We'll just leave that part out...

Thought for the night: just as Jesus would probably be pissed at the stuff being done in his name, this nation's founders would be pissed about the stuff their names are being attached to.

I'm still pissed about the TEA Partiers and their blatant ignorance to history. The original Tea Party (you know, that one back in the 1700's) wasn't because of being taxed too much. It was because of a big corporate tax break - the East India Company wasn't being taxed at all while everyone else still had to pay taxes. The corporation controlled the government.

Does any of this sound familiar? Corporations buying politicians? Whining for more and more corporate tax breaks? People getting pissed?

The irony is just wacky.

Meanwhile, while the corporations get more, the average American is getting less. The income gap continues to widen - the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. This isn't capitalism, it's greed!

And the ignorance isn't quite as complete as I wish it was. Ignorance in itself is forgivable, as the ignorant can be taught. However, there are instead active misinformation campaigns. The TEA Party of today kept trying to change Wikipedia to make history closer fit their view of things. Texas chooses to mostly leave Thomas Jefferson out of the curriculum because his views differ from their own as to what America is supposed to be.

History is being silenced. Just as many Christians shun the teachings of Jesus, many self-described patriots choose to shun the founders, only acknowledging the parts that fit their views. So the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797 said that America was not in any sense founded on Christianity? That's fine, we'll leave that out of history lessons and make damned sure that "under god" stays in the pledge, and "in god we trust" stays on the currency. Corporate tax breaks were a big part of why we fought the Revolution? We'll just leave out that little detail and say it was because of taxes and tyranny.

If you care (and you damn well should), then it's your duty to make sure history is not silenced. Make no mistake, it is repeating itself. The only differences are in technology and in scale.

If I had a larger following and it didn't seem such a cliche, I'd be tempted to launch my own campaign to "take back the TEA Party," aimed at educating people as to what it was really about.

Chick-fil-A (again)

Well, I actually got a happy bit of news today: Chick-fil-A agrees to stop funding anti-gay organizations. To me, this is great news, and having started my personal boycott on my own terms, I am now ending it on my own terms, assuming they don't do something else to piss me off. Dan Cathy, that means no more attaching your God's name to your homophobic sentiments. Also, it of course means keeping true to the agreement of no longer passing our money on to anti-gay groups. I won't begrudge people of their rights to their personal beliefs... but I do expect them to return the favor. I'll respect their beliefs as much as they respect everyone else's, and talking about God's judgement if you're anyone other than God is disrespectful. Be honest and identify it as your own judgement. I know, it lacks the convenient excuse of passing your prejudice on to a higher power, thereby avoiding responsibility... but if you actually believe in any god, one would think you'd be afraid to take it upon yourself to speak for Him.

As one might guess, some of the more fundamentalist Christians (probably the same ones who went in and said, "I support your company, because your company hates the gays") are pissed. Take a look at their Facebook page: Chick-fil-A on Facebook. The same Christians who were saying the boycott was childish and anti-capitalism are now talking about doing their own boycott.

Me, I don't care about whether the motive for the change of heart was a financial or moral one. First of all, I think it was the right choice. While I doubt Dan Cathy's personal views have changed, he's realized that people who disagree with him matter, too. This move demonstrates that fact. Next, bear in mind that not everyone who works for Chick-fil-A has shared his views. He doesn't speak for them - he's buying their time, not their souls.

Anyway, to show my support for their change in policy, I happily went over to one of their restaurants and had a couple sandwiches. I did miss that tasty food!

"The Innocence of Muslims"

Well, after watching events unfold, I figured I'd weigh in on the situation with the American ambassador in Libya being killed. Romney wasted no time in taking advantage of the situation for political gain, something that even some of his fellow Republicans have tried to distance themselves from. Of course, Islamophobes see themselves as the big winners in this, despite the fact that most Muslims, while being very offended by the video in question, were quick to condemn the attack.

The video in question is titled "the Innocence of Muslims," and as I understand, YouTube is taking it down. I watched what I believe to be the video myself - it's about fourteen minutes, and has all the grace and reliability of a badly-made Nazi propaganda film against Jews. It basically goes over the old anti-Islam propaganda, then makes it more offensive with crappy acting telling a crappier story.

Here's the video for those curious. Watch it now, as I don't know how much longer it will remain on YouTube:

The importance of watching it is easily explained: much like the deniers of the holocaust, it seems some are already suggesting that this video never happened... like our old "friend," Rush Limbaugh.

