So how long is Boehner going to bow down to his masters the Tea Party?  It appears they have his balls in a sling.  He comes up with a plan, gets Democrats to accept it, the Tea Party cries and says no – he changes his mind.  In the morning they’re ‘really close to an agreement’ in the evening ‘Sorry, I can’t even get my own party in line we’re no where near an agreement!’

Anyone who doesn’t think this entire issue is a fault of the Tea Party and again the Republican Party is deluding themselves.  This will be the second government shutdown that’s 100% the fault of Republicans.

I’d like to thank all of the morons that voted for the Tea Party.  You are morons – congratulations.

I keep hearing more and more about the supposed “mosque” in New York City at “ground zero” and how everything is “hallowed ground” etc.   First lets discuss the term ‘Mosque’, in a country full of ignorant people that term appears to strike fear into their hearts.   So of course we call it a mosque instead of the cultural center (read YMCA) that it really is.  So it has a Muslim prayer room?  So what.. so did at least one of the WTC Towers.  So we can throw out that it’s a mosque (Even though whether it is or not is really irrelevant, we’re just going to debase each point.)

So, not a mosque.  Secondly it’s not AT GROUND ZERO, it’s a few blocks from ground zero, and even for the ignorant masses this should make a difference.  Frankly, I don’t think it matters at all, but we’ll get to that in a minute.

Third, just because people die somewhere does not make it hallowed ground.  People died at Pearl Harbor, yet it’s still used as a military installation.  Native Americans died all over the United States in masses, yet we still build whatever we want on top of those graves.  Thousands died at WTC in 9-11, yet they still plan to build an office building back on the exact site where it was.  So hallowed ground the area is not.  Not even getting into the actual businesses that are already around the area.

So basically what EVERYTHING boils down to, is that people are scared of Muslims.  They blame Muslims for 9-11, yet they refuse to accept any atrocities or stupid things done by their own religion (Or at least people claiming to be of their religion, like the 9-11 Terrorists did.)

One day America will have to wake up and realize that MOST MUSLIMS ARE NOT EVIL.  Just like NOT ALL CHRISTIANS ARE EVIL (Only some of them.)

Calling yourself something and acting in a manner contrary to the system removes you from the group.   If you call yourself a Football Player and show up in Baseball Gear to play, you’re not going to end up on the same field as everyone else, although you may still try to make a football game of it on your own, you’re still not one of them.

You can keep ‘listening to your buddy Fred down the street’ about how Muslims teach this or that, or you can wake up and actually learn to read for yourself what their beliefs are, and the context at which it is written/read/and followed.

There are many things in the christian bible that can be taken in some pretty bad ways, ‘stoning your wife’ for example, and many others.  And if we followed Christian Law in the United States, who knows how far we’d go with it.   There’s a lot of things in the bible that would be considered morally wrong and therefore against the law if that were the law of the land.

The interview the other night with Soledad O’Brien was pathetic.  On Soledad’s part.  She was obviously baiting throughout the entire interview, attempting to get a sound bite.  Trying to suggest he works with terrorists, and accepts their money.  The person she is talking about I would assume was the Saudi Prince, who is also a co-owner over at Fox News.  And Fox news was strangely the first station to bring up the whole “Terrorist Financing” smoke screen.

In the end, it comes down to this – You have the right to complain about anything you wish, that doesn’t make you any less ignorant.  You can also have as many protests as you wish, that doesn’t mean the Government should step in and do anything about it.  They shouldn’t – and if they do, it’s not a Government worth having.

The Civil Rights movement did not end in 1964 with the passage of the Civil Rights Act. We still have many problems in the United States and worldwide providing civil rights. In the United States we have recently passed laws that restrict certain persons freedom to marry. Other countries have issues on a different scale that infringe on persons rights of human dignity or in some cases their right to live. While it appears many in America believe that the movement was over with the Civil Rights Act it is an ongoing fight continuing to this day. Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech “I Have A Dream” in August 1963 talks about the “self-evident truths” that the United States was founded on, that all men are created equal. Bob Dylan, a very active supporter of the civil rights movement in the 1960’s, discusses his thoughts in his song “Blowin’ In The Wind” actively voicing his concern with the lack of fair treatment of all people.

In the most recent general election in California a significant portion of the population came together to vote to restrict the civil rights of a select group of American citizens. The homosexual minority in America is being singled out due to a religious belief that they are an abomination and should not have the same privileges as a heterosexual couple. While some people in America do not see anything wrong with their disgraceful vote, it is no different then other dark times in American history when blacks were not allowed to marry whites, and in some cases each other. An opinion piece on Time’s website made the point that “Remember that it took until 1967 for the U.S. Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional the anti-miscegenation laws that remained on the books in 16 states—and that Alabama still didn’t repeal its law until five years ago.” (Lee-St. John). In an effort to point out the similarities between gay marriage bans and black marriage bans. Until 1967 well after the Civil Rights Act had been passed it was still illegal for blacks to marry whites, it was considered an abomination.

Many other countries have civil rights issues that some would believe make American issues appear small in comparison, but while they might be more severe all civil rights issues should hold the same weight. Whether it is life or freedom that hangs in the balance we should all have the right to live a free life that does not harm or infringe on others. We have also been blind to some of the issues that everyone tends to believe only happen overseas happening in the United States. The prostitution slave trade has been brought into our own borders here at home. A New York Times article claims that while we do not see the trade occurring it isn’t any different then the original American slave trade:

In prior eras, the slave trade was conducted openly, with ads prominently posted and the slaves paraded and inspected like animals, often at public auctions. Today’s sex traffickers, the heirs to that tradition, try to keep their activities hidden, although the rest of the sex trade, the sale of the women’s services, is advertised on a scale that can only be characterized as colossal.

(Herbert)

Americans have a hard time fighting for something they do not see, until it is exposed enough in the popular media to make them take action. The African slave trade was open and public, but it took enough people pointing out the injustice before the population was ready to act, something further hindered by the amounts of money that were involved. Other countries are attempting to deal with this and more, but their issues carry an enormous amount of money behind them, making it more beneficial to try and keep things quiet.

In 1963 at the height of the civil rights movement tensions between races were extremely strained. Martin Luther King Jr. gave his famous speech to over 250,000 civil rights supporters in Washington D.C. proclaiming that:

And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back … No, no, we are not satisfied and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a might stream … Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends. And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. (King 151-152)

King asks those oppressed by a lack of civil rights to continue to fight for their dreams. He encourages them to not be satisfied with a compromise on their rights, they must continue to fight until they have truly reached their goals. These very strong words have been the backbone for civil rights, and his speech continues to motivate people to do the right thing even to this day.

Another outspoken civil rights supporter in the 1960’s was the singer and songwriter Robert Allen Zimmerman better known by his stage name Bob Dylan. Dylan believed that music should send a message to the listener and used the civil rights movement as much as it used him during his young career. In 1962 Dylan wrote “Blowin’ in the Wind” with very potent lyrics:

How many years can a mountain exist
Before it’s washed to the sea?
Yes, ‘n’ how many years can some people exist
Before they’re allowed to be free?
Yes, ‘n’ how many times can a man turn his head,
Pretending he just doesn’t see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind,
The answer is blowin’ in the wind. (Dylan)

The message in these words is very clear as he points out that black people are not free, and on the next line he adds that the public just turns a blind eye and act as if they can’t see what is happening before their eyes. Dylan became such a strong advocate in the 1960’s that he eventually had to take a break from his civil rights era songs as he ended up feeling forced in one direction in his music.

We should all be pushing for civil rights to be equal among all peoples regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation or any other difference that may arise between groups of people. Without equal rights for all we can never be truly free and should not believe the human race has achieved the goal of being moral. Although differences are bound to appear throughout our future, America should be a nation of acceptance and not one of intolerance.  The United States was founded on a majority of great ideas with the possibility to become better as time progressed and perspectives changed.  We need to build on the good foundation that our country has and become the truly great nation that we can be.

Works Cited

King, Martin Luther Jr. “I Have A Dream.” speeches that changed the world. London: Smith-Davies Publishing, 2005.

Dylan, Bob. “Blowin’ In the Wind.” The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan. Columbia, 1963.

Herbert, Bob. “Today’s Hidden Slave Trade.” Nytimes.com. October 27, 2007. December 07, 2008. <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/27/opinion/27herbert.html>

Lee-St. John, Jeninne. “Viewpoint: Civil Rights and Gay Rights” Time.com. October 25, 2005. December 07, 2008. <http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1121811,00.html>

Gay Rights fight not different than Civil Rights fight in the 60's

Gay marriage is currently one of the most controversial issues facing our society that is having a polarizing effect after the most recent election. The traditional family advocates believe that they are entitled to protect their idea and sanctity of marriage. The gay rights activists believe they have the right to be treated as equals in society. One compromise would be to rewrite the current laws for people to join together in a civil union, instead of marriage.

Traditional family advocates believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. Their supporters believe that allowing gay marriage would open up the possibility for people to push for more rights for more untraditional methods of marriage, such as with animals or small children. They believe that a child needs to be raised in a traditional setting with a mother and a father and should not be confused at a young age. If gay couples are allowed to marry and raise children they believe it is likely that the children’s sexual orientation will change to match their parents.

There are many that believe that defining marriage would not be discrimination. Robert H. Knight the draftsman of the federal Defense of Marriage Act writes:

Marriage laws are not discriminatory. Marriage is open to all adults, subject to age and blood relation limitations. As with any acquired status, the applicant must meet minimal requirements, which in terms of marriage, means finding an opposite-sex spouse. Same-sex partners do not qualify. To put it another way, clerks will not issue dog licenses to cats, and it is not out of “bigotry” toward cats. (Knight).

Knight clearly believes that banning marriage for homosexual’s is not taking away rights, but keeping a set of standards for marriage that he believes are best.

The religious supporters against gay marriage believe that males and females are on earth to procreate and anything else would be against God. They firmly believe that God disapproves of this behavior and condoning it will bring his wraith down on the United States. They also believe that marriage is a sacrament made with God, and since God disapproves of homosexuality, then it is impossible for a gay marriage to take place. They believe it is morally wrong to support gay marriage and do not believe the government should legally allow the couples in gay relationships to have legitimacy.

Gay rights advocates believe that a marriage should be open to any person that wants to marry another person. They believe that two willing people should be able to permanently commit to each other as a straight couple can. Supporters of gay rights point to the fact that many children are raised in a non-traditional family with only one parent or stepparents. Gay couples know that they are born into their sexual orientation and don’t believe that it can pass on to children they may adopt in the future. