gospel reading taken from John 6:1-15. This is the story of the multiplication of loaves, where Christ feeds 5000 people with 5 barley loaves and 2 fish (a pretty impressive miracle wouldn’t you think?).
Depending on your pastor, it might be time for the Silly Sermon of the year where they like to proclaim that the real miracle was not the multiplication of the loaves at all. The real miracle was that the people, inspired by Jesus of course, took out the food they had stashed under their cloaks and tunics and shared it with everybody else. The preacher will then proclaim that this is an even greater miracle than the multiplication of the loaves. Can you imagine it? People actually sharing? Wow!
I can’t quite get myself to see much of a miracle in a bunch of guys pulling sandwiches out their pockets and sharing them. Well, just for fun, let’s pretend that it is.
In that case, my generation had a much bigger miracle than this one that we can brag about. At the Woodstock festival, way back in August of 1969, there was all kinds of sharing going on. I’m not sure if Jesus was there or not but I’m pretty sure there were a lot of folks there that may have thought that they were Jesus. Anyway, at Woodstock the hippies not only shared their food but they were sharing their drugs and some were even sharing their bodies with almost anyone they met. Now that was huge. Quite the miracle don’t you think? It makes Jesus’ miracle look small in comparison. Maybe Jimi Hendrix made them share all their stuff, I’m not sure. I don’t know what possessed them to do it but most of them don’t remember doing it anyway. Most people my age aren’t even sure if they were there or not. We think we were; but we’re not sure, a miracle in its own right, maybe. We could have stepped through a wormhole or a time warp or something.
Anyhow, I’ve given you ample warning. So now you can remember to put your thinking caps on before you go to church because you may need them: the “miracle of sharing” sermon is coming to a parish somewhere close to you this Sunday. I can hardly wait, can you? Let’s all just share in the silliness!
Oh, and just one word of apology to all my stingy, non-sharing Jewish friends. We don’t really believe this sermon, it’s just so much fun. So lighten up, would ya?