I am not saying the attack was entirely because of the video. That may not even be the main reason behind it. But, if I were to make a similar anti-Christian video (and believe me, there is plenty of material in the Bible to be used for such a video), there'd be many calling for my death. And, it wouldn't be anything new to me. Not on this blog, but I have had death threats over religion on a number of occasions. For my insistence on keeping church and state separate. For my defending people of all faiths as a whole, and pointing out similarities between certain religions that they'd rather not think about. It's always, "but we're right and they're wrong!" Horse shit! Anyone who truly has faith in their own religion doesn't feel a need to make everyone else believe it. To need everyone else believe as you do implies one (or both) of two things: 1) you're insecure in your faith and need everyone else to do it, too, or 2) you're twisting a religion to your own beliefs to gain control and dominion. This goes for atheists or anti-theists, too.

Others are saying that we are blaming the victim in this. After all, we do respect freedom of speech, yes? And this video is only an exercise of such, yes? Well, that depends. I've often pointed out the double standards many hold when exercising freedom of speech. Consider that it's been determined that the Ku Klux Klan is protected by free speech. But what about the Black Panthers? The two really aren't any different. And of course we're well familiar with extremist Christians who say that anyone else asserting rights to their own beliefs are violating the Christians' rights. 

But, if you announce you're going to go kill someone, the police will certainly have a talk with you about that. If you slander someone or print lies about them, you can be sued, to say the least. I think it would be interested if some of the minority religions actually did start suing Christian organizations and authors for libel. So basically, freedom of speech ends where you start infringing on the rights of others... whether it be threats or character assassination by lies. As such, yes, I believe that those who lie to incite violence (whether intended or not) do have some blood on their hands.

Personally, I say that the videos should be left up, simply because of the deniers already coming out. It's a reminder of the ignorance the Muslims are working against. Remember what I said about 9/11 being a wake-up call? Same with this - wake up!

All the bullshit aside, this is the work of extremists. If their motive was purely that video, well, that's about as pitiful as a constipated chihuahua. I doubt that's the case, though. Many people in the Middle East do like us to some extent - I hear the ambassador was actually well-liked in Libya. However, others see our presence as a violation of their sovereignty, and still others are merely desperate and easily fired up.

Chick-Fil-A Doesn't Speak for its Employees

I linked this in the comments of my previous post, but I think that it may be worthy of its own follow-up post. The Chick-Fil-A anti-gay controversy is taking its toll on employees who don't necessarily agree with Cathy's stance.

According to the article, one of the biggest things that's hurting them is comments from their "supporters" today. I had vaguely anticipated this. When you put on a company's uniform, as far as most people are concerned, you ARE that company, not an individual who may or may not agree with the company's stance on any number of issues. It's also unfortunate that this issue goes both ways - those against Chick-Fil-A are also forgetting that those wearing the uniforms are individuals with their own opinions and are taking out their anger toward Dan Cathy on the employees.

Having worked for companies that I had little or no respect for, I searched on Google for stories about Chick-Fil-A employees that were more than a little disturbed by the comments of "support" they would likely be getting today, being Chick-Fil-A appreciation day. It didn't take long to find that above article. While Chick-Fil-A and its supporters may be considering today a huge success, I think there are many who would see things differently. It further polarized the sides. It made many of those who were trying to stay neutral pick a side. When you hear your "supporters" happily and unknowingly bashing yourself and/or your friends on the individual level, it does take a big toll. So, was this really a success for Chick-Fil-A? I kind of doubt it. Comparing this to a battle, the officers just pissed all over their infantry.

Chick-Fil-A Anti-Gay?

I feel compelled to apologize for such a cliche headline that I'm sure has been used by mediocre journalists across the nation, but at the same time don't feel inclined to do so. At any rate, I figured I'd throw my two cents' worth in.

I like Chick-Fil-A - their food is frickin' awesome! Especially their spicy chicken deluxe with pepper jack cheese. They make great food, and I don't even care about their deeply religious roots. They are entitled to them. It is their right.

I'm already missing them. Chick-Fil-A's Dan Cathy: "Guilty as charged." Don't you just love the bit about Adam and Steve? Nice touch.

Yes, despite my own stances on religion, I didn't mind the fact that I was eating from a restaurant that's never made any secret of its deeply Christian roots. Those spicy chicken sandwiches never made me burst into flames, and I'm not sure I'd mind if they did. Spicy food is good!

