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.

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.

Stay tuned, my minions...

I recently came upon what will soon be breaking news from an anonymous inside source. While I hadn't planned on this happening when I first imagined having this blog, I am finding it to be an exciting experience. I suppose that sometimes, we aren't aware of the connections we have, or of the ones quietly following our work.

Seems there is a situation that's made the news, and has set all kinds of commentators and bloggers afire... but it is apparently not at all what it seems. I won't tell you more about this just yet, as it is late and unlike some other hacks commentators, I'm actually trying to work for a living.

Here's what you've probably already heard or read:

Pennsylvania judge dismisses charges against Muslim who attacked atheist.

Needless to say, there is more to the story... and trusting my source, the facts being reported are more than a little skewed. So, my tender lumplings... stay tuned - my next post, most likely within twenty-four hours, will have details.

Same-Sex Marriage

First of all, I'd like to say that I'm very happy that Prop 8 was overturned as unconstitutional. Perhaps it's obvious by now that I agree with that assertion. Of course though, not everyone's happy about it, else I wouldn't figure it's worth blogging about.

The opponents of same-sex marriage honestly only have religion as their argument. However, a pesky little thing called the First Amendment makes purely religious arguments invalid. So, opponents have been forced to come up with other arguments:

"It's not natural!"

Only a very small step away from being a religious argument, this seems to be an attempt to merge religious with scientific. Unsuccessfully, though. For one thing, we as humans do a lot of things that aren't natural. Why should we stop at something that causes no harm? Another argument they make though is that humans are the only ones "perverse" enough to practice homosexuality. Guess again, suckers. So... I guess it is natural, then?

"Homosexuals spread AIDS!"

Well, so do straights. Straights also spread any number of other STD's and other diseases. A lot of society's more hateful members like to think of AIDS as god's punishment for gays. What about all the other diseases and disorders, though? If Fred Phelps (Westboro Baptist Church) were to come down with, say... syphilis, who would he blame it on? Or what about just having a monster heart attack during one of their protests? Would it be god's punishment then? Diseases being called a punishment from god is nothing new. In the old days, the smallpox vaccine was considered by many to be a terrible sin, as it interfered with what they perceived as god's plan/retribution. There's some compassion for you, huh? Anyway, there are several different disease-spreading behaviors. Shall we ban them all, or just keep using it as an excuse to discriminate against some? Let's not forget about certain races being more prone to some diseases - Native and African Americans seem more vulnerable to diabetes. Native Americans and southern Europeans seem more vulnerable to milk allergies. African Americans seem vulnerable to heart problems. Asians seem disproportionately vulnerable to certain kinds of cancer, TB, and Hepatitis B. The list goes on. Shall we ban all those and just move on to Hitler's "super race" ideals?

I've seen many opponents of same-sex marriage become very angry when the issue is compared to the older civil rights movements involving racial equality and the like, but can anyone tell me what the differences really are? That is, without bringing up religion?

Religion and Medicine

Catholic church is furious about being required to provide birth control through church-linked hospitals and healthcare.

Admittedly, this did require some thought on my part. My initial reaction is, "so the Catholic church hates birth control. What else is new?" My feelings about how much involvement the church has taken in politics and in holding back science as a whole are no secret. This did require a little more thought, however. The reason? Quite simply because I do respect the First Amendment.

The First Amendment does protect religious freedom... it does say that government and churches should not tread on each other's turf, despite how often the churches in particular try to do so. I do however believe in leading by example, as "...but they started it!" comes off as a rather childish argument. So initially, it does seem that there is some merit to the church's argument that the government just treaded on church turf.

Let's take a closer look, though. When you start looking at the various hospitals, it seems that a lot of them have some sort of religious affiliation at least by name. Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Catholic (or mention of saints), etc. For one reason or another, healthcare seems dominated by religious organizations. I suppose it makes sense to expand spiritual healing to physical healing, and the churches actually do have some history of this, at least as far back as medieval nuns and monks in Christianity, and druids with the pre-Christian Celts, and the list goes on, I'm sure.

