How would your life change if gay marriage was legalized?
Of course the lives of committed homosexuals, i.e., your fellow man, would improve, but I'm talking about your life.
Are you anti-gay marriage advocates afraid there will be gloating on the part of the homosexual community? Are you viewing gay marriage as you do your upcoming slow-pitch softball game against the local (we're-the-only-ones-going-to-heaven) Church of Christ? Though losing a sports game has no lasting repercussions, you'd hang your head in shame simply because you failed; just like you'd do if gay marriage was legalized.
The bottom line is that there is absolutely no way your life, nor society, would suffer one iota if a man and a man were allowed to wed.
Common sense tells you that gay marriage wouldn't pave the way for a man to legally obtain the right to marry one or more of the following: his beloved box turtle, his first cousin, eight women, or the entire cast of Glee. Common sense does this the same way it informs you the school administrator who expelled the first-grader for accidentally bringing a plastic knife to school, violating the zero tolerance policy, acted stupidly.
Funny how the only secular argument against gay marriage involves far-fetched scenarios to which the best retort is usually a simple, "Come on!"
You resemble children who've outgrown a stuffed toy that's collecting dust in the corner yet won't let your younger sibling snuggle up against for the simple reason the plush panda makes them happy.
"Satisfied gays make me sick! If they're gonna live in sin, I'm going to make them dedicate every waking hour to achieving the same benefits my opposite-sex spouse and I enjoy! For no 'offense' other than settling down with the person to whom they're most attracted, they will pay! Dearly, those scum suckers will pay!"
Really!?
It means that much to you!?
It means so much you're willing to waste your time, their time, your money and their money to fight a fight rooted in spite?
Think of all the progress and charity you're preventing. As usual, organized religion hinders goodness.
Seeing as how your life would not change, spite is the only explanation.
If an individual were completely ignorant of religion, you do realize it would be impossible to convince him or her that gay marriage would directly lead to the decline of society, right?
If you stated, "A man and a woman can create a child, while a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) lack that specific capability," a person unaware books have been written, allegedly inspired by a higher power, could easily retort, "Yeah, but since many heterosexual couples abuse their own children, doesn't the physical capability of persons to reproduce have little to do with the quality of parent they become? More individuals are heterosexual than not, so legalizing gay marriage will not lead to the extinction of mankind. And wouldn't an increase in gay married couples lead to an increase in loving households ready and willing to adopt unwanted children produced by heterosexual people?"
Please at least admit your opposition to gay marriage is solely based on a book on which American laws are not supposed to be rooted. Please don't try and make it seem as if you're concerned with the well being of society. Don't argue, "A child is better off with a man and woman at the helm," when you know full well that a child needs only loving and moral guardians to thrive.
Please admit your only desire is to see the country governed by rules your specific religious text promotes. Of course you'd like society to focus on statutes that don't hinder your ability to enjoy life. Because you need to inhale dozens of alcoholic drinks every day of the week ending in "Y', passages frowning upon excessive drunkenness should be ignored, i.e., interpreted differently. Because you enjoy intimate relations with members of the opposite sex, Biblical passages forbidding same-sex love are not open to debate.
It's Not the Region, Stupid
Faithful Americans wish to believe organized religion is not responsible for horrific violence in the Middle East. Though they'd never dare admit it, they think a primitive culture is to blame, or that brains of certain foreigners resemble those contained in the skulls of cavemen.
But people born in Afghanistan are the same as those born in Ardmore, Oklahoma.
The truth is that religious folks in America commit many abhorrent acts because their church elders tell them it's okay, or worse, encourage them to, "Just Do It." We all know the Westboro Baptist Church has a bad habit of protesting military funerals because they're angry Nathan Lane isn't rotting in jail for a specific reason unrelated to his role in Joe Versus the Volcano.
As noted in a recent 20/20 episode, several Independent Fundamental Baptist churches have seen their members arrested then convicted of abusing children. Of course no organization can prevent every single member from committing crimes, but most don't go to great lengths covering up abuse and/or blaming the victim. IFB preachers often encourage the beating of children. The aforementioned 20/20 episode aired footage of a preacher angrily telling his flock, "If you're not bruising the child, you're not spanking the child enough."
It's not the region; it's religion.
We have our Founding Fathers to thank for making sure acts of abuse against children are indeed illegal and therefore require hiding, or else we'd witness young girls routinely standing in the public square apologizing for their sin of being abused by an adult. Since I don't know the location of any public squares, maybe they'd beg forgiveness while standing in line waiting to purchase their back-to-school Trapper Keepers, you know, a couple days before abuse at the hands of a family elder gives way to abuse at the hands of a school official.
America is great place in which to live because our Founding Fathers understood this country would remain in the stone ages were religion holding it back. These visionaries realized that, while people might continue clinging to their faith, they would reject past norms to achieve greatness, and shun cruelty, if overtly religious laws and peer pressure were non-factors.
Let's talk about slavery...
Slavery was prominent in the south, so an end to the practice wasn't brought about by multiple Bible readings; it was brought about by people who became inherently sick to their stomach at the site of abuse, not sick to their stomach after reading the Bible then witnessing unimaginable cruelty. "A black man beaten within an inch of his life used to not bother me, but after reading the Bible I have a burning desire to hurl my body in front of his master's whip!"
Christian abolitionists succeeded because they lived in a country where a supreme leader wasn't allowed to send out goons to exterminate them as the extreme Hutus slaughtered their moderate brethren.
It doesn't give modern religious people pause that the primary reason widespread cruelty no longer occurs in America is because joining a church is voluntary!?
Everything America has achieved was made possible because religion does not hold back progress as small puddles of mud held back the Yugo Cabrio.
I'm glad our Founding Fathers gave religious people a way to keep the faith yet not feel it's their duty to hurl rocks at my head when I promote atheism, but no one should forget that organized religion remains responsible for much cruelty around the globe.
I know the typical Christian will respond, "You can't compare us to psychopathic American churches that claim the Bible is their inspiration and you certainly can't compare us to radical Islam..."
Due to your penchant for baseless discrimination, I certainly can't equate you with people who do the right thing.
After all, the right thing is what atheists do.
But people born in Afghanistan are the same as those born in Ardmore, Oklahoma.
The truth is that religious folks in America commit many abhorrent acts because their church elders tell them it's okay, or worse, encourage them to, "Just Do It." We all know the Westboro Baptist Church has a bad habit of protesting military funerals because they're angry Nathan Lane isn't rotting in jail for a specific reason unrelated to his role in Joe Versus the Volcano.
As noted in a recent 20/20 episode, several Independent Fundamental Baptist churches have seen their members arrested then convicted of abusing children. Of course no organization can prevent every single member from committing crimes, but most don't go to great lengths covering up abuse and/or blaming the victim. IFB preachers often encourage the beating of children. The aforementioned 20/20 episode aired footage of a preacher angrily telling his flock, "If you're not bruising the child, you're not spanking the child enough."
It's not the region; it's religion.
We have our Founding Fathers to thank for making sure acts of abuse against children are indeed illegal and therefore require hiding, or else we'd witness young girls routinely standing in the public square apologizing for their sin of being abused by an adult. Since I don't know the location of any public squares, maybe they'd beg forgiveness while standing in line waiting to purchase their back-to-school Trapper Keepers, you know, a couple days before abuse at the hands of a family elder gives way to abuse at the hands of a school official.
America is great place in which to live because our Founding Fathers understood this country would remain in the stone ages were religion holding it back. These visionaries realized that, while people might continue clinging to their faith, they would reject past norms to achieve greatness, and shun cruelty, if overtly religious laws and peer pressure were non-factors.
Let's talk about slavery...
Slavery was prominent in the south, so an end to the practice wasn't brought about by multiple Bible readings; it was brought about by people who became inherently sick to their stomach at the site of abuse, not sick to their stomach after reading the Bible then witnessing unimaginable cruelty. "A black man beaten within an inch of his life used to not bother me, but after reading the Bible I have a burning desire to hurl my body in front of his master's whip!"
Christian abolitionists succeeded because they lived in a country where a supreme leader wasn't allowed to send out goons to exterminate them as the extreme Hutus slaughtered their moderate brethren.
It doesn't give modern religious people pause that the primary reason widespread cruelty no longer occurs in America is because joining a church is voluntary!?
Everything America has achieved was made possible because religion does not hold back progress as small puddles of mud held back the Yugo Cabrio.
I'm glad our Founding Fathers gave religious people a way to keep the faith yet not feel it's their duty to hurl rocks at my head when I promote atheism, but no one should forget that organized religion remains responsible for much cruelty around the globe.
I know the typical Christian will respond, "You can't compare us to psychopathic American churches that claim the Bible is their inspiration and you certainly can't compare us to radical Islam..."
Due to your penchant for baseless discrimination, I certainly can't equate you with people who do the right thing.