But, here's the problem - the money I've been giving them to enjoy those sandwiches has been used against my gay friends. Not cool by me. My stance on the issue of gays and same-sex marriage is that it's really no different from the civil rights stuff from about fifty years ago, and similarly, kids thirty years from now will be thinking that the anti-gay people are a bunch of assholes as they learn about them in school.

Gays as a whole do nothing to harm society. They are, on the whole, decent people - the same as anyone else. They have hearts, they have brains. They experience the same emotions as the rest of us, just that they're more attracted to the same sex instead of the opposite sex. Not a big deal. And going by a strict interpretation of the Constitution, we have no business denying them the same rights. The only arguments against gays are based in religion, and the Constitution makes it pretty clear that the church doesn't have business legislating for the state.

The problem with so many of the more vocal modern Christians is that they preach every part of the Bible, except for the teachings of Jesus. You know, that long-haired hippie that talked about peace and compassion? The one whom Christianity is named for? Yeah, that guy... who, coincidentally, didn't say a damned thing about gays. Or any number of other issues that false prophets are attaching his name to.

People seem to have a convenient memory when it comes to religion. The same part of the Bible that forbids homosexuality also forbids tattoos, eating pork or playing with the flesh of a dead pig (so much for tossing around the ol' pigskin, huh?), eating shellfish, and condones slavery and blood sacrifice. Perhaps these "God-fearing" Christians have good reason to fear their god - they preach hate in his name. I'd consider that a pretty serious insult.

At any rate, Chick-Fil-A and its supporters now are complaining about the "hateful" attempts to suppress their free speech. Here's the thing about free speech: it goes both ways. You have the right to be an idiot, and I have the right to call you an idiot. If a business is financing ideals that we don't agree with, then we have a right to withhold our money from said business, and advocating for others to do the same. So that being said, I support the boycotts and same-sex kiss-in's.

Almost forgot - here's a meme thing to re-post on facebook or whatever:

To repost the image, you can right-click it, click "view image," and copy and paste the URL to facebook or whatever it is you young'uns use these days. You can also copy it to your own photo albums, but the former is preferred, as it'll help me get more exposure.

Obama's Change of Heart

I'm not exactly Obama's biggest fan, but I don't hate the guy, either. With this, I'm fairly honest and objective about my thoughts on the guy. Today, I woke up to this: Obama finally voices support for same-sex marriage.

I am something of a cynic, and being that it took him until campaign season to come out and actually support same-sex marriage as opposed to taking the politically-correct toned down liberal position of supporting civil unions but not marriage, I do believe that at least half of his announced change in stance has to do with politics.

However, he does give good arguments as to why he changed his stance. In the above-linked article, he says that he noticed his kids simply couldn't understand why same-sex couples couldn't have the same rights. Makes sense to me. Kids tend to see things much more simply, and Occam's Razor - the simplest solution is usually the right one.

But ultimately, what does it matter? I'd like to believe that his reasoning is genuine, but as long as he backs it up in policy, what does it matter as to why he is doing it? American politics really are an extension of American capitalism - the one who is most willing to give the voters what they want is the one most likely to get elected. But, I will be watching Obama nonetheless to make sure his support is more than the all-too-typical pretty words to get votes.

Re: Zombie Muhammad

I think on my first post on this blog, I said I don't claim to be a news breaker. This may be an exception. I'm sure you recently have heard the news about the Muslim who supposedly attacked the atheist "Zombie Muhammad," and the Muslim was let go. If not, here you go.

You can see how easy this is to sensationalize upon without getting the full story. Figure, there's the video... there's a recording of the proceedings. All that good stuff. That's the big reason I didn't figure this was really worth blogging about before now. I knew there was something more than was being reported, but without any kind of inside information, why bother? It inevitably degenerates into a screaming match with little to prove my point.

Well, an anonymous source did come to me. I'll leave it up to the source as to whether or not they want to self-identify, but I'll have no part in that. While one may question the reliability of an anonymous source (I often do), this source did fill in gaps. I hadn't even paid attention to this case all that much until now, more out of frustration toward this kind of mentality than anything. I don't believe that there is a hidden agenda to turn this country over to Sharia. Not one of any scale to worry about, anyway. I find myself more concerned over the Christian extremists - while I fully respect an individual's right to beliefs, extremists of any kind are dangerous, and I cannot support any religion being forced on others.

So, let's take a look at this case now. If there is video of an incident, people generally will agree with the accuser without bothering to watch the video. The site that I linked to above does have the video in question.

I've watched this video. I don't see an attack. I hear "Zombie Muhammad" dramatically screaming that he's being attacked. But, my source says that Zombie Muhammad carried a Styrofoam sign. Now, I think we all know that Styrofoam is generally pretty fragile. It'll snap easier than a twig with any rough treatment. Zombie Muhammad's sign was undamaged. Not only that, but he had no injuries. Whether the guy was attacked or not, "attack" without injuries seldom gets any punishment, especially for someone who was being deliberately provoked and has an otherwise clean record. Seriously, go sit in at your local court sometime. My understanding is that it's all public, anyway.

Next, we have the recording of the proceedings. The atheist claims he had the judge's permission to record the hearing. According to my source, he did not. Thus, he recorded it illegally. With this, he also altered the tape, which brings us to my next point:

My source tells me that the judge is not a Muslim, as claimed by the atheist and a bunch of conspiracy theorists. While Constitutionally speaking (Article VI, Paragraph 3) this shouldn't matter, to say the least, I'm going to give the conspiracy theorists the benefit of the doubt in that this could mean a certain bias. Especially if it seems the judge announced his religion as being Islam. But the point is however that this judge is decidedly not a Muslim, and if I trust nothing else my source told me, I would still trust this as being fact.

Here's the thing, as I see it: there are atheists, and there are anti-theists. An atheist doesn't believe. An anti-theist isn't content with not believing - they tend to have a special kind of insecurity. The same kind of insecurity we see from the most rabid evangelicals. The anti-theists are about hatred for religion, and those who follow a religion. Zombie Muhammad guy is an anti-theist, and not above orchestrating a character assassination to get his way. Because of that, he put both the judge and the Muslim at high risk. I don't doubt that they are both receiving a lot of threats.

So, truly... when you hear an outrageous conspiracy theory, there is honestly a good chance it's a load of crap. In this case, I believe it is. There are gaps in the evidence wide enough to drive a truck through, and those gaps were filled in nicely by what my source told me. For Christians, would you not be tempted to "attack" or at least push away a "Zombie Jesus" that was belligerent toward you and deliberately trying to provoke you? Yes, we have freedom of speech and of religion, but keep in mind that all freedoms go both ways. Muslims have a right to their religion, so long as their practices don't involve harming others, or forcing it on others. Yes, I'm aware of Muslim doctrine involving this, but so does the doctrine of every mainstream religion. It's a matter of what people choose to act on.

Religion

With the posts I've done, some might think I'm anti-religion as a whole. While this may appeal to many, it's not the truth. I do in fact believe quite strongly in a religion. I'll flatter myself by assuming some are now scratching their heads and saying, "but Raven, you're too smart to be religious!" First of all, let's not assume that having religion means being stupid. How it goes for me is this:

• I believe that there is a higher power. Seeing as I've never met this higher power, I don't know its name - just that I feel its presence on some level.
• I decided naming this higher power may help. "Bob" somehow didn't seem appropriate, and the atheists' suggestion of "Flying Spaghetti Monster" didn't seem to fit, either. I don't want to think of my higher power as being a tasty treat, and if it was, it would be a pizza... with pepperoni, green chile, and artichoke hearts.
• I researched the different religions. I knew more or less immediately that my choice would not be Christianity. I was raised as a Christian, and it didn't feel right to me.
• When I found one that seemed to match my beliefs and my conscience fairly well, I adopted it.

This approach may seem arrogant to some - "a religion tells you what morals to have, not the other way around!" Again, seeing as there are no deities here to say otherwise, I believe that our gods (or at least the ones we should listen to) speak to us through our conscience, if we choose to listen. If I'm wrong, oh well. I guess you could say that ultimately, my conscience is my higher power. But it's somehow more pleasant and fun to assign a mythology to it.

And it's harmless. I don't force my religion on other people. I'm pretty content in my own way of living and beliefs.

This isn't to say I hate Christianity as a whole, it simply didn't work for me. The ones I actively dislike are the ones who do hurt and/or harass others. My problems with Christianity are mostly its use of scare tactics and its resistance to change, whether it be philosophical or scientific. Some seem to focus more on the fear of Hell than they do the message of love. Which one is it?

Middle Eastern Stability

American officials are shocked, SHOCKED that our efforts to create stability in the middle east keep failing, and can't seem to figure out why. For my own part, I'm not sure I really want to believe our officials are that dumb.