The question however is whether we should be able to deny treatment based on religious beliefs. Should atheists or other non-believers be turned away from such church-connected hospitals? Birth control in itself may seem a small issue. But for the woman who just got raped and needs a Plan B pill, it's something of a bigger deal. It's also a predecessor to a bigger issue. What about those churches who feel that HIV/AIDS is a punishment from their god, and therefore should receive no treatment? It wouldn't be anything new - the same has happened throughout history, whether it be disease such as smallpox, or a tragedy such as an earthquake or hurricane. Should any organization that can call itself a hospital be allowed to deny treatment over religious beliefs on these? I don't think so.

While it is kind of churches to build these hospitals, if they are going to treat them as public hospitals (not to mention accepting government aid and funding as such), then they must accept, at least in their hospitals, the same treatments accepted by other healthcare organizations. No one is dictating that churches change their doctrines, just that their hospitals catch up.

More on SOPA

Last night, I made a post about SOPA. Admittedly, it was kind of a last minute, "it's late and I'm tired" kind of job. While that post is certainly relevant, I think the issue warrants a little more attention. And, after some thought, I've decided I will not similarly "censor" this post.

Is it because my feelings have changed on the matter? No, I assure you that they haven't. The censored post is a good indicator of what we have to fear if this bill goes through. So it does illustrate a point for those who might be more apathetic toward this issue. However, it also alienates others who won't bother clicking to uncensor it.

I do thank the major websites that blackout in protest of SOPA, such as google, craigslist, wikipedia, and several others. It raises awareness in a big way. It lets the apathetic crowd know a startling reality - that this is what the internet could actually be like if some have their way.

A lot of people feel this may just be alarmist talk. Perhaps it is... after all, the Patriot Act for example hasn't brought about martial law... yet. But like the Patriot Act, it opens up a wide net. It is unconstitutional. There is no due process. Stay tuned kids, 'cause it's going to get scary.

SOPA was more or less written by lobbyists. The stated goal is to shut down international piracy websites. What does it define as such? That's where it gets murky.

Sites can be shut down on suspicion of piracy.

That's right. Like I said, no due process or anything. This blog could and likely would be shut down for any number of reasons. If they wanted to give a reason, it could be for linking to news stories and giving my own commentary on them. Or it could be done so because I'm seen as competition. But they don't even really have to have a reason. Perfect way to bully people out of business if they don't have resources for a legal battle.

Do you enjoy sites like Wikipedia? Fark? Non-mainstream news sites? Political blogs? Youtube? Social networking (eg, facebook, myspace, livejournal, etc)? Satirical sites? Well, those would all be in very real danger, should SOPA pass. Even something as broad as google might be in danger for not taking an active enough part in blocking stuff. And do you like open source software? Forget about that. I rather suspect that open source software is one of the biggest reasons that SOPA came about.

For those unaware, open source software is software that was created by geeks down on their luck. It started with Linus Torvalds. He had used Unix in college, and liked it quite a bit. He wanted to buy it, but couldn't afford the very hefty price tag it carried. Then he had a thought: he realized that he was, by trade/training, a computer programmer. So he started in creating his own version of it. Others, like-minded, joined in the making... adding stuff, taking stuff out, tweaking code. It became a big community project. The end result of this is what we now know as Linux. Similar to Unix in most of its workings, although now more user-friendly. Oh, and did I mention that it's free? That's the definition of open-source software - its source code is open to all, and free to all. Other popular open source programs are GIMP (image manipulation... Adobe hates this one), OpenOffice (a suite of office programs... Microsoft hates this one), and one you've probably all heard of - Mozilla Firefox (a web browser, and probably still the biggest competitor Microsoft's Internet Explorer has). Now, these programs may be similar, but they are not the same as the expensive programs they provide an alternative to. But that's really one of the big problems with SOPA. It allows these companies to censor their competitors who lack the funds for a legal battle. And if they complain that said programs are too similar, then they are hypocrites. Especially Microsoft, who took the idea of Windows® from Apple.

This is the reality we're faced with. This bill is being supported by those who have the funds to lobby for it and to put up extended legal battles with anyone who opposes them, and by politicians and others who really don't know much at all about the internet or how it works. It's opposed by all those who realize the very real dangers it has.

I urge you all to go to AmericanCensorship.org for more information about how you can participate and add your voice to the growing outrage.

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.