I find it fascinating that Christians in America have a monopoly on good. They hoard it. Because of at least one flaw, no other group can lay claim. With their silence, Muslim Americans praise terrorism. Atheists are rotten because without god in our life we have no way of knowing that it's wrong to murder and pillage. Jewish people are in second place, but that one flaw will always separate them.
America has come a long way in areas such as equal rights for women and minorities. While still not perfect, we're continually improving from eras during which unfathomable acts of cruelty were commonplace. Yet many in our country can't get over the antiquated notion that Christianity equals good and everything else equals bad.
Even if folks strictly learned goodness in Christian churches, they wouldn't have exclusive rights. Good is good. Good does not mean believing in certain words unrelated to moral action.
And a moral action isn't moral because a Methodist church is where a person was encouraged to take it.
In friendly debates, I have actually heard the faithful argue their god can't see acts of kindness committed by the non-faithful because a wall of disbelief blocks the deity's vision.
Not only does our good go unrecognized, the Pavlovian response to the "A-word" is one of fear.
Can you imagine the reaction to an event held specifically to raise funds that would later be used to spread atheism across the country? By most it would be compared to the Aryan Brotherhood renting out the local Holiday Inn, hiring a DJ and holding a dance contest to raise money that would later be used to tattoo toddlers so full of Nazi propaganda they could effectively be used as crawling billboards.
I know a lot of atheists and they're all great people. More atheists would mean more tolerance. An increase in atheists certainly wouldn't increase the rate of crime, yet many Americans would attempt to aggressively counter any planned expansion.
Though Christianity calls for discrimination of people who have done nothing wrong, I do not actively seek the tearing down of a single church and would not throw myself in front of a bulldozer clearing land on which the next mass center of worship is scheduled to be erected. Atheists call for the discrimination of no one, yet an attempt to grow the number of nonbelievers across America would undoubtedly be labeled "alarming to the fabric of our nation."
In a country with so many religious folks, I suppose it's only natural that nonjudgmental citizens are labeled ne'er-do-wells while those regularly instructed to look down upon the sinless have a monopoly on good.
Convert Yourself!
I recently began wondering if conservatives genuinely believe homosexuals can choose to whom they're attracted. I mean, there is no way even the staunchest Christian could think a fellow human being would declare, "I love women. I love their curves, their skin, the way their luscious booties wiggle and jiggle whilst they shake their 'groove thing' on the dance floor. At the beach, my skin has been burned many times while I gazed at perky women in skimpy bikinis. Despite this, I have intimate relations with men."
Exhaustive research, completed during American Idol commercials, reveals that most conservatives actually acknowledge the fact that homosexuals are attracted to their same-sex partners. However these Christians insist gay people should refrain from acting on their inherent desire because the act of love is a choice. In other words, while Rebecca may want to have sex with Gertrude, instead of committing the sinful act, Gert and Becky should spend a mellow evening repeatedly reading Bible verses which clearly inform them that, while the whipped cream currently atop the bare butt of Becky looks delicious, the protrusion of Gert's tongue would only be moral if Becky were a man and the two were joined in matrimony.
So basically, when conservatives speak about "converting homosexuals" they're talking about helping gays suppress their inherent attraction and perhaps assisting them in finding members of the opposite sex appealing.
But who's really in desperate need of conversion?
Homosexuals are naturally attracted to members of the same sex and therefore settle down with such a person, just as heterosexuals settle down with members of the opposite sex. Of course there are exceptions (the televangelist currently parading around your television) but most married Christian men didn't propose to the woman with whom they fell in love because the Bible contains zero verses telling them it's a sin. "I want to propose to my girlfriend and am reading the Bible to make sure it's okay. I just started on the Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy and so far my intentions are holy!"
In one way or another, most religious people persecute homosexuals based on words in a book science has largely disproved.
A frantic man runs into a heterosexual wedding ceremony carrying an ancient parable-filled book he claims to have been inspired by god. Words in said publication declare unequivocally that such a man/woman union is immoral. Inspired by the book, in which none of the attendees believe, the boisterous man attempts to convert the woman-in-white by screaming "You're a sinner!" while showing her pictures of Shakira sunbathing in her skivvies.
If we switch the frantic man with a Christian man, and the heterosexual couple with a homosexual couple, then people belonging to a certain religion all of a sudden go from saying, "That guy is totally nuts" to "That guy is doing the work of the Lord."
Christians hope the frantic man will eventually convert to their faith so he will stop irrationally speaking out against the wonderful institution of straight marriage because he read in an old book, Christians deem false, that such union is heresy and start rationally speaking out against the deplorable institution of gay marriage because he read in an old book, Christians deem true, that such union is heresy.
If we convert religious folks, however, then everyone who opposes loving couples from walking down the aisle will be considered kooky. And isn't the ideal conclusion one that leaves not a single person baselessly discriminating against his fellow man?