It's easy to blame Islam, but regardless of what many in America may want to believe, religion as a whole is man made. In itself, it doesn't make people do a damned thing. It is people however that make it good or evil. People are pretty much the same around the world, and in terms of doctrine, Christianity isn't all that different from Islam. Both involve forcing themselves on others, at sword point if necessary. For those who care to dispute the link, also remember the witch trials, the inquisitions... and even how protestants were dealt with in the early days... and how protestants dealt with non-believers. Hell, one only needs to look at Westboro Baptist Church to be reminded of the true evils that exist in Christian dogma. While they preach evil, it is more or less in line with what the bible says. They even frequently cite the passages for reference. Still not convinced? Well, you can check out chick.com too, if you'd like. Still more passages cited to justify hate by the Bible. Were America not a Christian majority, it would be easy to paint Christianity as an evil religion the same as some do with Islam, citing references in the bible to back up such assertions, as some do with the Qur'an.

Again though, I don't consider Christians as a whole to be evil, the same as I don't consider Muslims as a whole to be evil. As I said, religion is man-made, and as such can adapt, despite a bible being involved, if the adherents allow it to do so.

Would you like to know what the real difference is between us and them is? It's quite simple, really - we have more to lose. "But... but... they make their women wear veils and head coverings!" Strictly speaking, Christianity makes the same assertion. But, our society has thankfully become more relaxed and comfortable since the days of the pilgrims.

Again though, it really comes down to us having more to lose than most in the middle east, although I do see some trying to push us back to the same kind of archaic society where persecution over the "wrong beliefs" is the norm. They don't value their lives all that much, because life there really is hard. So of course, if brute force is all that is used, we'll create even more terrorists than we kill. You notice how the rich ones there tend to stay alive while recruiting suicide terrorists, speaking of rewards in heaven? Yeah... that kind of illustrates what I'm talking about. Of course, we kind of see the same thing happening in America to a lesser extent. One famous example.

Prejudice and Hypocrisy

When talking about equal rights, it's generally very bad practice to make exceptions. In early America, there were several exceptions to the "all men are created equal" philosophy - basically anyone who wasn't white and/or Christian. Also, the "men" part of that philosophy was treated in a much more literal sense than it is today, as it was the accepted belief that women just weren't as important as men. And as for sexual orientation, forget about it. If you were anything other than straight, you were insane. In some cases, that would mean electroshock treatment, frontal lobotomies, etc. And that's just the institutionalized stuff, not the lynch-mob type of stuff.

Lately, bullying has been making the news a lot. The rather horrible consequences of it are becoming a lot more publicized where we are hearing about suicides and the like as a result of it. I realize I may be saying this phrase a lot on my blog, but "it's nothing new." When things like bullying, child abuse, domestic violence, sexual abuse, etc, become more publicized, there is a common misconception that it is new. Then the generation gets blamed, "ie, when I was that age, we knew to treat each other with respect, or we'd end up with a hot butt!"

But again, it's nothing new. In the older days, it was simply accepted that child abuse and domestic abuse, and sometimes even sexual abuse was "just the way things are." For a child to admit that they were being abused, especially if by a same-sex abuser, it would scandalize the whole family. So it simply wasn't talked about. Child abuse and domestic violence were "a family matter."

It's undeniable that huge strides have been made (though some still yearn for the days when they had the "right" to beat their kids and/or wives), and progress is still being made. As someone who has had to deal with a lot of bullying as a kid, I'm glad that more is being done about it.

But let's get back to why I titled this post "Prejudice and Hypocrisy," shall we? This is why:

OK to bully gay kids if you're Christian or otherwise philosophically or politically opposed

What's the fucking difference? Under this same hair-brained philosophy, aren't all bullies practicing free speech? "Now so-and-so, we know that he broke your nose and made you eat dog crap, but he was practicing his First Amendment right in free expression - he's philosophically opposed to wimpy kids with glasses, and you have no right to obstruct his First Amendment rights."

It's the same damned thing. It's a free country, but rights end where they begin to trample on those of others. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - sound familiar to anyone?

Unfortunately, this seems to be a common tactic with the religious right, and they seem to see nothing wrong with it. They keep the rights for themselves to trample on the rights of others. If their rights become limited to the same as those of others, they scream about persecution. Sadly, it's human nature, though. It's not something that can be blamed on religion, only those who use it to justify their own hate and prejudice. Everyone wants rights, but few are willing to accept the responsibilities, even if the responsibility is as simple as respecting the same rights of others. But, with things like this, it is little surprise that so many are walking away from the church, and at times even becoming hateful of it.

I wonder... would these same lawmakers be supportive of an atheist bully's right to bully around Christian kids? Again, it's the same damn thing.