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.

Circumcision

Study says circumcision is a good thing.

So, a study was recently done that claims circumcision to be a good thing, saying that it cuts down on the risks for various diseases and the like. It suggests that the decline in circumcision will raise healthcare costs - something like four billion dollars in the coming years.

I used to be kind of neutral on the subject until fairly recently when I did more research on it. Having done that, I have to call bullshit on the study.

First of all, the medical justification behind circumcision is that nature screwed up by giving us a foreskin - a belief I find very arrogant. It took millions of years for us to evolve as we are, foreskin and all.

Secondly, what do y'all think of the female circumcisions done by some African tribes to reduce or eliminate sexual pleasure felt by women? Horrible? Yeah... well, reducing sexual pleasure is the same reason it was done to men. The foreskin has a lot of nerve endings and glands for lubrication in it. Also, supposedly it discouraged or prevented masturbation. Let's not bullshit: the reason male circumcision became so widespread is because it is condoned/demanded by a couple popular and widely accepted religions. If said religions had demanded female circumcisions (I imagine the reason they don't is because the Hebrews had less understanding of the mechanics of a vagina), there would be similar studies talking about the health benefits in preventing diseases in female circumcision. Sure, having less to get diseased may prevent a disease, but that's not really a good reason to start cutting stuff off, is it? I mean, by removing a kidney, maybe you could cut your chances of kidney disease in half, but that doesn't mean you should do it.

Unfortunately, some do take kind of an arrogant approach to medicine with the mentality that nature screwed up, or that we've advanced beyond evolution. Until very recently, the appendix was thought to be a useless organ that would be removed in a heartbeat. While it's still routinely done, they have found that it does serve a purpose (a safe haven for the good intestinal flora when you have diarrhea and such like), and aren't quite as quick to remove it. Similarly, I don't believe the foreskin should be removed without legitimate medical reason. It serves a purpose, even if that purpose be taboo by the standards of some. It amounts simply to institutionalized genital mutilation.

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.

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.

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?

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?

Boycott Starbucks?

This just in: if you love everyone equally, you hate god. Oh, and Jesus loves you, even if he does command everyone else in the world to hate you.

Call for a Christian boycott vs Starbucks.

You know, I don't really drink much coffee in general. I don't dislike it, just that I like other things better. After reading the above article, I'm inclined to join the hipsters, albeit reluctantly, at Starbucks more often. S'pose I'd fit right in, writing and blogging on my laptop while listening to my under-rated/obscure/outdated music. Scary thought.

You know what else? I've read through much of the Bible, and while I have a fair to decent memory, I don't remember who Jesus said to hate. Did he say to hate anyone?

No?

Then golly gee, I guess that means that people are making some shit up, then using Jesus' name to justify their own hate and prejudice.

I am not ignorant to the fact that the Bible is unkind toward homosexuality. However, it seems Christians have become perfectly well acclimated to picking and choosing what parts they want to follow. I suppose it makes sense, considering that the Bible is rather well known for its contradictions. Anyway, I'd equate worship of the Bible (to include believing its word as infallible) with idol worship. Otherwise, Christians would shun pork, along with shrimp, lobster, cheeseburgers - anything not allowed in the Jewish/Muslim diets. Not only that, but there would be public stonings (and I don't mean smoking pot in public) and the like for any variety of behaviors which is commonplace in the modern world. Even amongst evangelicals. Does anyone remember what the Bible says to do with false prophets?

This reminds me much of the Southern Baptists and their boycott of Disney. I'm not sure too many people even noticed, once the news reports died down. Then just a few years ago, after just about everyone had forgotten about the "boycott" anyway, they announced the end of the boycott, calling it a victory and saying they had made their point. How many people, other than Southern Baptists, even take the Southern Baptists seriously now?

Anyway, it always pisses me off to see people spreading hate in the name of their religion. I see it as arrogant, and were I more religious, I would call them false prophets, as they claim to speak for their god.

But I will say this now: even if extremists are right, I would rather burn in Hell with a clean conscience than serve a hateful god.

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.

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.