Exhaustive research, completed during American Idol commercials, reveals that most conservatives actually acknowledge the fact that homosexuals are attracted to their same-sex partners. However these Christians insist gay people should refrain from acting on their inherent desire because the act of love is a choice. In other words, while Rebecca may want to have sex with Gertrude, instead of committing the sinful act, Gert and Becky should spend a mellow evening repeatedly reading Bible verses which clearly inform them that, while the whipped cream currently atop the bare butt of Becky looks delicious, the protrusion of Gert's tongue would only be moral if Becky were a man and the two were joined in matrimony.
So basically, when conservatives speak about "converting homosexuals" they're talking about helping gays suppress their inherent attraction and perhaps assisting them in finding members of the opposite sex appealing.
But who's really in desperate need of conversion?
Homosexuals are naturally attracted to members of the same sex and therefore settle down with such a person, just as heterosexuals settle down with members of the opposite sex. Of course there are exceptions (the televangelist currently parading around your television) but most married Christian men didn't propose to the woman with whom they fell in love because the Bible contains zero verses telling them it's a sin. "I want to propose to my girlfriend and am reading the Bible to make sure it's okay. I just started on the Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy and so far my intentions are holy!"
In one way or another, most religious people persecute homosexuals based on words in a book science has largely disproved.
A frantic man runs into a heterosexual wedding ceremony carrying an ancient parable-filled book he claims to have been inspired by god. Words in said publication declare unequivocally that such a man/woman union is immoral. Inspired by the book, in which none of the attendees believe, the boisterous man attempts to convert the woman-in-white by screaming "You're a sinner!" while showing her pictures of Shakira sunbathing in her skivvies.
If we switch the frantic man with a Christian man, and the heterosexual couple with a homosexual couple, then people belonging to a certain religion all of a sudden go from saying, "That guy is totally nuts" to "That guy is doing the work of the Lord."
Christians hope the frantic man will eventually convert to their faith so he will stop irrationally speaking out against the wonderful institution of straight marriage because he read in an old book, Christians deem false, that such union is heresy and start rationally speaking out against the deplorable institution of gay marriage because he read in an old book, Christians deem true, that such union is heresy.
If we convert religious folks, however, then everyone who opposes loving couples from walking down the aisle will be considered kooky. And isn't the ideal conclusion one that leaves not a single person baselessly discriminating against his fellow man?
The Axis of Evil: Iran, North Korea and Sarah
America is currently waging four wars.
One in Iraq.
One in Afghanistan.
One in Libya.
One in America.
In Libya, America is fighting a brutal dictator. In Iraq, America is fighting religious zealots. In Afghanistan, America is fighting religious zealots. In America, America is fighting Americans the majority of other Americans consider anti-religious zealots.
I grant you, we atheists aren't gathered together in a bomb shelter awaiting the next wave of missiles; rather we're sitting in our homes awaiting the next Fox News story on how horrible we are for expressing frustration over the fact that our supposedly secular government bases laws on the Bible. Some Fox News personalities declare our refusal to sit idly by while the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is spat upon was the catalyst for war, i.e., America is acting in self defense.
Conservatives constantly lament that they're vilified by the left. "Well golly-gee-shucks, why do liberals call for our heads on a platter when all we want is limited government?"
I would ask them, "Why do you vilify atheists when all we want is to live in a land where laws are based on reason? Why do you accuse us of attempting to ruin the kid-centric holiday of Christmas - insinuating our motives are purely rotten - when all we want is nativity scenes moved from public courthouses to private front lawns."
Liberals vilify conservatives. Conservatives vilify liberals. Christian conservatives vilify atheists. Atheists vilify... Wait, who do we vilify? There must be at least one group of people we vilify. Think, Sarah, think. We often speak out against faithful folks who refuse to "live and let live." But asking that they take down overtly religious works on public land doesn't exactly constitute "vilifying." Come on Sarah, use your brain! After revealing their opinion, whose lips do I wish to see sewn shut in a ritualistic ceremony so horrific it would make producers of the Saw franchise say, "Damn!"? Wow, no one comes to mind. It appears as if I only desire to reside in a country whose leaders don't make asinine statements like, "The mass displaying of rules and regulations taught by the holy book I choose to follow in no way 'establishes a religion.'"
It appears I simply wish that people who belong to the religion practiced by the majority of my fellow countrypersons say, "We're going to honor the wishes of the great Thomas Jefferson by building a wall between church and state." After all, does abiding by the words of our third president hinder in any way your ability to practice whichever religion you deem true?
Instead you verbally attack us for undermining "American values" while simultaneously expressing outrage over the fact that your political adversaries accuse you of despising the poor, an argument you claim has no merit.
In other words, you can dish it out but you can't take it.
Now I must sign off; I need to start getting ready for the Axis of Evil Spring Formal. Let me tell you, it's very difficult finding an outfit that, A. won't give Kim Jong-Il the wrong idea, B. is super-sexy, and C. makes it impossible for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to see my face.