After all, the right thing is what atheists do.
What Was I Thinking!?
A favorite question asked to atheists by religious people is, "What will you say to god once the act of standing before him proves you're wrong?"
Well picture this...
As you pass through the pearly gates, you can't help but notice they're adorned with large swastikas.
"Strange," you think, and then surmise, "They must not be symbols of hate as they are in the place from which I came."
You sit down and wait for the entity that will judge your earthly actions. As you mentally list your good deeds with a confident smirk, he begins walking toward you from a great distance. "It can't be," you mumble. "Uh-oh; that mustache is unmistakable." You don't even have to wait for the thick German accent to know you're doomed. "Do I stand and salute? Oh no, if he's omniscient he's aware of the fact that my best friend throughout college was Seraphim Bernbaum!"
If the above scenario actually happens, will you express regret over your failure to champion Nazi programs? Will you say, "Why didn't I embrace the formation of a master race!? The Third Reich wasn't evil like my disgraceful pro-Semitic teachers portrayed it. After all, if you want to make a world of perfectly sculpted, blue-eyed beauties, you've got to break a few inferior races."?
No matter the consequences, you wouldn't wish to turn back the clock so you could disrupt history class by booing footage of Allied soldiers liberating Nazi Concentration Camps.
I'm not comparing anybody to Hitler; I'm simply saying that, by rejecting the deity whose actions you strongly admonish, you'd be standing up for your fellow human beings, which is exactly what I'm doing as an atheist.
If it is revealed that a creator, responsible for me and the planet on which I lived, considers homosexuality a sin most wretched, I'm not going to all of sudden hang my head in shame for failing to even attempt converting my gay friends. No matter how much heat I feel, I will never say, "Since you, my creator, favor the stoning of gays, then such brutality must be just. I only wish an earthly person would have convinced me of this and then placed in my hand a few rocks that were light enough to get some muscle behind yet heavy enough to do significant damage to the face of a sodomizer."
If you eventually discover Sharia law is god's real preference, will you kick yourself for allowing your earthly wife to remain scarless after that Super Bowl party during which she without a doubt proved who wears the pants in your relationship by intensely glaring you into dropping what would have been your twelfth beer into the cooler and slowly walking away?
When you base your decisions on right and wrong, and bestow admiration on individuals whose actions you consider noble, future judgment is of no concern.
If I am wrong and find myself awaiting a meeting with my maker, I would be concerned, however, had I spent a lifetime judging the sinless, an act I felt in my heart was wrong, yet performed simply because I was convinced great reward would follow.
In Christian circles, atheists are considered immoral despite the fact that one of our biggest desires is making sure not a single life is negatively impacted by religion. Without fear of consequence and without regret, I would pridefully tell anyone, or anything, my earthly goal was championing human dignity.
Well picture this...
As you pass through the pearly gates, you can't help but notice they're adorned with large swastikas.
"Strange," you think, and then surmise, "They must not be symbols of hate as they are in the place from which I came."
You sit down and wait for the entity that will judge your earthly actions. As you mentally list your good deeds with a confident smirk, he begins walking toward you from a great distance. "It can't be," you mumble. "Uh-oh; that mustache is unmistakable." You don't even have to wait for the thick German accent to know you're doomed. "Do I stand and salute? Oh no, if he's omniscient he's aware of the fact that my best friend throughout college was Seraphim Bernbaum!"
If the above scenario actually happens, will you express regret over your failure to champion Nazi programs? Will you say, "Why didn't I embrace the formation of a master race!? The Third Reich wasn't evil like my disgraceful pro-Semitic teachers portrayed it. After all, if you want to make a world of perfectly sculpted, blue-eyed beauties, you've got to break a few inferior races."?
No matter the consequences, you wouldn't wish to turn back the clock so you could disrupt history class by booing footage of Allied soldiers liberating Nazi Concentration Camps.
I'm not comparing anybody to Hitler; I'm simply saying that, by rejecting the deity whose actions you strongly admonish, you'd be standing up for your fellow human beings, which is exactly what I'm doing as an atheist.
If it is revealed that a creator, responsible for me and the planet on which I lived, considers homosexuality a sin most wretched, I'm not going to all of sudden hang my head in shame for failing to even attempt converting my gay friends. No matter how much heat I feel, I will never say, "Since you, my creator, favor the stoning of gays, then such brutality must be just. I only wish an earthly person would have convinced me of this and then placed in my hand a few rocks that were light enough to get some muscle behind yet heavy enough to do significant damage to the face of a sodomizer."
