The State of Maine passed a gay rights law earlier this year that would protect people from discrimination in employment, housing, education, public accommodations and credit based on their sexual orientation.
Well thanks to the Christians who rallied together, they have won the right to vote to repeal the law.
"Praise the Lord," said Tim Russell of the Christian Civic League of Maine. "Clearly, 56,650 signatures in 80 days is a big hill to climb, and we climbed it."*
Now whatever your feelings about homosexuals and homosexuality may be, I want to make sure everyone clearly understands this whole thing.
These people went to battle to fight for the right to discriminate against gays. That's right, they said a law that protects homosexuals from being discriminated against and treated as equals allowing them the same rights to education, homes, apartments, bank loans and jobs that everyone else receives, had to go.
Now I ask you. Is that what Jesus teaches? Does Jesus say to fight for your right to hate? Because that's exactly what this is. This is not against Christians, it doesn't impede them in any way, but it does prevent them from openly hating and discriminating against gays. So, is that what we learn from the Bible? To hate?
I don't seem to recall any episodes in the new testament where Jesus and Paul and John went gay bashing in Jordan or went trolling through the streets looking for fags out behind the temple. If this is so bad, how come there aren't any passages where Jesus heals the queers from being queer? That's because it's nothing but pure unadulterated hatemongering.
The alleged prohibition against homosexuality comes in the same section where followers are told not to eat any shrimp. It didn't say anything about the gay prohibition being more severe than the shrimp thing - they were given the same weight, they were ALL considered abominations. Why isn't there a massive outcry over that. How come there isn't any legislation being passed to protect people from Satan's favorite restaurant, Red Lobster, and their 30 shrimp special? Here's a real kicker, eating lobster would also be included in the acts that were considered an abomination, just like homosexuality. Are you telling me that none of these 56,650 Christians FROM MAINE haven't eaten any lobster?! And since their state is the lobster capital of the world, how come they haven't risen up and overthrown the state government? Hell with that many lobsters and all that lobster industry, it's a regular Sodom and Gammorah up there!
How about this? I assume many of these folks are married, so let me ask you, have you or anyone you know sat on the same couch or chair within three days of your wife while she is having her period? If so you are unclean and also an abomination. What? You're not following that prohibition either? How about the Sabbath? Have any of you worked or driven or done anything else that is forbidden? No, not bothering with that prohibition either, oh wait that wasn't a prohibition, that was a COMMANDMENT! Ooops, looks like you just broke your covenant with God, I guess your be looking at being visited with iniquity for 3 or 4 generations.
I only have one thing to say to these people - fuck you and the hypocritical high horse you rode in on.
All these people are doing is selectively quoting scriptures to justify their doctrine of hate. They are no different than the Nazi's or the KKK, and if you think they are doing the right thing by discriminating against gays, then you are in league with them. Because if you think oppressing people and discriminating against them to prevent them from being considered your equals is the Christian thing to do, then you better think again.
So remember the next time you have a nice bowl of New England Clam Chowder, or savor the succulent surf and turf or have mussels in Brussels or stuff one of those delicious jumbo shrimp covered in cocktail sauce into your hypocritical hatemongering mouth, you better start packing because your selective reading ass is off the eternal hot spot - right next your pal Maurice and his fabulous shoes and perfect, glistening, hairless body.
And to those 56,650 hypocritical Christians in Maine, you people make me sick - and you can take your Poland Spring Water and you Pepperidge Farm Cookies and shove them straight up your ass.
*reporting courtesy of GLENN ADAMS, Associated Press Writer|W|P|112264746979555312|W|P|Christians Win Vote to Repeal Maine's Gay Rights Law|W|P|
thordora|W|P|My fear, regardless of agreement or disagreement, is where does it stop?If it's ok to discriminate against gays, what about women? Black men? Tall kids?
Big problems have small roots. And can someone at some point PLEASE explain to me what the big fricken deal is about SOMEONE ELSE'S SEXUAL PREFERENCES?!?!?!?!
And here I thought Maine seemed kinda cool...
aBitWicked|W|P|I went to mass the other day (because i had to, not because i wanted to) and the priest said something about loving God's creatures, because god created them.so are gay people not created by God? they indeed are, and this group of christians or whatever should use a correct interpretation of the Word of God... not just at their convenience.. come on.
Phoenix|W|P|I've been trying to say as much for ages, and I'm glad that you said it. Rudicus|W|P|I just re-read it - it had a nice flow for a rant. I was pissed this morning when I pulled that story off the wire at 7am - can you tell?
Codesuidae|W|P|In the past Christians have told me that the whole Jesus thing nullified pretty much all of the old testiment stuff, so to be a good Christian you can pretty much ignore everything up to the N.T.I dunno if Jesus ever said that Good Christians should conspire to opress gays, but then religion has always been about making stuff up so you can get what you want, so I guess it doesn't matter what he said.
QOB|W|P|So I'd like to take an HONEST, THOUGHTFUL, RESPECTFUL look at why Christians feel it's necessary to take a stand against anything that legislates homosexuality as an equal option (or counterpart) to heterosexuality.I'm sure there are plenty of Christians who believe they are better than every non-Christian, without even realizing they think that, and many of them have an agenda that they don't realize contradicts those beliefs which they hold up as their foundation.
Let me tell you why I'm not as quick as the rest of you to vilify this fight, and it will be a different (I believe) point of view than those Christians with an agenda I discussed above.
I think some thought and discussion needs to occur regarding the precedence being set and what it will mean in 20, 30, or 60 years. Argue for a moment, logically, how you would incriminate a 25-year-old man who wants to marry a 15-year-old boy. What logical argument do we have when people say, "But this is MY sexual orientation, and I'm being discriminated against because there are laws that dictate I'm evil and cannot enjoy MY sexual orientation." Maybe your sexual orientation has to do with animals, maybe it has to do with marrying several people...I really don't see where we draw the line - or WHY. It's been drawn, thus far, by a foundation known as The Bible (correct me where I'm wrong)...that's what my experience says. And so the fight is, if we DO NOT continue to use this as our point of reference, what DO we use? Where DO we draw the line?
Rudi, do you want to step up first and set the tone so I'm not burned at the stake, here...?
Rudicus|W|P|I think you make a valid point, and I suspect that it will not do a heck of a lot of good to cite separation of church and state when suggesting that using the bible would violate that - but be that as it may.I agree that we need to set standards - but a 25 year old man marrying a 15 year old woman wouldn't fly either - so I don't see that as a concern - also every person I know who is gay - knew early enough to know as an adult that they were so. Law need to balance what is acceptable by society with what is good for society.
To me the gay marriage thing is separate from this which is about equal treatment as a human with equal access to housing, employment and credit and protection from descrimination.
The other issue to me is the idea that allowing something means allowing everything. Letting two adult men or women marry each other does not segue into pedophilia and bestiality. Each one is a separate issue. Also at the present time and for some time now homosexuality has not been viewed as a deviant behavior by respectable psychologists, wheras pedophilia and bestiality have been.
On other notes, I don't think one passage in the bible can outway the entire new testament which stresses loving your fellow person and respecting all creatures and doing unto others etc. This is why I'm saying that that passage is simply being used as an excuse to abuse vs. something legitimate.
Since I don't believe the presence of a gay person has any effect on those around them, I don't see how homosexuality is harful to society - especially given that homosexuals aren't the deviants that some would make them out to be. There are some that are pedophiles, but there are also loads of pedophiles that are heterosexual. Also most rapes are committed by heterosexual men - so do we link heterosexuality with rape?
Separate issues require separate solutions - but I think the core problem is that before we can go anywhere we have to agree that homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals and I think that is the current sticking point.
But don't forget there was a lengthy period of time where people in this country felt black were inferior as well. This is just another case of a population being persecuted because they were different. It's been going on since the dawn of man.
In 25 or 50 years when no one looks twice at gays, people who want to hate will just look at someone else to bother and find justification for it - I just don't want to wait that long.
QOB|W|P|I think I agree with almost everything you said. I think there SHOULD be separation of church and state. There isn't, but there should be. While an older man with a minor child is currently not acceptable, what logical argument could you make in court case to support incriminating such a person? What rationale will we use, as a society, for disallowing THAT person's sexual preference? Where's the line? I think this is why you are a moral relavist. But this is why I'm a moral absolutist. There's right and there's wrong...since we can't each decide because there are entirely TOO MANY different ideas with everyone believing they are right, there has to be a foundation that does not sway like the wind.How do you create a society, lay a foundation, and not do it based upon moral "right" and "wrong"?
You said, "I agree that we need to set standards..." We didn't set standards, e.g. a marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Because we didn't, there's argument around what the definition should be; if we HAD defined marriage more clearly, I believe the argument would be around the constitutionality of the definition.
Like I said, while we may consider certain sexual preferences deviant now, and others not deviant, in decades more preferences will surface as "norm" and the people who enjoy those preferences will cry out "discrimination" to create the norm within our culture.
Where do you draw the line? You Rudicous...you Phoenix...where do you draw the line? What's your suggestion? 'Cause I'm simply suggesting that you're saying, "Draw the line right after the homosexuals..." OK. What do we say to those in our society calling us to draw the line somewhere different in 50 years? What do we use as our compass?
QOB|W|P|Ooh, wow! That last paragraph sounded like fightin' words! Sorry! I was more saying, "Hey, fellow man in whom I have respect, tell me what we should do!"SORRY it came out wrong!
Rudicus|W|P|I agree that ambiguity leads to challenges - and you are correct if we HAD set marriage up that way from the get go, then there would be a different set of foci.As for logical arguments to prevent a 25 year old from marrying a 15 year old - don't forget that a few hundred years ago it was perfectly acceptable for a 25-35 year old man to marry a 12 year old woman with her parents blessing.
The rules of society are set by the society - don't forget cultures were living and dying and marrying thousands of years before anyone ever heard of the bible or moses or any of them - how did they do it? The native Americans had a flourishing spiritual tradtion until 1492, so did all of the central american and south american nations - how did they get by without the bible?
My point is, it's not the bible that dictates behavior - since I'm aware that nowhere in there does it say homosexuals shouldn't marry each other - I'm not sure where that would apply.
I also don't recall any biblical law governing the age of marriage at 18 or any other chronological age to my knowledge - correct me if I'm wrong. so even here we are taking the bible and interpreting what it meant in context of the current society.
However that does pose a problem - since if you are a moral absolutist (not you specifically, but everyone who makes that claim) Then how can you justify adhering to some biblical commands and not others since the very definition of absolutism is that it is absolute. Thus we go back to my point about the chairs and the sabbath and the shrimp. Absolutism dictates that they all apply equally or they cease to be absolute.
And that's why I'm a relatavist - so I don't end up in these logical quagmires.
What do you think?
QOB|W|P|OK. I can "put the Bible down!"So what do we do as a society?
Who decides what's acceptable and not?
If it's the society and culture, and currently we are a democracy where everyone's casting their vote, I think the votes are speaking loud and clear. Not everyone is ready (yet) to accept homosexuality as legislation. And they will at some point.
So if the change is simply a function of what the culture will currently accept, I guess we're just not quite there yet...
I don't know if it's discrimination so much. Just a function of our moral relativism.
As you pointed out, men WERE allowed to marry young girls...a few hundred years ago. So were they discriminated against when legislation was created to call that behavior deviant, inappropriate, against the law? I'm sure they thought so at the time.
I guess I just don't know where to go. On one hand, love thy neighbor, to each his own, judge not...on the other hand, I have real questions about how to create a functioning society that's fair and allows for individual rights. That's a real concern of mine.
I hate to do this to you...I'm truly enjoying our conversation, but I am going out of town in about ten minutes...so this is it until Monday. Enjoy your weekend, Rudicous.
Nathan|W|P|Hmm. I remember stating this fundamental in another comment, but perhaps that was too long winded.In short: mind your business because it is your's and no one else's.
Scratch the idea of society. Individuals make up "sociey", which is a very abstract idea. An average, if you will, and averages are inaccurate in the way that if you said the average weight was 180, but I picked a random name in a phone book, you know nothing about that person's weight.
Phoenix|W|P|Whatever happened to "Love thy neighbor"? In this society we are all neighbors of a sort. And that line did not make exceptions.
What's strange is that this is not a new issue, it's just reversed. The Spartans considered love between men the highest form of love, and such behaviors were considered acceptable for tthousands of years. And when it changed there was a fight to keep what had been the norm.
Now we have people trying to live in society like everyboy else. And there are those who are scared of change trying to claim that this is abnormal behavior. Now I will draw the line with bestiality, pedophelia and other forms of abberant sexual behavior. But for reasons of informed consent, if animals could speak in the human tounges and could consent we would have another issue, but they don't so we can consider it rape. And children cannot make an informed consent, because they are not learning of these things until later in life, so even if they say yes... they really don't know.
But also consider how society has changed things. A recent documentary about the life of the virgin Mary showed how even the medieval view was skewed. We often see images of her at about 20 holding the baby, but if you look at the society of the time she would have probably been less then 15 when Jesus was born, and scared. Now we make her image much older, because it is abnormal for such a young girl to be expected to be a mother.And Joseph was already much older.
So what I'm trying to say is that what's acceptable changes, even when held against the bible. It's been only recently that marriage for girls has moved over the 20 year old mark. But now, even with it being a recent change, at is considered odd for girls to marry young.
Also I need to throw in the biological reasons for the initial cries against homosexuality. It really started to be bashed back in days where wars could kill vast numbers of men and death rates among children were astounding. Men were expected to take a wife to procreate and advance the species, and homosexual behaviors were villified because it didn't produce children. But with advances in medicine we don't have the death rates in kids and wars have changed how men are killed in that arena, so some natural tendencies in the race are starting to show again.
Finally, I'll finish that this isn't an abberant behavior as some would have you believe. It has always existed, and was even revered in some societies. What the holdup is on this now is a throwback to times when this needed to be supressed for the continuation of the species, and the fears that were instilled during those ancient times to advance a political agenda.
Nate|W|P|I wish I could trackback to you, but a comment will have to do. My biggest complaint with this repeal of rights is that it is done in the name of Christianity. What a crock to those of us who have a true understanding of Jesus' teaching. I blogged about it here. Keep up the great posts! Glod|W|P|Maine's desert isn't even a real one, it's just a load of sand and bad agriculture. Rudicus|W|P|Nate, thanks for the link to your post - very nice, when I get a chance I'll go take a longer look.You made a great point and one that I was trying to make also, and probably one that QOB would also agree with. Beyond the issue of homosexuality, I don't see alot of these folks acting accoring to the teachings of the guy they are supposed to revere and worship - and the fact that they deign to claim to speak for all of you, to me, is a great sin second only to those who are Christians and hear this kind of hate speecha nd don't do anything.
The problem with haters in your midst is that someday they may turn on you.
Get-A-Free-House|W|P|How would you like to own a custom-built house at a 42% to 100% discount? Find out how today by visiting Get-A-Free-House.com hiro|W|P|Just thought i would say hi from Japan. Doing some blog surfing and found your site. Im looking for some cool styles of florida injury lawyer for my own blog. Theres some really amazing blogs about. if you have time check out my site you will find information on florida injury lawyer. Well when i get my blog running hope you come and check it out. |W|P|Hello!ball crystal free reading tarot is a very interesting subject and I really enjoy Your blog.
If You are really interested in this You must visit ball crystal free reading tarot
Here You find a complete directory regarding ball crystal free reading tarot
So please, don´t miss ball crystal free reading tarot
The decline of the western civilization continues as the Gay Army and their secret police force, the ACLU scored another victory against "right" thinking citizen's everywhere, when Judge Jane Phan(who we can only assume is a dreaded activist judge) ruled that Utah resident Elizabeth Solomon could display her vanity license plate: GAYSROK, in addition to the one pictured* above. The full story can be read here.
You would think this wouldn't be a problem, but as we all know, when it comes to GAY we're far from OK.
As dumb as this may sound, the plate request was originally denied by the state on the grounds that the plates were "offensive to good taste and decency" as well as this doozie that the plates "relate to sexual functions and express superiority of gender."
WOW.
That's quite a stretch. How does this argument not sound ridiculous? How do people hear this and go "damn right." Of course these guys are already planning their appeal.
I know this was a victory for the "immoral and intrinsicly evil" gays and their reviled ACLU attack dogs. It's a tragedy when you can't openly discriminate and oppress a population that you don't like or agree with - what's the country coming to. It must be that dang queer Sponge Bob and his little fairy cartoon pals.
So what's the big threat here? Is some kid going to read "GAYSROK" and be irrevocably damaged? OR is it more because some parent would have to explain why they hate gay people and why they are not OK and be confronted by their own nonsense. This reminds me of a conversation I overheard between two mothers who were discussing the American Idol T.V. program a few years back when Clay Aiken and Reuben Studdard were competing for the finals. One mother really really liked Clay the best, but she hoped that Reuben would win and would probably vote for him. When asked why she would do that, she explained that since Clay was gay(according to her), she didn't want to have to explain to her daughter why she couldn't cheer for him as the winner because he was gay - because that might make her daughter think that being gay was ok. And of course the other mother said "I know what you mean." but added, "it's too bad though, because he really is the better singer, but I know what you mean."
That must have been a tough day - having to choose between a black guy and a gay guy.
Meanwhile back in Utah, I can appreciate the fact that a state that has constituents who have 12 wives needs to be morally upstanding and defend their children from gay license plates. Also considering that Utah also offers a Boy Scouts of America specialty plate - a group that openly discriminates against homosexuals - as well as plates supporting several private religious universities - we can see how they might be offended by anything against their beliefs.
When will people learn that a license plate is only a forum to promote what the state supports, not what anyone else supports.
Hopefully the appeal will fail and the U.S. Congress won't feel the need to get involved. But we want to wish the best of luck to Elizabeth Solomon in her fight and add a special thank you for fighting in the first place. And while she is fully aware that if she ever does get the plate onto her car, it will most likely get vandalized, she's willing to do it anyway. You go girl!
*image courtesy of KUTV, Salt Lake City.|W|P|112255981568959016|W|P|When License Plates Come Out.|W|P|
Ailyn|W|P|"express superiority of gender"??? i guess they still think gay means men? i'd love to see a plate that said LezzieLve (just kidding).I KNOW!!!!! 3SOMS-ROX
that would be a good plate.
Phoenix|W|P|nope can't have license plates like this at all, but a bumpersticker that read "my other ride is your [insert close female relative]" is amusing. Wish I would have got that one, but was sitting in traffic. Oh boy...
Matt|W|P|Maybe if the government didn't want people to have personalized licence plates they shouldn't have offered them in the first place. How could they not see something like this coming?Damn short-sightedness...
QOB|W|P|"That must have been a tough day - having to choose between a black guy and a gay guy."FUNNIEST. LINE. EVER.
(Okay, okay, so maybe I exaggerate...)
The funniest thing for me is, I used to be that person...the one who doesn't even recognize the message being delivered by the words coming out of her mouth...the one who's oblivious to the idea of speaking only what you mean, only what you've coherently constructed into sentences to be spoken to another in conversation. The idea of saying what you mean, that idea is so foreign to so many.
Other than that, I'm not really sure what I think about that license plate. Still mulling it over.
Rudicus|W|P|to me, it almost doesn't matter if you like it or not, since thats not the real issue - if you have rules and people follow the rules there you go.So as long as you are within the rules that they set up, they shouldn't have to be censored. The only way to change it is to eliminate all vanity plates or just live with it.
I get angry everytime I see a confederate flag on someone's pick up truck, but there is nothing I can do about it - and frankly I shouldn't be able to even if I wanted to, since we are in a free country.
QOB|W|P|Yeah, I'm not mulling over whether or not I like it - I DON'T like it...who cares? I'm mulling over to what extent laws should regulate personalized license plates. Not sure what I think just yet. QOB|W|P|And Ailyn, I agree. I could see if it was "express superiority of sexual orientation" - which still doesn't apply...it's not saying homosexuals are better than heterosexuals.See, the thing is, license plates are regulated by a government agency. So I think the point of the regulation is to say: let's all just have fun with vanity plates and not turn them into political or offensive media. That's all hard to discern, though. Who makes the rules? Well, I guess it has to remain relative, and the rules are made up as we go along.
And that's what's ticking people off - the rules are being made up as we go along, only it's not the voice of the majority, but the minority, that's speaking volumes over legislation.
OK, still mulling...
Jesse|W|P|"It's a tragedy when you can't openly discriminate and oppress a population that you don't like or agree with"You know Hitler said the same thing... I think.
QOB|W|P|You *did* read the sarcasm in that statement, right Interloper? Just making sure...It was a nice story about the Atlanta PD cracking down on underage drinking by sending undercover underage buyers in to try and purchase alcohol. In the sting, 48 citations were issued, meaning alcohol was pretty easy to get for underage drinkers.
While alcohol and drunk driving are major issues in this country, I wonder if the pervasiveness of underage drinking and drinking to excess is not a product of culture that could be curbed more effectively in another way.
In this country we like to stop things by prohibiting them. It's a very black and white approach. But like everything else it only works to a certain extent. Terrorism is another good example - we can round up or kill thousands of terrorists, but yet more and more keep lining up. It comes from not addressing the systemic causes of behavior be it terrorism or drinking. It even crops up in western medicine where we often treat the symptoms but spend far less time or none at all looking at the root cause of the affliction - especially in the case of mental health challenges.
So here we have 48 citations issued. Are kids going to stop drinking? No. Are bars and stores and restaurants going to stop serving underage drinkers? No. This is a temporary band-aid only. Places will crack down and it'll be a little harder for a bit, but within a short period it will go right back to where it was.
So what is the root of the issue? Well there are several. The first of which is why we are so prohibitionary about things. You get kids who encounter a substance; alcohol. Typically they have no exposure to it, have no idea how to use it responsibly or what they can safely drink without becoming impaired or ill. If you add to that a mystique of coolness as well as parental and societal prohibition and you just made a recipe that it pretty much going to result in use and abuse of that substance. It is not any different than the whole sex education issue. Teaching(preaching abstinence) does not only keep children from learning about sex and understanding it, but adds the whole "you better not" concept to it, pretty much guaranteeing that kids will want to try it. Add those hormones and viola! you have kids having sex without any preparation, education or experience - just like drinking.
What do you think would happen if instead we tried to educate and expose our kids to life instead of sheltering them from it. If kids have the opportunity to experiment with alcohol and or sex or anything else for that matter in a controlled way, armed with education - don't you think they would turn out with a different attitude and approach to those things? Certainly there will always be those who abuse and misuse, but that would be present no matter what.
Think about your life as a 21 year old when you could finally drink legally - it was great, but it wore off pretty quickly because the mystique was gone and you also were growing up. If you had been exposed to alcohol from a younger age and it was part of your family life and you understood what it was and what it could do, I suspect a great many of those binge drinkers would no go that route. Not only that, but if folks could get a drink here and there (which science has already told us is healthy), there wouldn't be an underage drinking problem. Again, there will always be abusers and alcoholism, but that will be present even if you outlawed it completely.
Part 2 of this discussion is why we get all this abuse. We already discussed the mystique and the rebellion and cool factor, but the other, and this applies to booze, sex, drugs etc. is the state of our society and how people feel.
There are plenty of people who are not addicts, alcoholics etc. who go out and binge or abuse to excess - often with disastrous consequences. When someone has a bad day, you'll often hear "I'm going to go out and get shitfaced." Half the time people will just do this to blow off steam and de-stress - this goes for drugs and sex too. But you take someone in a highly emotional state, with lessened self-control and a substance or activity that makes them feel good and you once again will get abuse. The result of living in a society filled with despair and hopelessness along with stress and pain (both emotional and physical) combined with a staggering lack of coping tools, education and support and you are assured to get the exact situation we are looking at today with stop gap measures, band-aids and less than effective strategies for dealing with it.
While taking care of our youth is always a good thing and drunk driving is a serious social issue (which coincidentally we could make a much bigger dent in if only we would spend the money on education, technology, support and infrastructure), unless we take a long hard look at the society and culture that produces those kids armed with that worldview and how we respond to them and educate them, we will never be close to solving that problem or any of our other social ills.|W|P|112247679664888233|W|P|Living In The Drinking Age.|W|P|
QOB|W|P|WOW! Dare I say, "Brilliant!"..? Not only a new vantage point for me, but also one with which I can agree. Thanks, Rudicous! Phoenix|W|P|I was exposed at a younger age to a different viewpoint and I must say that it seemed so much more appropriate. I went to Germany at the age of 16, and at that time I was legal to drink beer and wine, and nudity was acceptable on prime time tv. One of the flips was that 18 was the driving age, but it seemed to have a good effect. Teenagers learned how to hold their liquor before learning to drive, and with sky high prices to get a license there was immense pressure to behave while on the road.
Needless to say... when I returned I had a different viewpoint on how things were done here. The other way made sense because you didn't get the rebel teenagers doing something because it was 'bad'.
I also have to say that proper education in sex is important. My parent's took my education of this important and didn't rely on schools to teach me. They checked out library books that explained it in temrs understandable to kids and made sure I knew how serious a matter it was. They also stressed that it was my body, and my choice. And when they learned that I was active there wasn't screaming or punishment. A simple question sufficed to ease minds. "Did you enjoy it?" Simple, no pressure.
Nothing can replace parental involvement and education. Nothing can replace understanding like I recieved.
Ken Grandlund|W|P|Education is always the key, especially when combined with factual information instead of propaganda and taboo.This is a good post in that it reminds people that prohibition only causes more of the behavior that it purports to decrease, and that open, honest education is the best hope for combating unhealthy activities.
Matt|W|P|I don't agree with the "holistic" point of view on this one. I don't think we need to find the root of the problem, or explore what makes people binge drink, etc. Instead I think we need to make more practical laws, we need to look at WHY we believe someone should not be able to drink until the age of 21. I personally believe that the system most often used in Europe (as noted by phoenix above) is more practical than is ours. Driving accidents kill a whole lot of teens, I expect more than does drinking (though the combo is,of course, deadly). By allowing teens to ease their way in to drinking BEFORE being able to drive, rather than the other way around, I think we could save a lot of lives. Similarly I will bring up the most cliched of points...isn't it a bit ridiculous that an 18 year old can go out and die for his/her country, without ever being able to order a drink? That in itself is a call for change. Rudicus|W|P|I agree with Matt also, I was simply alluding to the idea that the "drinking problem" is not simply a function an age limit and a police crackdown.Another thing about Europe is that many people don't drive much and very few people drive if they've been drinking. I was in the Netherlands for New Years a few years back and we decided to go to a pub and we ended up walking 5km because noone wanted to drive afer having any drinks.
I also agree that it's stupid to be able to go to war and vote, but not have a beer. But then again we should have parenting licenses and free education and socialized medicine and we don't have any of that either.
Anne|W|P|This is beautifully written. In the UK we have a lower age of legal drinking and the same problems as the US. Only ours is fuelled by a 'yob culture' among our youth. I think that the US is worse for drink driving though.Also, I totally agree that drinking is representative of something else. We need to ask questions when people turn to drugs in their many forms instead of dealing with reality.
Cool blog!
Joe|W|P|Think of the advantages! Those who already have a propinsity to alchoholism would get a head start!
More and more kids would come to realize that drinking is the main way to enjoy social interaction!
Cirrosis of the liver would onset earlier, thus giving more time to address and treat the problem!
A teen could take Driver's Ed while slightly under the influence and so learn to drive thusly.
Really, really well thought out!
Rudicus|W|P|Thank You Joe!I'm glad Joe posted this response, because it is a perfect example of where the prohibitive response comes from.
Take a look at his comments:
"Those who already have a propinsity to alchoholism would get a head start!"
"Cirrosis of the liver would onset earlier, thus giving more time to address and treat the problem!"
"A teen could take Driver's Ed while slightly under the influence and so learn to drive thusly."
Not to take anything away from his point, but it so clearly illustrates what I am talking about.
If you take a look at what he says, all of those comments ASSUME the worst. It says people can't be trusted and left to their own devices would degenerate into anarchy and self-destruction. This is the same set of beliefs that fuels our current system and why we think legalizing marijuana would turn everyone into a weed addict or that teaching sex education leads to teenage orgies where everyone either gets an STD or get's pregnant.
This attitude doesn't believe education, exposure and example will teach anyone how to be responsible and approach things like drinking and sex in a healthy and respectful way.
Basically it boils down to trust - these kind of comments signify a lack of trust in people and indicate that we need to dictate life and control people for their own good.
Nothing against Joe, because it would seem that he shares the sentiment that most people share on this subject. All I'm seeing is that I think there is a better way, especially since the way we're currently going doesn't seem to be working well at all.
And Joe, let me ask you this. If your child was getting together with their friends who were going to be partying, would you want them to be going in having had experience with alcohol with you and a level of understanding and personal responsibility because you've talked about it OR do you want them going in armed with the idea that alcohol is evl and bad and you better not be drinking, but no real understanding or experience. Since your kid will be drinking regardless, personally I would rather have my kid armed with knowledge, support and life experience, rather than dogma and propaganda - call me crazy.
Of course this would mean parents would have to actually take responsibility for educating their kids rather than leaving it up to the schools, government and police, and we all know that that sentiment is in very short supply.
QOB|W|P|Joe, your comment was holier-than-thou; it was rude and argumentative. Not at all what Jesus calls of us. If you are going to take a stance, be respectful and present thoughtful arguments. We are called to be light and salt. |W|P|I think the point of not having trust in letting people be responsible for their own choices is really important here. We make so many laws prohibiting activities because essentially we dont trust each other to make choices. We feel the need to control others into making the "right" choices because we dont believe that people will make their own responsible choices. It would be amazing if through education we could allow others to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions. I wonder why we cant do this? Why in our culture do we have this incessant need to control and this fear of trusting and allowing others to truly have freedom of thought and action? Do we not think that people will make beneficial choices? Do we think people are at root evil/bad/stupid so that they need to be told?Personally I think by consistently underestimating peoples ability to think we promote a type of learned helplessness where people cant think for themselves and cant act unless they are told. We promote poor self esteem and poor thinking skills with our controlling laws.
In reading Matt's comment, it occurred to me that religion, like any other product or service, has a sales force, and a marketing department and customer testimonials.
Each of the major religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) come with a hefty dogmatical price tag, with lots of rules and prohibitions for living, along with lots of consequences for non adherence. The ultimate sale seems to be that you buy eternal life with your soul, but only if you follow the myriad of rules and regulations in order to "qualify." The "sell" consists of payment of time and money during life in the form of Meetings (church), community participation(church related activities), network marketing(mission work or proselytizing) and tithing - along with the verbal contract of a soul in exchange for an eternal life of bliss on the side of the creator. In addition there is a staunch level of product loyalty to the point of murder in some of the more extreme cases.
All of the products and their customers believe that their product is the best and frequently downgrade their competitors in an attempt to get more marketshare. They also engage in active discrimination against members of specific populations as well as customers of their competitors.
Let's imagine the "Big Three" are car companies, which is a good analogy, since they are like big companies with several different "models" or sects in their portfolio.
Let's say Christianity is GM and Islam is Toyota, and we'll call Judaism Saab, since they don't do a lot of advertising and nobody really knows a whole lot about them, but their customers love them and there is a certain mystique.
What do you think would happen if you went to the dealership and they gave you a huge book of rules and told you couldn't get the car until you die, but you have to follow all these rules and if you mess up, you don't get the car. But, you also have to pay for the car before you die, and you aren't allowed to even look at any other kind of car. Also if you start asking about the engine or the mileage or the safety of the vehicle, you are looked at with disdain and are given a copy of the company literature, but are not allowed to see any independent reports from other consumers or buyers or other companies or groups. How long do you think that company would stay in business?
What if you turned on the T.V. and the ads came on and said, "if you don't buy this car from this company, you will be tortured for all eternity" - would that make you want that car? What if the company said that if you bought their car, you would get a new job, a hot spouse, and everyday would be like a vacation - and then in the fine print it had all sorts of stipulations? What if they made that promise and the hope of those results kept you paying for the car, but you really had no testimonials from customers who had gotten any of those benefits, the dealer just told you you would and it was in the company literature.
It wouldn't exactly inspire confidence if you got to the dealership and they said "listen, we have no idea if this car will even work, and I have no idea if you will really get any benefits whatsoever, and heck you might get to the lot and there never were any cars in the first place, but we'll still keep all your payments, so why don't you plunk that money down right now?" How many cars are they going to sell with that pitch?
My point is that each of these religions is selling a product that most of the people in the world have purchased and continue to pay for. These religions are part of the life, society and government of the people and they get free advertising all over the place from radio and t.v. to politicians, even our money and the pledge of allegiance! That's an awful lot of free advertising. What do you think would happen if there was a Nike logo on the money or a politician came out and said Coca-Cola is the only soda I'll ever drink and if you elect me, I'll make sure that Coke is the only drink drunk by the people of this country and we have to make sure we only elect Coke drinkers, because the Pepsi drinkers are destroying our way of life and want to kill us?
Want to have some fun? Take a look at this FAQ about advertising for small business and see how many violations of the Fair Trade Commission Act a world religion would be guilty of. Let's take a look:
- advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive;
- advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and
- advertisements cannot be unfair.
- is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and
- is "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product.
- it causes or is likely to cause substantial consumer injury which a consumer could not reasonably avoid; and
- it is not outweighed by the benefit to consumers.
Do you find it strange that we hold our sinus medicine to a higher standard than our deity? Doesn't is strike you as odd that we know more about the effects of insect repellent than we do about the afterlife? And isn't it funny that we have more evidence about athlete's foot cream than we do about any of the claims of religion.
It just seems odd and seriously hypocritical that we have all these standards for the most mundane of daily items, yet none of them are applied to companies who deal with our eternal souls. AND we give all this free advertising, free product placement(like bibles in the drawer), and free endorsement and sponsorship by celebrities, civic leaders and government employees that is never examined for ethical violations, anti-trust violations or any violations of the other acts, laws and regulations that we hold the most minute and innocuous products and services to.
Let the buyer beware!|W|P|112238892862491514|W|P|The Hard Sell.|W|P|
QOB|W|P|I appreciated that Matt stated his comment was from a "rediculous religious fanatic". He was correct, his comment WAS fanatical and rediculous.What all humans ought to keep in mind - regardless of their faith in a God, or lack thereof - is no one is better than anyone else. Bin Laden was somebody's baby. A mother stared into his eyes when he was born, and if she is like most mothers she dreamed and hoped for that baby she was holding. He is who he is, and I don't presume to know who he is...but my point is, WHO AM I TO JUDGE HIM?
For whatever reason, I felt the need to start with that little speech. As for the game of car sales...
I don't agree with the idea of rules and prohibitions, or their consequences for non-adherence. I believe that's what humans do to the truth of...I'll use Christianity...because men (especially) are in constant need of obtaining power.
In my study and understanding (limited, mind you) of the Bible, I believe the words are alive. That probably sounds strange, but I believe there is power in the words themselves, and a believing person, a person who faithfully believes that there's truth in the Bible, will read and grasp and gain wisdom and knowledge that is difficult to explain or share with someone who does not believe. At the same time, that same person is human, fallen, and will get it wrong sometimes. That person will fall back into their human nature, their fallen nature, but that doesn't jeopardize their salvation. Nothing can jeopardize their salvation. That price was paid and there's no amount of good or bad that person can do to "lose" their salvation, their place in the kingdom.
That being said, no amount of going to church, tithing, etc. "buys" your salvation. Faith does. That's all that is required. And beyond that, a person who is trying to "buy" their way in simply doesn't get it. They are negating the blood shed.
In addition, judgment is probably one of the worst and most predominant of sins among believers of all faiths. God will judge. HE will decide how it all will end. There's a purpose and a plan, and you - as a Christian - are called to love, be light and salt, and NOT JUDGE. Can you see how much damage has been done by people of faith chasing power and judging everyone? It's rediculous how people have USED AND ABUSED the message of the Bible.
I have what I have to offer. I am what I am. I strive to love those around me in a resounding way. I do my best. And I fail often in the department of judgment, but I recognize my failure there and work at it every day.
When all is said and done, perhaps God's greatest gift of grace will be to lift every last person up and say, "No matter what you did, I already paid the price and you have always been my child." I don't know. He has it all figured out.
There's a lot more to this story, of course. I just thought I'd begin to speak from THIS side of the fence about the particulars of the faith in which I believe.
And I have to tell you, it saddens me that what you've written is not far from the "truth" that's currently being spread by The Big Three. Imagine there really is a Satan - he's doing his job, scrambling and distorting the message of love that's truly the underlying point of the Christian faith.
Phoenix|W|P|Rudicus... You're right. We wouldn't buy a car that way, it makes no sense.But As to the religion thing... I believe that humans are hard wired for some kind of faith. If we weren't than we wouldn't purchase religion. Even I have something of a religious belief, I just don't follow any recognized religion. But no matter how I try, I can't accept that there's nothing.
With that in mind... I'll say that established religions offer a level of comfort. It gives people a focus for their beliefs, and a place where the other people will not scoff at your beliefs because they feel the same. It fills some sort of need, and for many people it is exactly what they need.
Religion goes wrong when it is used to try and gain power. And unfortunately those who are using it in that way are screwing it up for everybody who just wants a focus for their beliefs.
Honestly, I don't think that the truly good churches are misleading anyone. I see people who are truly happy and comfortable in this life by going to church. The promnise of a nice afterlife is only like icing on the religious cake. The ones who are misleading are the religious cults, and they are the ones making the rest look bad.
With that said... I still didn't buy any of the big three. After the first test drive I decided that it wasn't for me. I made my own car.
Rudicus|W|P|Personally I like "I made it up because it felt right" vs. "My way or the Highway"I just think it's odd that we don't hold our religion to the same standards as we hold chocolate chip cookies, which no one to my knowledge has persecuted, been persecuted, killed or been killed in the name of.
Although now that I think of it, I bet the cult of chocolate could gain a good batch of adherants.
Matt|W|P|I wrote a paper that was quite similar to this post back in my freshman year of college. It explored the ways Christianity appeals to individuals' self-interest to gain followers. It's pretty crazy once you start thinking about it, hard to accept that it's a coincidence that such strategies just happened to be built in to the religion itself. QOB|W|P|My ex-husband has said that same thing before, that the truth behind faith is that people simply "need" to believe in something, and that his only problem is when it's a "my way or the highway" approach. I think there is a need for God, but I believe in God as a fact, as a truth. No matter who you are on this planet, or what you do, I am not called to judge you, but God still IS. So I don't find it to be a need to believe, just a recognition. But I don't think the "my way or the highway" approach is what God would have us resemble, either.It all boils down to one simple thing, I think: love. That's it. I will love as best I can. And you will do what you do. And I will not judge you, but always love you, regardless of whether or not I love what you do.
QOB|W|P|And Matt, it's no coincidence that the strategies are built into the religion. That's smart, if you're Satan. Use fallen man, his pride and his vanity and his need to control and gain power. Exploit religious beliefs and tenets. Create big business out of it. That will turn many good people off to religion right at their core. It's brilliant, really.I experience things I didn't experience as a luke-warm believer. I can't explain them, but those experiences have deepened my faith. And they are so wonderful and soul-filling that I wish them for everyone. All I can do is live the example, and when someone asks, "What's the difference in you? Why are you different?" I can say, "My faith." That's it. That's my proselytizing...walking the talk.
Rudicus|W|P|Here's my thing.If God is onipotent and omniscient and the creator of all things, then he knows me and knows that I'm a non-stop questioning disbeleiving skeptical bastard - so if he made me, he ought to know what I will and won't believe etc. So he can either reveal himself in a way that he knows I'll accept, or he can just say "that's just Rudicus" Let's have omse fun and see what he does, and then we'll have a chat after he kicks the bucket.
Phoenix|W|P|lol rudicus, That's it. IF god made you then he knows what you believe, and if he don't like it then why did he make you that way? QOB|W|P|I completely feel you on that one...have had that thought myself. It's hard for me to go back to that frame of mind, the frame of mind I was in at a time when I felt the same way. So, it's difficult to say anything back. All I know is, I hated that feeling.I remember hearing or reading (or watching on a movie, perhaps?) some line about us being ants and God being the big kid with the magnifying glass...can't really remember that one...I am just thinking of that now as I'm feeling what you said.
I'm really sorry people are who they are and evil is what it is and that brings you to the place you are with faith and religion.
Codesuidae|W|P|Religions may serve another important purpose, that of allowing large communities to develop. Humans tend to fear or reject outsiders, and they identify outsiders by their lack of cultural similarities. Religions, which have features that allow them to change only slowly through time, help large societies maintain a sense of identity. That is, the are less likely to fracture into 'us' and 'them'.
If religions were made up of ideas that allowed for the rapid change of ceremony and belief, they would not as effectively keep large societies together.
The systems of ideas that successful religions are composed of can be considred a meme, and as such they are subject to 'natural selection' (some of which would be unintentional, some of which would be directed by people with power to direct the religious orgainization). The elements that are not successful at making the religion popular and effective at self-reproduction are lost or modified.
It may be that cohesive large societies make an effective environment for the spread of religion, and so the tendancy for a religion to promote cohesive large societies forms a bit of a 'feedback loop' that leads to the kind of societies and religions we see today.
Do people have a 'need' to feel some kind of guidence that is often filled by religion? Without a doubt. However, I'm not conviced that this is biological need. Perhaps if our ancient ancestors were tribal, with a strong leader, similar to gorilla social structures we might have some biological propensity to want a strong personal guidence. On the other hand, this could very easily be a cultural feature. If as a child one sees seeking behaviour of that nature in others similar behaviour could very well develop in the child, especially if the childs social development is linked with religious events.
There are many who do not feel this need. One can't help but wonder if it is just a fluke of brain chemistry that seperates non-believers from the devout.
QOB|W|P|OH. MY.I'm entirely too simple to grasp all of that...
Unfortunately there were a lot of places that didn't have much fun this weekend. Bombs, bombs and more bombs. London, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq - the world tour of terror continues.
Has it occurred to anyone else that if you look at the timeline of terror attacks have gotten more frequent and more deadly than ever. More and more innocent civilians are killed everyday - that's not a war folks. I'm sure the idea that we aren't winning the war on terror or anything else is not lost here, nor the fact that instead of finding WMD's, "liberating" an oppressed people or anything else of that nature, we have instead, NOT gotten the precious oil at the heart of it and have only succeeded in getting Americans killed as well as creating a University of Terror where extremists from all over the globe can get inspired, learn and actually practice their craft in a live theatre in Iraq.
So it was with great interest that I read this article about the Pope's prayer to God to end terror.
"Pope Benedict on Sunday condemned violence in Egypt, Iraq, Turkey and Britain and asked God to stay the hand of terrorists.
'While we entrust to God's goodness ... the victims of these acts that offend God and man, we call on the Omnipotent to stay the hands of assassins who, driven on by fanaticism and hate, have committed these things,' the Pope said in his Sunday address to pilgrims at his summer holiday retreat in the Alps."
I thought this was interesting, not for the content, since of course he's going to come out with something. I personally never understood this whole "condemnation" thing. Everytime terrorists strike, we can a rally of condemnation from the people who struck and all their friends. I know it's basically a autonomic response and an easy way to get into the press, but what's the purpose? It's not like anyone is going to stop as a result.
"Walid, I don't think we should place these roadside bombs, The Pope, President Bush and Tony Blair all condemned the attacks from yesterday."
"You're right, I never thought blowing people up was wrong, but thanks to them, I now realize the error of my ways. Let's go back and tell our brothers to stop, and then I'll buy you an ice cold Infidel Coca-Cola from the new McDonald's in Sadr City."
"I'm Lovin' It!"
But the other part I liked was asking God the Omnipotent to stay the hands of the assassins.
That brings up a lot of interesting stuff.
Clearly they think God is on their side, since they are asking him to intervene. But unfortunately since it's the same God on the terrorists side(not sure if God is a double agent), that puts God in an unfortunate position, since I imagine they are asking him to continue giving them success.
So what do we think here. So far it would seem that God has been pretty wishy washy in his support for America's Team and it looks like the scrappy Islamic fundamentalist underdogs are actually doing some damage to the greatest show on earth. It's the Rocky story all over again, except this time, we're Drago from Rocky 4.
So, what's up with God the Omnipotent? Since he could clearly wave his hand and all this would go away, why hasn't he? Maybe he's being political and wants to come in on the side of the team that is going to win. Perhaps he's just having fun watching the game and doesn't really care who wins. Or maybe he simply doesn't care who wins because he wins no matter what. Like Don King watching a match where he owns both fighters, it doesn't really matter who wins because he wins either way and he can manipulate the contest in whatever way brings him more money and power.
Yeah that Omnipotence is a motherfucker isn't it? If your guy has it, then why isn't he using it? That's got to be demoralizing. Personally I would rather say there isn't anybody home, rather than think of the idea that he was there and just not doing anything, even though he could.
Imagine that you're in the street in front of your house and you're fighting your some guy and getting your ass kicked. And your Dad is watching from an open door and doing nothing - even though you are screaming for help. That's gotta suck, especially when your dad is Superman.
That doesn't sound very good to me, but let's spin it a bit and see what happens.
Same situation, but the guy you are fighting isn't just some guy, it's your brother and he's calling to dad for help too. How does that change the situation?
Yeah it gets a tad bit confusing. Clearly all this warring and jihad is not offending God or he would have done something to stop it.
It seems pretty simple to me - we're on our own and so are they. But that means we are responsible for our own fate and noone else. So what can we do? Tune in tomorrow to find out.|W|P|112229024665039818|W|P|The Xtreme! War on Terror Part 1.|W|P|
Phoenix|W|P|maybe he should pray for the American Gov. to wake up and realize that our policies fuel the flames of hatred. I think that would do ever so much better than to ask a god that supposedly is the same for both religions to tell one side to bend over. Unfortunately... as long as the sheeple keep buying the 'they hate us for our freedoms' bs, things will not change.
Nathan|W|P|The same principle applies in a lot of other places too, Rudicus. People not relying on themself to solve their problems. Matt|W|P|:::transforms into ridiculous religious fanatic::: "Whatever, say all you want but God loves me and I will end up with eternal bliss and happiness and the others will be in hell thirsting for water that is just out of their reach. I am right, I know it, and if you really loved God like I did you would know it too." Rudicus|W|P|Matt, you bring up a good point that I think might make a nice post.Smurf You! You smurfing smurf smurfer! If you ever smurfing smurf my smurf, I'll smurf you so smurfing hard you'll be smurfing smurfs for a week. Only a smurfalized, surf-face, smurf smurfer would ever smurfing smurf something so smurfy and then smurf the ever-smurfing smurf out of it and leave it smurfed and smurfed, smurfing in it's own smurf. You're not smurfing worth the smurf who smurfed you, smurfhole!
I hope you smurfing smurf up and smurfing smurf, you miserable smurfing excuse for a smurf.
Go smurf yourself!
Have a smurfy weekend everyone!
Smurficus.|W|P|112206440605690046|W|P|Weekend Smurf Rant!|W|P|
QOB|W|P|Smurfing smurftacular, Smurficus! Good smurf. Phoenix|W|P|laa-la-la-la-la-laaaa-laaa-la-la-la-laaaa Herge Smith|W|P|Get smurfed you smurfing eating mothersmurf! Rudicus|W|P|See how much fun this is! Glod|W|P|Smurfs give me indigestion. PapaCool|W|P|Did you see... MommyCool.com notes that the Smurf are making a return with a movie in 2008! Now you can write another Smurf rant! The Complimenting Commenter|W|P|A very smurftastic rant. Bravo for being so original. You made my day smurfect.According to orgnaizers, the Gay Games are expected to bring in between 50 and 80 million dollars to the Chicago economy. So I guarantee these Republican guys won't have a problem with all that queer money.
Tony Paraica one of the "chicken-shit 5" claimed that he must have been out of the room when the vote came up last month. C'mon Tony, who's going to believe that one? That would be like leaking the name of an undercover CIA agent and then claiming you actually heard about the agent from the reporter you leaked it to.
I continue to be amazed and startled at how openly descriminatory these guys are and no one seems to be bothered. This is exactly why I was trying to point out yesterday that the neo-nazis and these guys are one and the same. Want proof, what do you think would happen if the republicans decided to withdraw support for Black History Month or MLK's birthday because he was black? What if they decided to boycott Hannukah because it was Jewish? What if they chose to boycott the actual Olymics that were just awarded to London because Arab countires were going to be there. It's the same thing folks, just dressed up in a nicer way. At least the neo-nazis hate people to their face.
The other thing that kills me is how many gays they have working for them over in the Republican party. So gays are fine as long as no one complains or you get benefit, but otherwise they're the worst kind of evil - ain't that just like a Republican. But the worst ones are the gays themselves that are working for these hypocritical pricks - you guys are a disgrace.
So happy Gay Games everybody, and if you live in Chicago or are going there for the games, get out your pink pages and try not give anyone who is a Republican any of your money.|W|P|112204303836698166|W|P|Those Gay Games are Just Too...well, Gay!|W|P|
AVA|W|P|So let these Republicans throw their usual tantrum and let's all celebrate that these games are going to happen anyway. Phoenix|W|P|*sigh* my party shames me again... QOB|W|P|The only sentence I would argue is, "It's the same thing folks, just dressed up in a nicer way." (And I believe you'll agree with me, here.) It's NOT dressed up in a nicer way. It's simply, at this current date, more tolerated. SAME AS SEPARATE BATHROOMS FOR BLACKS. QOB|W|P|I meant to say, it's equivalent to the separate bathrooms (and drinking fountains, etc.) for blacks back in the 50's. It was absolutely tolerated then, while our current society would NEVER tolerate it (as a whole). Rudicus|W|P|Good point - thanks again QOB. Vulture 6|W|P|So if you do not openly embrace it your against it? Rudicus|W|P|No, you'd be a homophobe and/or prejudiced or descriminatory. If you embrace it then UNembrace it when somebody says something, then you are a chicken-ass hypocrite. Nathan|W|P|I agree.I found a statement made by a lesbian in the newspaper once (AP) extremely accurate.
The quote paraphrase was something like:
"The problem is not about the word marriage, it's about the word equality."
I went into that to provide some perspective for this story.
Resistance Records, who distributes neo-nazi hate music, has just released a video game entitled "Ethnic Cleansing." The game is a first-person shooter game like DOOM, in which the "hero," either a skinhead or a KKK member must make their way through the game killing blacks and latinos and their "Jewish Masters" before the final confrontation with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
You can pick your jaw up off the floor now.
Someone explain to me how this kind of thing flies under the radar. Do we have such warped values that we are more concerned about teenagers seeing cartoons screwing in a video game - even if it is porn flick level explicitness, than we are about something like this?
I realize that this game would have no market outside the white supremacist movement, but it certainly could be an indoctrination tool or ideological reinforcement tool for kids. Certainly if our civil freedoms were not strong enough to warrant our being able to hear the content and roster of Cheney's energy commission where they planned the collective butt-rape of the country, we can do a little selective crackdown on this kind of thing.
But even if we can't, what does this say about the state of our "free" country where obviously there is enough neo-nazi sentiment to support an industry that produces hate music and hate games like this. I'm not a protectionist by an means, but if we spent a quarter of the time and money taking care of the problems and people inside our borders that we do on people outside them, America would be a much different place.
And think about this. It's easy to revile and scoff at games like this, but take out all the polarizing elements and substitute gays for the blacks and latinos and it's not really that far off from what the CC's (who are the ideology department) and the redneck gay bashers (literally and politically) are doing in real life. If you want to understand how people can be so wrong-headed to condone murdering blacks and latinos and jews in a violent video game, look no further than the policy and activism against gays because it is based on the same exact ideology.
The neo-nazi's call the blacks and latinos "predatory sub-humans." Is this any different gays being called morally decrepit or as the pope calls them "intrinsicly, morally evil" or spreaders of disease and moral corruption as some church leaders would have you believe. It uses the same kind of inflammatory labeling and projection of evil to set up an us vs. them mentality, while branding the opposition as inherently less-than in some way.
The next time you hear some neo-nazi kook or KKK member spout off about race wars and race traitors and the great day of the rope, start thinking about militant homosexuals and their gay agenda spreading corruption and disease to our children and nation and the degradation of the institution of marriage and realize that it's the exact same thing.
And let's not forget - the latte drinking, treehugging hippie liberals that the CC's love to hate almost as much as gays are the extreme left wing of the liberal movement, but the neo-nazis and the KKK and Timothy McVeigh are all on the extreme right side of the conservative movement(which of course the CC's refuse to admit). But here's a interesting thought to consider. When ultra-left wing liberals act up, people get laid, get high and protest things. When the ultra-right wing conservatives act up, people die. Who would you rather hang out with?|W|P|112195392665841249|W|P|The Land of The Free.|W|P|
thordora|W|P|but of course, the porn that can be unlocked in Grand Theft Auto, THAT's the REAL enemy.I don't get what the big deal is with that-if it's rated Mature, doesn't that mean that only people 17 or 18 or older can buy it? Doesn't it then fall to the PARENTS to examine the content?
As long as free speech is used both as a curse word and a stupidity defense, shit like what you've described will just keep happening....
Phoenix|W|P|It saddens me greatly to see that these kind of hatreds still exist. dushan|W|P|Thanks for the article. It is so much harder to teach people tolerance than to spread xenophobia. (As it takes more heart and more brain to tolerate the different. It's a simple matter of putting both into "econo-mode" to hate everything that makes me think.)Let's work together switching on people's brains! (The hearts will follow.)
thanks again.
BTW: Nice writing!
Matt|W|P|First I think there is a big difference between calling someone a "predatory subhuman" and "intrinsically, morally evil." In one case there is a complete refusal to even aknowledge individuals as humans, not the case in the other. Though I will agree that they do both have an us vs. them element. Then again so does our language as a whole, as well as any language that uses the first-person.That opens up a whole new can of worms.
You can read the full story here.
If you read her poem doesn't it strike you as odd that the issue is about the fact that she used a bad word in the title rather than the fact that she had underage sex (apparently parental outrage is only limited to swear words and Janet Jackson's boob.) and had a very unsatisfying and detrimental first sexual experience which will probably have longer lasting affects than any hectare of swear words could ever do.
How in the nine hells did we become so afraid of swear words and real life that we have to censor and protect everyone from ever being exposed to vulgarity to any challenging or sexually themed material, but we have no problem whatsoever with death, destruction and maiming every single day on T.V. But 10 seconds of tit or a kid hearing the word "fuck" is a national crisis.
It makes me think of the shit curdling hypocrisy of all this fallout because of Grand Theft Auto San Andreas and the porn patch. I'm glad Hillary got so worked up about the idea that kids could download a patch that would allow them to see people having sex in the game that she started a congressional investigation about it. I don't seem to recall her outrage over the fact that the game itself is full of explicit murder, assassination, gore and cruelty.
That's right folks, you can cut as many people in half with a chainsaw as you like as long as we don't see anybody's dick in the process.
Where did we go wrong as a society that we are perfectly fine with blood, guts and gore, but a mere flash of pubic hair sends us into a militant moral froth?
I don't know about any of you, but I would much rather get laid than shoot somebody or cut their arms off - call me crazy. I would also much prefer images of naked people to faces of death any day.
So to the parents who complained about this poem, why not take that same energy and talk to your kids about sex and relationships, so maybe they don't have to have the same experience as Zoya Raskina and stop worrying about whether they read the word "fuck" one time in an entire magazine, because I promise you, they were using that word five minutes before you walked in and they'll be using it five minutes after you leave.|W|P|112187098881757135|W|P|Roses are Red, Violets are Blue, You Smell Like a %$#@!!|W|P|
Ailyn|W|P|i agree. awesome poem to. it's a poem like this one that should make parents, teachers, and counselors realize the amount of stress teenagers have concerning sex and try to help them with it through discussion. not try to stop them, but try to help them. this young woman tried to do that not just for herself but for her peers. but now that message is gone. it's too bad she didn't choose a different title. but sometimes titles like these are needed in order to engage the reader so that the message will be distributed and made clear. Phoenix|W|P|Maybe if the parents are going to get that upset they should watch their own language use. It's funny how often I hear parents yell at a child for such language and then turn and use it themselves in normal 'polite' conversation.Sidenote: I wonder if the parents of the jackass that didn't call were some of the offended parents?
But I agree, the entire point was missed when they pulled a poem for bad language, rather than use it as an example of why not to bend under peer pressure.
I'm reminded of the tagline from an austrailian newspaper that came out when the clinton scandal was going on: Thank god we got the criminals and they got the puritans!
AVA|W|P|That's a fucking good poem. There.
QOB|W|P|Wow. That's a strong poem. Brings back not-so-fond memories. Not sure how I would have reacted to my fifteen-year-old ninth-grader reading it. That's the place I'm trying to put myself. I hope that I will have created an open-enough dialogue with my children, by that point, that they'll feel as if they could discuss the poem with me - that it would open the door to a great conversation. I'm actually glad I saw this now, in preparation for the cool head I'll need to have in the near future. There's a very maternal instinct in me that wants to shield my children from ALL maturing and growing up - and that's just not fair. I'm glad I'm being faced with this now so I can recognize my problem and educate myself on ways to handle these situations in a constructive manner for my children - in a way that best helps THEM. 'Cause ultimately that's my job as a parent - not to build a robot, but to help them on this difficult road called Life. To offer guidance and education and support and most of all LOVE. Rudicus|W|P|WOW! See now that's what I'm talking about! Taking parental responsibility AND using critical thinking skills at the same time.Outstanding (clap clap) I wish everyone who has kids could read what you said. Being reactionary doesn't help anyone but pundits and politicians.
Thank you QOB!
QOB|W|P|I'm a multi-tasker...Thanks for the props.
Paranoid Android|W|P|That was a fucking good poem. And I also likes the way that Hillary was up in arms about GTA, because the way the Mirror put it, she was saying that Rockstar were the bad guys, which really showed her age - complaining about something that doesn't matter and that she doesn't understand AT ALL. I don't like Tupac, but I think he summed up censorship with the line 'Delores Tucker, you's a motherfucker', Delores Tucker being the main american campaigner for censorship at the time. Still, to see Seattle degrade into a such a pathetic example of creative restrictions from what it was 15 years ago depresses me. Especially when you think that about that time, one of the biggest and best bands had introduced themselves with a single called 'Touch Me I'm Sick' and went on to put 'muff' in one of their LP's titles'. thordora|W|P|ahhh, blindness.You had sex under dubious circumstances when you were 13, and likely never dealt with the fallout until now...you really could use an adult to talk about this with, but hey, who is there to talk to anyway?
Lorna Soules, whose daughter Natalie graduated from Shorewood High this year, supports removal of the poem.
"This is not the kind of things we need; we need schools that support healthy living and healthy language, that take a moderate view and help parents raise kids," Soules said. "When I came upon that I said, 'Geez, this is too bad and unfortunate — somebody didn't do their job.' "
I particularily like this lady. Cause we all know that HER daughter probably never HAD sex, never even kissed according to her. And I bet she talks about sexuality with her daughter all the time. "HELP PARENTS RAISE KIDS"
Last time I checked, that is the PARENTS job. A poem like that should initiate discussion as to WHY the title was so forceful, and in your face. She obviously wanted a reaction, someone to talk about it. Instead, the focus is on the word.
I write, so I remember shit like this in school. If this was one of my daughters, I'd support the word usage, while having a LONG talk. But hopefully, I'm doing my job such that they won't NEED to write stuff like this, as they will be prepared to say "no, FUCK OFF". Zoya should have said fuck then....
I don't think it's so much of a "oooh! bad word" thing for the author as it is a way to draw attention to what happened. Some people consider coercion to be rape......as a girl at that age, I would haev TOTALLY related..
stupid stupid people
Nathan|W|P|Old culture, embedded in our mind vs new culturual things not present in what parents grew up in, perhaps. Nathan|W|P|Oh, and QOB, your ideal is very possible. In a related note I once met a woman who had raised her boy in complete honesty. She never lied even about seemingly "small stuff", such as telling him she didn't want him to eat anymore skittles as opposed to saying there were no more.The result was that, 14 or 15 years later, he came to her saying he wanted to try smoking marijuana.
This is the funniest damn thing I've seen in a while - thanks I needed that!
|W|P|112180511399579020|W|P||W|P| Phoenix|W|P|lol, don't let the CC's see that. They'll try to burn you at the stake. QOB|W|P|It's funny that I consider myself a pretty conservative Christian and whenever I see that term - CC's - on your site I immediately think of myself.So in this case, I thought, "I dunno - I think it's pretty funny."
I especially like the part where God says, "Cover your pee pee."
Rudicus|W|P|we all have to laugh at ourselves sometimes. But you're not a CC, QOB, your just you, CC's only speak dogma and don't think for themselves and I know that you are not anything like that. Astrid|W|P|Yes, a very likely theory. However, I believe God had the name of his girlfriend tattoed on his left shoulder as well. Oh, well, they'll discover soon ... Rudicus|W|P|Hoi Astrid,I actually think that was Jesus with the tattoo, it said "MM" on his butt. God wanted to get one of Micky Mouse, but he kept breaking the needles.
Welcome to the site.
thordora|W|P|sweet.... The Lone Rangers|W|P|Brilliant, I laughed my ass off in training today reading this. Paranoid Android|W|P|Aah, the wonders of satire. John the Atheist|W|P|The Christians laugh at the idea that biological life began in a goo, but they believe that man came from dirt.This is a 10 question test. Each correct answer is worth 10 points for a total of 100.
Good luck Georgie Boy, you're gonna need it!
1. "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me."
I don't think GW was from Egypt, but I don't believe he has any other gods before this one - so CORRECT!
2. "Thou Shalt not make thyself any graven images."
Well, I think everyone who has ever taken a picture, drawn a picture or done any kind of artwork whatsoever is in violation of this one, but we'll go with violation in spirit, but not intent - HALF-CREDIT!
3. "Thou shalt not take the name of the lord thy god in vain."
Well if this is a prohibition against swearing, I think we can write this one off, but it has also been interpreted to mean not to use the name of god to justify your own actions - but either way we can mark this one INCORRECT!
4. "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy."
Well this one is a no-brainer since I guarantee he's done work on both Saturday and Sunday - INCORRECT!
5. "Honor thy father and thy mother."
While it is debatable if he is bringing any honor to the family, we'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one - CORRECT!
6. "Thou shalt not kill."
Governor of the state with the highest number of executions, plus the thousands of Americans and Iraqi's killed in Iraq, then there's Afganistan...I think we can mark this one as a whopping - INCORRECT!
7. "Thou shalt not commit adultery."
Since we have no evidence of any misconduct in this area, we'll give him the thumbs up - CORRECT!
8. "Thou shalt not steal."
One election in November, 2000, and one in November, 2004. - INCORRECT!
9. "Thou shalt not bear false witness."
Let's see "Iraq has WMD's," "Iraq and Al Qaida are linked," "Karl Rove has nothing to do with leaking info to the press," "I'll fire anyone involved in the Valerie Plame leak." and the list goes on and on - INCORRECT
10. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife...nor anything that is thy neighbor's"
Let's just change this to "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's oil" - INCORRECT!
OK, let's add up the score:
Congratulations George W. Bush, on the Ten Commandments test, you scored a 35.
35? Wow. I know he doesn't hold with no book learnin, but this is god's law, the law of the land, the very foundation for our legal system, if not our nation. Would you want a doctor operating on you who only got a 35 on his exams? Would you want to be represented by a lawyer who only got a 35? How about a teacher? Would you want a teacher teaching your kids if they only got a 35?
Hell, I did better than 35 and I'm a goddamned godless heathen liberal moral relativist who sleeps with other men's wives. But then again, I'm not president of anything, nor am I suggesting that I am in any way morally superior or on the side of righteousness.
So what does God say about this?
"I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments." (wow that's pretty vindictive and prick-like if you ask me)
But alas, a 35 doesn't exactly pass the keeping the commandments test, I guess the kids are in trouble now too.
Well George, you'll have to deal with your jealous and vindictive deity on your own, but as for the rest of us, we'll have to give you a big fat F.
Where's the "No President Left Behind Act" when you need it?|W|P|112178979997890457|W|P|The Ten Commandments and the Burning Bush.|W|P|
Ailyn|W|P|i only scored 15 Ailyn|W|P|10 if u want to be technical Phoenix|W|P|does sleepng in on sundays count? |W|P|I really like this post. Why keep it to yourself? All Americans, Floridans and conservative right-wing evangelical Christians should see this. Dude, get it out there!And, nice reply on commentarysingapore to that cockroack thread. Couldn't agree more about what it means to be the greatest nation...
Paranoid Android|W|P|Wow, 40, I'm a better christian than Bush. I can see the irony in that. Nathan|W|P|I believe I gave you a link once stating, in a humourous way, all the Christian influences in our world.Here is a list of Biblical contradictions (and the parent site has much more similar articles):
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
I'm sure you can find many similar things on the web.
You know, I'm surprised your website hasn't been overrun with indignant evangelical Christians.
Rudicus|W|P|So am I, frankly - I would say they either chalk me up to just another liberal, but probably more so because they tend not to do well with people who ask alot of questions and are not defensive and reactionary on the whole.I think it depends on your intentions, if you come here to be open and discuss, great, but if you are just going to spew, then this is not a good forum.
Look at QOB, she's a Christian and a Conservative, but I think she has made a significant contribution to the site - philosophical positions are just that, positions. If you can let go of the idea that your way is the only right way, you can have an intelligent, respectful discussion, even if you disagree, otherwise, it's just crap.
QOB|W|P|Aww, thank you. I love these discussions...look forward to them, even. Keeps me thinking and remaining open. I don't think anyone has ALL the pieces. How important do we think we are? If I stay in my "safe little circle", who am I serving? (That's not to say that joining these discussions is somehow "unsafe".) You are valuable - you have worth, purpose, and something to offer. Everyone does, to some extent. I would hate to get to a point where I forgot that.We start the adventure with construction - you know the street construction thing that makes everyone merge down to one lane and back people up for miles. This is not about that since they have to fix the road sometime. No this is about the prick - yes you, the one in the Mercedes CLK who doesn't feel like they should have to wait in line like the rest of us, who drives up the breakdown lane and then forces their way into the line just before the break.
Next we move onto the 4-way stop where everyone waits their turn. The guy on the left goes, then the woman across, goes, then the man on the right, now it's my turn...but wait, here comes the woman who just pulls up behind the guy on the right who just went and then goes right after him, almost ramming into my car. I extend her a quizzical, but incredulous look, and she stops the car and yells "What?!!"
Rudicus: "It was my turn to go"
Rude Lady: "Shut Up!"
So I finally get to where I'm going, when I see what off in the distance looks like a parking space, I realize I'm wrong when I get closer and realize the prick with the Dodge Magnum has decided to park his car right in the middle of two spaces. It wasn't a space way in the back where the guy in the Porshe takes up two spaces, no this one was right up in front. There has to be some kind of legal tire slashing law on the books in Texas somwhere that covers this kind of thing.
Finally I get into the store, and do some shopping. Everything actually goes well with this until I get back out to the car and realize I have the wrong item in my bag. So back I go to the return counter where I have to take a number - number 60, now serving...47. So the long arduous wait ensues. 57, 58, 59... here comes Blondie Richbitch to the front of the line that is now about 20 people long and goes to the counter where I would be walking to and says, "I'd like to return this." Thankfully the counter person says "Maam, there is a line right behind you, you'll have to get in line" She looks surprised to see all those people standing there and then turns back to the counter person and says "Yes, but I just have to return this one thing." Obviously seeing me getting my pocket machete out to handle the situation, the counter person tells her she has to get in line, period. Blondie storms off in a huff, probably muttering something about "daddy" and "suing".
The return goes well and back out to the car I go only to be confronted with everyone's favorite friend the close parker. you know the person who parks about one nanometer from your car so that you couldn't even get in there if you were a sub-atomic particle. Now I was only in the store for a short while, and I feel pretty confident that there wasn't a double-wide hummer on the otherside of him when he got there. No he just chose to back in to the space, and couldn't be bothered to straighten his car out.
Onto to another quick stop, where a man is putting his baby in the car and just let's his shopping cart roll off without a care in the world. Acting quickly I run and grab the cart before it hits someone's car and then walk it back to him. He is still playing with his kid and hadn't even noticed his cart had gotten away, nor my heroics in saving it and all of it's contents. Realizing he isn't even going to look up to see what happened, I fix the cart so it won't roll and walk into the store. I get my goods and come out and see that the guy left the shopping cart in the space and of course let it roll so it was now preventing anyone else from parking there. I looked around to see where the cart return was, and as I suspected it was directly across the row from his parking space. Less than 10 feet.
I finally pull onto my street to go home only to be backed up for a half mile because someone left their car in the one lane road and was waving cars around him so he could talk to a friend that happened to walk by.
What do all these situations and people have in common? A complete and utter disregard for other people, a complete obliviousness to the world around them, and a total me-first/fuck you approach to life.
All this happened involving all different people of different ages, races and social status so it would seem that it is a pervasive phenomenon. Have we descended so far from grace that we can't even take notice of the people around us? Are we so unthinking that we are only concerned if we either benefit or are inconvenienced in some way?
How do you walk past an entire line without seeing it? How do you intentionally park like an asshole and not even take the trouble to correct it or even care that you did it? How are you so out-to-lunch that you don't even notice your shopping cart rolling away with all your stuff in it OR notice it being returned and then have the gall not to even walk 10 fucking feet to put it back where it belongs and then add insult to injury by now leaving a parking space unusable as a result.
Now imagine taking this same kind of attitude overseas on vacation or broadcasting it on T.V. or having it be an everyday part of our culture, society and government and maybe you'll get to see why everyone hates Americans.
I want to get some low adhesive stickers or something to put on peoples cars that say something like "stop being a prick" or "get your head out of your ass" I also wanted to get