One in Iraq.
One in Afghanistan.
One in Libya.
One in America.
In Libya, America is fighting a brutal dictator. In Iraq, America is fighting religious zealots. In Afghanistan, America is fighting religious zealots. In America, America is fighting Americans the majority of other Americans consider anti-religious zealots.
I grant you, we atheists aren't gathered together in a bomb shelter awaiting the next wave of missiles; rather we're sitting in our homes awaiting the next Fox News story on how horrible we are for expressing frustration over the fact that our supposedly secular government bases laws on the Bible. Some Fox News personalities declare our refusal to sit idly by while the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is spat upon was the catalyst for war, i.e., America is acting in self defense.
Conservatives constantly lament that they're vilified by the left. "Well golly-gee-shucks, why do liberals call for our heads on a platter when all we want is limited government?"
I would ask them, "Why do you vilify atheists when all we want is to live in a land where laws are based on reason? Why do you accuse us of attempting to ruin the kid-centric holiday of Christmas - insinuating our motives are purely rotten - when all we want is nativity scenes moved from public courthouses to private front lawns."
Liberals vilify conservatives. Conservatives vilify liberals. Christian conservatives vilify atheists. Atheists vilify... Wait, who do we vilify? There must be at least one group of people we vilify. Think, Sarah, think. We often speak out against faithful folks who refuse to "live and let live." But asking that they take down overtly religious works on public land doesn't exactly constitute "vilifying." Come on Sarah, use your brain! After revealing their opinion, whose lips do I wish to see sewn shut in a ritualistic ceremony so horrific it would make producers of the Saw franchise say, "Damn!"? Wow, no one comes to mind. It appears as if I only desire to reside in a country whose leaders don't make asinine statements like, "The mass displaying of rules and regulations taught by the holy book I choose to follow in no way 'establishes a religion.'"
It appears I simply wish that people who belong to the religion practiced by the majority of my fellow countrypersons say, "We're going to honor the wishes of the great Thomas Jefferson by building a wall between church and state." After all, does abiding by the words of our third president hinder in any way your ability to practice whichever religion you deem true?
Instead you verbally attack us for undermining "American values" while simultaneously expressing outrage over the fact that your political adversaries accuse you of despising the poor, an argument you claim has no merit.
In other words, you can dish it out but you can't take it.
Now I must sign off; I need to start getting ready for the Axis of Evil Spring Formal. Let me tell you, it's very difficult finding an outfit that, A. won't give Kim Jong-Il the wrong idea, B. is super-sexy, and C. makes it impossible for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to see my face.
Should I Show You a Picture?
Our blood boils every time we see still or moving images of Middle Eastern stonings carried out by villagers claiming their religion makes it clear the deviant actions of the condemned left the townspeople no other choice.
Sadly we see gruesome still photographs, and sometimes video, far too often. It makes us think, "How could anyone believe such a deplorable act is the right thing to do?"
The sad fact, however, is that folks of many different religions have throughout history claimed their holy books instructed them to brutally murder those who performed harmless actions or committed petty transgressions.
If you all of a sudden believed in the teachings of Islam, yet continued to find violence abhorrent, would you join the Taliban five years from now with assurance from the supreme leader that they no longer interpreted the Koran to mean the stoning of homosexuals was righteous and instead simply chose to nonviolently discriminate against everyone who acts on their inherent attraction to members of the same sex? Would you join the "Nouveau Taliban" if their actions truly made it seem as if they belonged to the "religion of peace"?
I ask anyone belonging to a modern religion that adheres to a book which details past unimaginably cruelties; would it take regularly looking at pictures of such atrocities for them to hit home. If you constantly perused images of the resulting carnage, would it be more difficult for you to "get past all that."
Would it help to have a television network dramatizing deplorable acts depicted in your religious works as well as air actual video of modern day punishments carried out by monsters claiming their god makes it clear a brutal execution must be carried out against the young girl for the sin of being sexually abused by filthy men whose deed will go unpunished?
We often hear, "Holy books aren't factual and the atrocities documented didn't necessarily occur." I'm sure knowing his fellow villagers are hurling stones at his head because of a fictional story makes the very real man in the very real hole feel a lot better about his situation.
If visual reminders don't do the trick, the least people of every religion could do is strip their holy books of unspeakable cruelty. Just take out all stories and instructions that could be used to justify or encourage brutal punishments. Obviously we can't rely on hope that, "people will have enough sense to refrain from taking action based on these stories, which, while horrific, aren't meant to be interpreted literally."
Just think of how much senseless violence you could prevent. You have no proof your books are accurate and therefore isn't it better to play it safe over risking millions of human lives, especially considering the fact that, when recruiting, you only highlight the good parts.
If these updated holy books were passed down from generation to generation, eventually no one would recall passages that could be used to justify brutalizing the innocent.
No more, "If you read chapter five, verse seven of such-and-such book you'll find I'm required to hang these young homosexuals," if chapter five, verse seven of such-and-such book doesn't exist.
Actually, we could save the entire works in museums. When asked about, religious elders could tell up and coming followers, "In the dark ages people believed these writings instructed them to brutally punish those who had done nothing wrong, but thankfully we came to the realization that actual works of god would never promote such cruelty."
Arguing over nativity scenes and religious-based laws is one thing, seeing blood of the young and innocent shed based on fictional tales reminds me exactly how serious our differences are. It's especially frustrating knowing that no one who shares my beliefs could fathom justifying such brutality. It's very easy for me to understand slaughtering the innocent is wrong, as is promoting books that could be interpreted to encourage such behavior. Yet, because there are so many religious people across the globe, I'm in the minority. Accepting the fact that I posses the extremely rare ability of differentiating right from wrong is difficult when the consequences are so high.
Sadly we see gruesome still photographs, and sometimes video, far too often. It makes us think, "How could anyone believe such a deplorable act is the right thing to do?"
The sad fact, however, is that folks of many different religions have throughout history claimed their holy books instructed them to brutally murder those who performed harmless actions or committed petty transgressions.
If you all of a sudden believed in the teachings of Islam, yet continued to find violence abhorrent, would you join the Taliban five years from now with assurance from the supreme leader that they no longer interpreted the Koran to mean the stoning of homosexuals was righteous and instead simply chose to nonviolently discriminate against everyone who acts on their inherent attraction to members of the same sex? Would you join the "Nouveau Taliban" if their actions truly made it seem as if they belonged to the "religion of peace"?
I ask anyone belonging to a modern religion that adheres to a book which details past unimaginably cruelties; would it take regularly looking at pictures of such atrocities for them to hit home. If you constantly perused images of the resulting carnage, would it be more difficult for you to "get past all that."
Would it help to have a television network dramatizing deplorable acts depicted in your religious works as well as air actual video of modern day punishments carried out by monsters claiming their god makes it clear a brutal execution must be carried out against the young girl for the sin of being sexually abused by filthy men whose deed will go unpunished?
We often hear, "Holy books aren't factual and the atrocities documented didn't necessarily occur." I'm sure knowing his fellow villagers are hurling stones at his head because of a fictional story makes the very real man in the very real hole feel a lot better about his situation.
If visual reminders don't do the trick, the least people of every religion could do is strip their holy books of unspeakable cruelty. Just take out all stories and instructions that could be used to justify or encourage brutal punishments. Obviously we can't rely on hope that, "people will have enough sense to refrain from taking action based on these stories, which, while horrific, aren't meant to be interpreted literally."
Just think of how much senseless violence you could prevent. You have no proof your books are accurate and therefore isn't it better to play it safe over risking millions of human lives, especially considering the fact that, when recruiting, you only highlight the good parts.
If these updated holy books were passed down from generation to generation, eventually no one would recall passages that could be used to justify brutalizing the innocent.
No more, "If you read chapter five, verse seven of such-and-such book you'll find I'm required to hang these young homosexuals," if chapter five, verse seven of such-and-such book doesn't exist.
Actually, we could save the entire works in museums. When asked about, religious elders could tell up and coming followers, "In the dark ages people believed these writings instructed them to brutally punish those who had done nothing wrong, but thankfully we came to the realization that actual works of god would never promote such cruelty."
Arguing over nativity scenes and religious-based laws is one thing, seeing blood of the young and innocent shed based on fictional tales reminds me exactly how serious our differences are. It's especially frustrating knowing that no one who shares my beliefs could fathom justifying such brutality. It's very easy for me to understand slaughtering the innocent is wrong, as is promoting books that could be interpreted to encourage such behavior. Yet, because there are so many religious people across the globe, I'm in the minority. Accepting the fact that I posses the extremely rare ability of differentiating right from wrong is difficult when the consequences are so high.
Outlawing Same-Sex Marriage
When arguing with proponents of gay marriage, many Christians claim, "If we allow gays to marry, we must then permit all kinds of crazy weddings. A man can marry forty women, his pet goat, a doorknob, or a perky blonde blow up doll he's nicknamed 'Hootie' because Only Wanna Be With You was playing during their first intimate encounter. No more asking fellow wedding invitees 'Are you a friend of the bride or groom?' We must begin asking, 'Are you a friend of the groom or were you involved in the production of the rubber that now constitutes the bride's buttocks?'" Then the gay marriage antagonist smiles and nods as if he or she has just presented an argument so persuasive that gay marriage backers in every corner of the country somehow sense their cause is rapidly crumbling.
If they're going to argue that legalizing gay marriage would open the floodgates to all kinds of oddball weddings, I'll retort by suggesting we needn't cease progression, rather we should regress, i.e., the government should immediately stop recognizing opposite-sex marriages. Of course Uncle Sam couldn't prevent persons from carrying out private ceremonies of a religious nature, but having a preacher preside over your wedding wouldn't earn you a single tax break because the IRS will consider everyone single for, "as long as they alone shall live."
Why do conservatives, who say that marriage is not a right, have the right to marry someone with opposing genitalia? Before opposite-sex marriage became legal, a heterosexual marriage opponent could have easily said, "Once we allow men and women to marry, we'll have to let homosexuals marry, then we'll have to grant licenses to men who've fallen in love with their snow blower because they find a little danger keeps romance interesting."
I'm not a big marcher, but would proudly walk up and down many blocks in an attempt to make null and void heterosexual marriage. Boy would I love to tell gay-marriage-opposing-religious-heterosexual-newlyweds that they're now just shacking up.
"Sorry," I would say to what we formerly considered, "the wife," faking sincerity. "But since you reside in the same dwelling it's not like you'll be forced to recreate the 'walk of shame' you made famous during your college years under the guise you were trying to find yourself."
Two people have the desire to get married. It's okay if one is a man and the other is a woman. It's not okay if one is a man and the other is a man.
Why?
Religion.
If the Bible said, "A man is encouraged to lie with a man as he lies with a woman," gay marriage would be legal in the United States.
Because the Bible declares such action a sin, gay marriage is outlawed in our great but still flawed country.
That is not honoring the separation of church and state.
It's as black and white as the pages inside Bibles perused by most lawmakers before they draft legislation that impacts everyone.
If they're going to argue that legalizing gay marriage would open the floodgates to all kinds of oddball weddings, I'll retort by suggesting we needn't cease progression, rather we should regress, i.e., the government should immediately stop recognizing opposite-sex marriages. Of course Uncle Sam couldn't prevent persons from carrying out private ceremonies of a religious nature, but having a preacher preside over your wedding wouldn't earn you a single tax break because the IRS will consider everyone single for, "as long as they alone shall live."
Why do conservatives, who say that marriage is not a right, have the right to marry someone with opposing genitalia? Before opposite-sex marriage became legal, a heterosexual marriage opponent could have easily said, "Once we allow men and women to marry, we'll have to let homosexuals marry, then we'll have to grant licenses to men who've fallen in love with their snow blower because they find a little danger keeps romance interesting."
I'm not a big marcher, but would proudly walk up and down many blocks in an attempt to make null and void heterosexual marriage. Boy would I love to tell gay-marriage-opposing-religious-heterosexual-newlyweds that they're now just shacking up.
"Sorry," I would say to what we formerly considered, "the wife," faking sincerity. "But since you reside in the same dwelling it's not like you'll be forced to recreate the 'walk of shame' you made famous during your college years under the guise you were trying to find yourself."
Two people have the desire to get married. It's okay if one is a man and the other is a woman. It's not okay if one is a man and the other is a man.
Why?
Religion.
If the Bible said, "A man is encouraged to lie with a man as he lies with a woman," gay marriage would be legal in the United States.
Because the Bible declares such action a sin, gay marriage is outlawed in our great but still flawed country.
That is not honoring the separation of church and state.
It's as black and white as the pages inside Bibles perused by most lawmakers before they draft legislation that impacts everyone.
We Could Be Living in a Huckabee World and I Am Not a Huckabee Girl
Those on the right claim President Barack Obama is radically transforming the United States of America. If Preacher Huckabee ever becomes President Huckabee, look out for some radical transformation religious-style!
The former Arkansas Governor recently said Natalie Portman's pregnancy was "troubling" because she and the father have thus far failed to walk down the aisle. By accepting an Oscar expecting, she is glamorizing out-of-wedlock pregnancy, he claims.
So Mr. Huckabee, you're upset she put on a beautiful dress and a nice pair of earrings for the Oscars? Had she donned sweats and a torn t-shirt, would you be fine with her condition? Would you applaud her for making it seem as if out-of-wedlock pregnancy leads to inappropriate frumpiness?
The former Arkansas governor then recited stats he finds alarming regarding the number of babies born to unwed mothers and somehow tied his criticism to economics. He made the connection because he's too cowardly to say, "My religion teaches that sex without rings is a sin and everyone should follow my religion. If they don't they are immoral."
Either it's about economics or it's about sin. Ms. Portman after all, the target of his criticism, is completely capable of supporting a child as well as every orphan in California.
If it was about economics, Mr. Huckabee would say, "Those without the financial means to support a child should refrain from giving birth until they are able to adequately provide."
The bottom line is that Mr. Huckabee wants everyone to live by the teaching of his religion regardless of economics. If you're married and have no money, Mr. Huckabee doesn't have any problem with you birthing a child. If you elect not to marry, or even own a calendar that highlights your future wedding day, and have enough money to visit Starbucks thrice daily, Mr. Huckabee has big issues.
Is Mr. Huckabee really concerned about impressionable women with limited resources witnessing Ms. Portman glamorizing single-motherhood? As a result of her Oscar win, is he worried these downtrodden ladies will all of a sudden choose to have babies of their own? If that's the case, I suppose Mr. Huckabee would prefer Ms. Portman refrain from any costly action her less affluent fans might mimic. Would he tell her, "One of your most ardent supporters could possibly make a reservation at Nobu in Malibu. While you credit card has plenty of room to take care of the meal as well as a generous tip, the financially strapped fan may get the check, realize his or her wallet is too light to pay for every sushi roll they consumed and therefore run for the hills, so quickly instruct your limo driver to turn the car around and head straight for the Subway sandwich shop in El Segundo where it would be in the best interest of society if you ordered a six-inch foot-long on wheat bread alongside a bag of Baked Lays."?
By disgustedly informing the audience exactly how many children are born out-of-wedlock by ethnicity, Mr. Huckabee is attempting to convince the masses that all babies born to single parents will be raised by drug addicted welfare recipients who can't possibly provide homes suitable for children. In reality, many of these births are by women in committed relationships, or by single women who choose to have kids because they earn an ample salary and have oodles of both peer and family support. And you don't necessarily need millions to provide a loving home.
If you were to ask him, "Do Natalie Portman and her partner have the financial means with which to raise a child?" Mr. Huckabee would be forced to respond with a convincing, "yes."
So, other than the fact that Ms. Portman is not living in accordance with the teachings of your religion, what's this "trouble" about which you speak?
The former Arkansas Governor recently said Natalie Portman's pregnancy was "troubling" because she and the father have thus far failed to walk down the aisle. By accepting an Oscar expecting, she is glamorizing out-of-wedlock pregnancy, he claims.
So Mr. Huckabee, you're upset she put on a beautiful dress and a nice pair of earrings for the Oscars? Had she donned sweats and a torn t-shirt, would you be fine with her condition? Would you applaud her for making it seem as if out-of-wedlock pregnancy leads to inappropriate frumpiness?
The former Arkansas governor then recited stats he finds alarming regarding the number of babies born to unwed mothers and somehow tied his criticism to economics. He made the connection because he's too cowardly to say, "My religion teaches that sex without rings is a sin and everyone should follow my religion. If they don't they are immoral."
Either it's about economics or it's about sin. Ms. Portman after all, the target of his criticism, is completely capable of supporting a child as well as every orphan in California.
If it was about economics, Mr. Huckabee would say, "Those without the financial means to support a child should refrain from giving birth until they are able to adequately provide."
The bottom line is that Mr. Huckabee wants everyone to live by the teaching of his religion regardless of economics. If you're married and have no money, Mr. Huckabee doesn't have any problem with you birthing a child. If you elect not to marry, or even own a calendar that highlights your future wedding day, and have enough money to visit Starbucks thrice daily, Mr. Huckabee has big issues.
Is Mr. Huckabee really concerned about impressionable women with limited resources witnessing Ms. Portman glamorizing single-motherhood? As a result of her Oscar win, is he worried these downtrodden ladies will all of a sudden choose to have babies of their own? If that's the case, I suppose Mr. Huckabee would prefer Ms. Portman refrain from any costly action her less affluent fans might mimic. Would he tell her, "One of your most ardent supporters could possibly make a reservation at Nobu in Malibu. While you credit card has plenty of room to take care of the meal as well as a generous tip, the financially strapped fan may get the check, realize his or her wallet is too light to pay for every sushi roll they consumed and therefore run for the hills, so quickly instruct your limo driver to turn the car around and head straight for the Subway sandwich shop in El Segundo where it would be in the best interest of society if you ordered a six-inch foot-long on wheat bread alongside a bag of Baked Lays."?
By disgustedly informing the audience exactly how many children are born out-of-wedlock by ethnicity, Mr. Huckabee is attempting to convince the masses that all babies born to single parents will be raised by drug addicted welfare recipients who can't possibly provide homes suitable for children. In reality, many of these births are by women in committed relationships, or by single women who choose to have kids because they earn an ample salary and have oodles of both peer and family support. And you don't necessarily need millions to provide a loving home.
If you were to ask him, "Do Natalie Portman and her partner have the financial means with which to raise a child?" Mr. Huckabee would be forced to respond with a convincing, "yes."
So, other than the fact that Ms. Portman is not living in accordance with the teachings of your religion, what's this "trouble" about which you speak?
Admiring the Honor Code
I recently noticed a popular search engine was displaying, "BYU Honor Code" as a trending topic. Realizing millions of people likely didn't wake up and coincidentally ask themselves, "I wonder what rules students of BYU must follow in order to remain in good standing," I conducted a little investigation.
Turns out a rather adroit BYU basketball player was suspended from the team for breaking the code. An Honor Code board is to decide if the young man will be allowed to remain a student at the esteemed university.
The BYU Honor Code states that students must...
Be honest
Live a chaste and virtuous life
Obey the law and all campus policies
Use clean language
Respect others
Abstain from alcoholic beverages, tobacco, tea, coffee and substance abuse
Participate regularly in church services
Observe the Dress and Grooming Standards
Encourage others in their commitment to comply with the Honor Code
First of all, I have no problem with the honor code or the students who agree to live their life in accordance. People should be free to start or join any group they want with whatever rules they want as long as they don't hurt anybody. In America, both group-starting and group-joining are thankfully voluntary.
However, in researching the story, I discovered that a great many sports journalists claimed to respect BYU administrators for strictly enforcing the code. "They sacrificed basketball wins for morality. For braving certain backlash from our sports obsessed society, I say kudos," the sports writers pompously said.
Really?
A few of the Honor Code demands I can understand, but why would any rational person have respect for individuals who punish college students for the crime of breaking random rules? And how can abiding by these random rules be admired by anyone except people involved in the group?
If a club declared petting puppies was grounds for immediate expulsion, would sports writers applaud every member who managed to keep their petting-hand away from all collies, spaniels, pinschers and pointers?
Would they say, "I can't understand why anyone would join a club in which puppy-petting is forbidden, but I can and do admire members for walking by every 'Fido' they encounter and suppressing their inherent desire to extend a friendly hand and say, 'Come here, boy! Who's a good boy!? Are you a good boy!?' That takes real courage."?
Why exactly is it noble to refrain from non-sinful actions?
I suppose religiously inspired rules that don't serve practical purposes are considered noble because that's what the majority of our elders have always taught us. After all, not until 1973 did the American Psychiatric Association stop listing homosexuality as a mental disorder. That means, in 1972, instead of just being ashamed, parents could justifiably respond to the revelation that their child was gay by pinning him or her down and then forcibly dressing them in a straight jacket. While the BYU Honor Code doesn't specifically reference homosexual behavior, I have a strong feeling school administrators would strenuously frown upon a pair of basketball players whose pre-game ritual included twenty-minutes of sucking each others face. In fact, BYU administrators would likely kick the student-athletes off the team for not acting in a virtuous manner.
And if a desperately thirsty BYU player gets kicked off the basketball team for consuming a Diet Snapple Peach Green Tea, which are fabulous by the way, because his faucet was producing a sludgy brown substance, would these same sports writers rise and applaud. "Way to stand up for your anti-tea beliefs! I don't understand them, but I admire you for making sure, if another player finds himself in a similar situation, he'll either drink the sludge or become dangerously dehydrated, because that's what god would want."
Turns out a rather adroit BYU basketball player was suspended from the team for breaking the code. An Honor Code board is to decide if the young man will be allowed to remain a student at the esteemed university.
The BYU Honor Code states that students must...
Be honest
Live a chaste and virtuous life
Obey the law and all campus policies
Use clean language
Respect others
Abstain from alcoholic beverages, tobacco, tea, coffee and substance abuse
Participate regularly in church services
Observe the Dress and Grooming Standards
Encourage others in their commitment to comply with the Honor Code
First of all, I have no problem with the honor code or the students who agree to live their life in accordance. People should be free to start or join any group they want with whatever rules they want as long as they don't hurt anybody. In America, both group-starting and group-joining are thankfully voluntary.
However, in researching the story, I discovered that a great many sports journalists claimed to respect BYU administrators for strictly enforcing the code. "They sacrificed basketball wins for morality. For braving certain backlash from our sports obsessed society, I say kudos," the sports writers pompously said.
Really?
A few of the Honor Code demands I can understand, but why would any rational person have respect for individuals who punish college students for the crime of breaking random rules? And how can abiding by these random rules be admired by anyone except people involved in the group?
If a club declared petting puppies was grounds for immediate expulsion, would sports writers applaud every member who managed to keep their petting-hand away from all collies, spaniels, pinschers and pointers?
Would they say, "I can't understand why anyone would join a club in which puppy-petting is forbidden, but I can and do admire members for walking by every 'Fido' they encounter and suppressing their inherent desire to extend a friendly hand and say, 'Come here, boy! Who's a good boy!? Are you a good boy!?' That takes real courage."?
Why exactly is it noble to refrain from non-sinful actions?
I suppose religiously inspired rules that don't serve practical purposes are considered noble because that's what the majority of our elders have always taught us. After all, not until 1973 did the American Psychiatric Association stop listing homosexuality as a mental disorder. That means, in 1972, instead of just being ashamed, parents could justifiably respond to the revelation that their child was gay by pinning him or her down and then forcibly dressing them in a straight jacket. While the BYU Honor Code doesn't specifically reference homosexual behavior, I have a strong feeling school administrators would strenuously frown upon a pair of basketball players whose pre-game ritual included twenty-minutes of sucking each others face. In fact, BYU administrators would likely kick the student-athletes off the team for not acting in a virtuous manner.
And if a desperately thirsty BYU player gets kicked off the basketball team for consuming a Diet Snapple Peach Green Tea, which are fabulous by the way, because his faucet was producing a sludgy brown substance, would these same sports writers rise and applaud. "Way to stand up for your anti-tea beliefs! I don't understand them, but I admire you for making sure, if another player finds himself in a similar situation, he'll either drink the sludge or become dangerously dehydrated, because that's what god would want."
An Insane Argument
Picture the kindest, most generous woman in your church. I'm talking about the lady who constantly puts the needs of others above her own. The woman who cooks for hurting families, volunteers her time to assist those suffering from addiction, and can always be counted on to simply lend an ear when a fellow parishioner is suffering from a seemingly trivial dilemma. Let's call this woman, Mrs. Lovelady.
Now picture the heavily made-up woman who sits in the exact same pew each week. She tries to treat you with respect, but is unable to hide her contempt while chatting with you and your ordinary family during the post-church meet and greet. Typically people like you silently paint her kitchen while she converses with her Prada clad peers, thus making it difficult for her to speak to you as an equal, even at church, where overt discrimination based on social status is outwardly frowned upon. We'll call her, Mrs. Snoot.
Now pretend Mrs. Lovelady stops believing.
Since many religions insist good deeds are meaningless unless performed with the express purpose of pleasing their specific deity, Mrs. Lovelady immediately goes from a "good Christian woman" to a "heathen woman." This radical transformation occurs simply because of the thoughts pulsating through her brain.
"I tell my daughter Suzy that you're the person I most want her to emulate as she progresses into womanhood," a parishioner informs Mrs. Lovelady.
"While I will always lend a hand to assist persons of all religions in times of tumult, I am no longer certain I believe in the teachings of the church," Mrs. Lovelady meekly replies, worried she will be shunned by her dearest friends.
"Suzy, avert your eyes before you both float to hell in a sea of wickedness!"
How does one argue against such nonsense!?
They're saying Mrs. Snoot, a lady best described by a word that rhymes with "witch", is looked upon more favorably by their deity than the kindest woman they know.
In one second, she loses it all.
And Mrs. Lovelady doesn't even have to stop completely believing to be considered yet another individual who has succumbed to evil. It's not sufficient for her to be certain there is a god and that he or she is just, rather the kind woman must believe in very specific details that have absolutely nothing to do with good and evil.
If you hadn't been taught your specific religion was the one true belief system since the day you were born, can you honestly say any of the above makes rational sense!?
On the other hand, if the scenario does come true and your beliefs happen to be 100% accurate, the good thing for me is that I'll be lucky enough to spend eternity cheerfully chatting with Mrs. Lovelady while for eons you'll receive the cold shoulder from Mrs. Snoot.
If she hires you to fix her personal pearly gates, inside the main pearly gates, please tell her "hi" from below. It will be the location from where the loud music and boisterous laughter emanates.
Now picture the heavily made-up woman who sits in the exact same pew each week. She tries to treat you with respect, but is unable to hide her contempt while chatting with you and your ordinary family during the post-church meet and greet. Typically people like you silently paint her kitchen while she converses with her Prada clad peers, thus making it difficult for her to speak to you as an equal, even at church, where overt discrimination based on social status is outwardly frowned upon. We'll call her, Mrs. Snoot.
Now pretend Mrs. Lovelady stops believing.
Since many religions insist good deeds are meaningless unless performed with the express purpose of pleasing their specific deity, Mrs. Lovelady immediately goes from a "good Christian woman" to a "heathen woman." This radical transformation occurs simply because of the thoughts pulsating through her brain.
"I tell my daughter Suzy that you're the person I most want her to emulate as she progresses into womanhood," a parishioner informs Mrs. Lovelady.
"While I will always lend a hand to assist persons of all religions in times of tumult, I am no longer certain I believe in the teachings of the church," Mrs. Lovelady meekly replies, worried she will be shunned by her dearest friends.
"Suzy, avert your eyes before you both float to hell in a sea of wickedness!"
How does one argue against such nonsense!?
They're saying Mrs. Snoot, a lady best described by a word that rhymes with "witch", is looked upon more favorably by their deity than the kindest woman they know.
In one second, she loses it all.
And Mrs. Lovelady doesn't even have to stop completely believing to be considered yet another individual who has succumbed to evil. It's not sufficient for her to be certain there is a god and that he or she is just, rather the kind woman must believe in very specific details that have absolutely nothing to do with good and evil.
If you hadn't been taught your specific religion was the one true belief system since the day you were born, can you honestly say any of the above makes rational sense!?
On the other hand, if the scenario does come true and your beliefs happen to be 100% accurate, the good thing for me is that I'll be lucky enough to spend eternity cheerfully chatting with Mrs. Lovelady while for eons you'll receive the cold shoulder from Mrs. Snoot.
If she hires you to fix her personal pearly gates, inside the main pearly gates, please tell her "hi" from below. It will be the location from where the loud music and boisterous laughter emanates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)