If you eventually discover Sharia law is god's real preference, will you kick yourself for allowing your earthly wife to remain scarless after that Super Bowl party during which she without a doubt proved who wears the pants in your relationship by intensely glaring you into dropping what would have been your twelfth beer into the cooler and slowly walking away?
When you base your decisions on right and wrong, and bestow admiration on individuals whose actions you consider noble, future judgment is of no concern.
If I am wrong and find myself awaiting a meeting with my maker, I would be concerned, however, had I spent a lifetime judging the sinless, an act I felt in my heart was wrong, yet performed simply because I was convinced great reward would follow.
In Christian circles, atheists are considered immoral despite the fact that one of our biggest desires is making sure not a single life is negatively impacted by religion. Without fear of consequence and without regret, I would pridefully tell anyone, or anything, my earthly goal was championing human dignity.
One Stop Justification
Despite there being no correlation, religious people enjoy arguing that atheism causes communism and is therefore responsible for many deaths.
Of course the above argument is bogus, as is the argument that a robber is driven to hold up a convenience store because he or she doesn't believe in a specific deity.
Sure atheists have committed atrocities, but these butchers didn't claim they murdered based on words from the manual in which all true atheists must believe because no such manual exists.
Some religious people point to their favorite book and say, "See, throwing stones at her face until she stopped moving is exactly what I'm required to do."
According to the faithful, religion is needed to differentiate good from bad just as a history book is required to teach us that George Washington was the first President of the United States.
But religion doesn't incentivize good behavior; it comforts people who enjoy performing abhorrent acts.
Look at the amount of evil that's been perpetrated because individuals, who wish to think of themselves as noble, accept a book that either excuses or encourages despicable behavior. These folks have the audacity to claim that thoughtfully concluding a deity is not responsible for the universe is a gateway crime.
I'm always trying to figure out if the majority of people on this earth are inherently good, or if most simply have a natural desire to believe their actions are just.
Was religion formulated to control the masses, or because people wanted to selfishly harm others and sleep soundly once their oil lamps were extinguished?
In other words, religion could have been an early answer to the, "For making goo-goo eyes at that strong-jawed goat-herder, I wanna bust my wench of a wife upside the head with a large stone, yet am aware such brutality is immoral and get far more shuteye with a guilt free brain," dilemma.
One thing is certain: there's no limit to evil if the evildoer truly believes he is acting in the best interest of humanity.
People strive to achieve great wealth so they can afford to compensate a staff hired for the express purpose of serving their every non-erotic need. Why would a man go to the trouble of building a fortune when all that's required is accepting a certain religious work that plainly states the woman he wed is nothing more than a glorified employee who must grant his every wish, regardless of where it measures on the perversion scale?
Instinct, not belief in words drafted by ancient men, lets us know what's good and what's bad. When guilt consumed monsters desire to perform an act they're cognizant is cruel, they pick up a book that tells them, "It's okay - have at her. Trust whoever wrote this when they stated, 'they're called wifely 'duties' for a reason.'"
When people find themselves saying, "I know you could interpret my holy book in a way that makes the work appear evil, but I inexplicably choose to believe it promotes peace," it's time they contemplate following writings that leave no room for interpretation, or better yet, apply common sense to every situation. Religious works have directly led to unimaginable cruelty, yet moral devotees actively tout such writings with hope their fellow followers interpret them, "the good way."
Why not just promote words that unequivocally instruct everyone to refrain from harming their fellow man!?
It's such a simple concept, yet only 20% of my fellow countrypersons are with me!
Of course the above argument is bogus, as is the argument that a robber is driven to hold up a convenience store because he or she doesn't believe in a specific deity.
Sure atheists have committed atrocities, but these butchers didn't claim they murdered based on words from the manual in which all true atheists must believe because no such manual exists.
Some religious people point to their favorite book and say, "See, throwing stones at her face until she stopped moving is exactly what I'm required to do."
According to the faithful, religion is needed to differentiate good from bad just as a history book is required to teach us that George Washington was the first President of the United States.
But religion doesn't incentivize good behavior; it comforts people who enjoy performing abhorrent acts.
Look at the amount of evil that's been perpetrated because individuals, who wish to think of themselves as noble, accept a book that either excuses or encourages despicable behavior. These folks have the audacity to claim that thoughtfully concluding a deity is not responsible for the universe is a gateway crime.
I'm always trying to figure out if the majority of people on this earth are inherently good, or if most simply have a natural desire to believe their actions are just.
Was religion formulated to control the masses, or because people wanted to selfishly harm others and sleep soundly once their oil lamps were extinguished?
In other words, religion could have been an early answer to the, "For making goo-goo eyes at that strong-jawed goat-herder, I wanna bust my wench of a wife upside the head with a large stone, yet am aware such brutality is immoral and get far more shuteye with a guilt free brain," dilemma.
One thing is certain: there's no limit to evil if the evildoer truly believes he is acting in the best interest of humanity.
People strive to achieve great wealth so they can afford to compensate a staff hired for the express purpose of serving their every non-erotic need. Why would a man go to the trouble of building a fortune when all that's required is accepting a certain religious work that plainly states the woman he wed is nothing more than a glorified employee who must grant his every wish, regardless of where it measures on the perversion scale?
Instinct, not belief in words drafted by ancient men, lets us know what's good and what's bad. When guilt consumed monsters desire to perform an act they're cognizant is cruel, they pick up a book that tells them, "It's okay - have at her. Trust whoever wrote this when they stated, 'they're called wifely 'duties' for a reason.'"
When people find themselves saying, "I know you could interpret my holy book in a way that makes the work appear evil, but I inexplicably choose to believe it promotes peace," it's time they contemplate following writings that leave no room for interpretation, or better yet, apply common sense to every situation. Religious works have directly led to unimaginable cruelty, yet moral devotees actively tout such writings with hope their fellow followers interpret them, "the good way."
Why not just promote words that unequivocally instruct everyone to refrain from harming their fellow man!?
It's such a simple concept, yet only 20% of my fellow countrypersons are with me!
Eugenics Atheist Style
Leaders on both sides of the political aisle have used the United States military to make foreign nations better places in which to live through regime change, yet no one discusses purging fanatical theists who routinely kill the innocent based on orders from their holy books.
No legitimate leader or authority figure has ever proposed making it a priority to preemptively exterminate fanatical religious herds on their way to decapitate innocent people in response to whatever has angered the zealots that particular day. Governments sit back while the overtly religious violently scare the masses into submitting. None even make the case that such abhorrent people deserve to die before they can raise a single knife.
Eugenics is making the world a better place by wiping out the undesirable. Should we be asking if those who say, "My religion demands I kill you in response to the actions of persons with whom you have no connection" are desirable?
When people, who claim their holy book instructs them it's time to kill, mobilize, should there be armed troops nearby ready to save innocent lives by taking lives? It's not like nobody knows where these people live and what sets them off.
I'm sorry if infants are fed religious propaganda from the day they can comprehend words until the time they are capable of killing innocent persons in the name of their god, but does an unfortunate childhood mean we must wait for them to draw first blood.
Is, "UN Workers Killed by Religious Fanatics during Protest," a headline we must just accept?
Why hasn't a candidate proposed making sure, if he or she is elected, the above headline will be replaced with, "Allied Troops Slaughter Knife Wielding Herd en Route to UN Headquarters."?
Would the world be a better place with rulers who mercilessly exterminate theists willing to kill in the name of their religion? Would a majority of the noble smile if there were a leader who bashed in the heads of those looking to murder the innocent as Aldo Raine laughingly killed Nazis?
This candidate wouldn't even be required to speak or act against a specific religion due to the fact that the specific religion changes. Come to me and say you belong to a mainstream religion that stands for peace and I can point to historical periods of darkness so extreme you will lower your head and exit in shame. In other words, don't think, "She's not talking about my religion; she's talking about the religion practiced by the shady family across the street," because I'm talking about your religion and the religion practiced by the shady family across the street.
If no one is currently killing in the name of your religion, then you and such a leader would have no quarrel. You leave the innocent alone and he or she will leave you alone.
Why has no leader advocated for the formation of a special unit of elite fighters to combat the problem of religious based killings? When a Koran is burned in the United States and a sword wielding gang therefore gathers in the streets of Afghanistan, the machine gun equipped soldiers could be to the zealots as Indiana Jones was to the expert swordsman. When an interracial couple moves into a house down the block, members of the same unit could be waiting outside the homes of Bible toting Klansmen who have violence on the brain. Of course they couldn't stop every killing, but they sure could have fun trying.
Because they're the least likely to realize true peace cannot be achieved until extreme versions of their kind are wiped off the map, is it a shame people of religion continue winning elections?
It seems to me that some sort of solution is required other than instructing everyone to forever walk on eggshells because religious fanatics may eventually learn of your actions and take it out on innocent bystanders. Now that America is in the habit of killing to prevent death, it stands to reason we'd at least discuss doing everything in our power to save human beings from brutal beheadings at the hands of angry mobsters who claim a book told them that shedding innocent blood is the best way to serve their god.
Is it a noble action to murder someone at 1500 Kandahar Lane to make sure the international aid worker at 1550 Kandahar Lane doesn't have to quickly draft an email to friends and family members in which he or she relays the following unfortunate information, "in response to a news story about a kooky American and his penchant for burning books with which he disagrees, an angry mob is outside my door brandishing weapons sharp enough to cut through the entirety of my neck. Hopefully they will kill me quickly, but precedent suggests otherwise. Goodbye."
Will there be a point when the world so tires of religious fanaticism that someone in a prominent position finally suggests we get medieval on their asses? Because, despite the fact that you've done nothing to offend them, that's exactly what they'd enjoy doing to yours.
No legitimate leader or authority figure has ever proposed making it a priority to preemptively exterminate fanatical religious herds on their way to decapitate innocent people in response to whatever has angered the zealots that particular day. Governments sit back while the overtly religious violently scare the masses into submitting. None even make the case that such abhorrent people deserve to die before they can raise a single knife.
Eugenics is making the world a better place by wiping out the undesirable. Should we be asking if those who say, "My religion demands I kill you in response to the actions of persons with whom you have no connection" are desirable?
When people, who claim their holy book instructs them it's time to kill, mobilize, should there be armed troops nearby ready to save innocent lives by taking lives? It's not like nobody knows where these people live and what sets them off.
I'm sorry if infants are fed religious propaganda from the day they can comprehend words until the time they are capable of killing innocent persons in the name of their god, but does an unfortunate childhood mean we must wait for them to draw first blood.
Is, "UN Workers Killed by Religious Fanatics during Protest," a headline we must just accept?
Why hasn't a candidate proposed making sure, if he or she is elected, the above headline will be replaced with, "Allied Troops Slaughter Knife Wielding Herd en Route to UN Headquarters."?
Would the world be a better place with rulers who mercilessly exterminate theists willing to kill in the name of their religion? Would a majority of the noble smile if there were a leader who bashed in the heads of those looking to murder the innocent as Aldo Raine laughingly killed Nazis?
This candidate wouldn't even be required to speak or act against a specific religion due to the fact that the specific religion changes. Come to me and say you belong to a mainstream religion that stands for peace and I can point to historical periods of darkness so extreme you will lower your head and exit in shame. In other words, don't think, "She's not talking about my religion; she's talking about the religion practiced by the shady family across the street," because I'm talking about your religion and the religion practiced by the shady family across the street.
If no one is currently killing in the name of your religion, then you and such a leader would have no quarrel. You leave the innocent alone and he or she will leave you alone.
Why has no leader advocated for the formation of a special unit of elite fighters to combat the problem of religious based killings? When a Koran is burned in the United States and a sword wielding gang therefore gathers in the streets of Afghanistan, the machine gun equipped soldiers could be to the zealots as Indiana Jones was to the expert swordsman. When an interracial couple moves into a house down the block, members of the same unit could be waiting outside the homes of Bible toting Klansmen who have violence on the brain. Of course they couldn't stop every killing, but they sure could have fun trying.
Because they're the least likely to realize true peace cannot be achieved until extreme versions of their kind are wiped off the map, is it a shame people of religion continue winning elections?
It seems to me that some sort of solution is required other than instructing everyone to forever walk on eggshells because religious fanatics may eventually learn of your actions and take it out on innocent bystanders. Now that America is in the habit of killing to prevent death, it stands to reason we'd at least discuss doing everything in our power to save human beings from brutal beheadings at the hands of angry mobsters who claim a book told them that shedding innocent blood is the best way to serve their god.
Is it a noble action to murder someone at 1500 Kandahar Lane to make sure the international aid worker at 1550 Kandahar Lane doesn't have to quickly draft an email to friends and family members in which he or she relays the following unfortunate information, "in response to a news story about a kooky American and his penchant for burning books with which he disagrees, an angry mob is outside my door brandishing weapons sharp enough to cut through the entirety of my neck. Hopefully they will kill me quickly, but precedent suggests otherwise. Goodbye."
Will there be a point when the world so tires of religious fanaticism that someone in a prominent position finally suggests we get medieval on their asses? Because, despite the fact that you've done nothing to offend them, that's exactly what they'd enjoy doing to yours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)