"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.

Child Abuse

There are two things that really piss me off - child abuse and domestic abuse. The former more so, because while it may be difficult, an abused adult ultimately does have the freedom to walk away from their abuser. A child does not. Ultimately, according to law, a child's entire life (through childhood) is to be decided by adults who, try as they might, can never fully comprehend what the child is going through. Often, adults really don't give a rat's ass, either. They automatically tend to assume the kid is wrong.

If you watch the show "Cops" enough, you will see what I'm talking about. Every time there's a call about a parent with an unruly kid, the cop, in my experience, has always sided with the parent without even hearing the kid's side, especially if the parent in question is the mother. Yes, the kid does have a side. I'm not saying the kid is always right, but it is worth hearing.

Yes, I'm a little bitter on the subject of child abuse. I've been abused myself... physically, emotionally, and because the previous two made me an easy target for it, sexually. During the time I was abused, I spent much of my time bordering on suicidal. Yes, I was a cutter... and for the armchair psychologists out there, I was not doing it for attention. I actually generally wore long sleeves to hide that I was doing it. The pain was a distraction, I think it may have momentarily satisfied my self-destructive impulses.

If you see child abuse happening, intervene! You may be saving a life. You may be threatened for it (I was threatened with a weapon once when I did), but you'll sleep better with a clean conscience for it. At least call the police and make sure they follow through... in said instance, it was like pulling teeth to get the police to do a welfare check on the kid afterward.

The inspiration for this rant is this:

Stepmother and grandmother ran a nine year old girl to death.

One thing that kind of sticks with me is the people who witnessed this didn't realize that they were witnessing a murder. It also said something about concerned citizens having called the sheriff. The sheriff's department either was called too late, or they didn't think it was important. I have to wonder what might have happened if the sheriff's department did respond more quickly, or maybe if one of the "concerned citizens" stopped her and asked her what was going on. She may still be alive, and the stepmother and grandmother would be up on child abuse charges instead of murder.

This also hits close to home, as it sounds like something an ex of mine might have done, had we had a kid. They said something about a bladder problem being the reason this kid wasn't allowed to have chocolate. If you didn't read the article, the punishment of being made to run for three hours was because she lied about eating a candy bar a friend had given her. There was no evidence found of a bladder condition, so my speculation leads me to believe this was more about weight and vanity. I have seen mothers forcing that obsession on their kids. I even remember in elementary school, one classmate who said her mother would smell her breath for sugar every day and spank her if she smelled sugar... which was every day.

The father really should have stepped things up and stuck to his guns in getting divorced from that woman. He said that she was bi-polar and a drinker, but he still apparently trusted her with his daughter for some reason. It's one thing if you don't pull yourself out of an abusive relationship, but it's another if you have a kid in one. Having a kid means extra responsibility... so if you can't get out of the relationship for yourself, do it for your kid!

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.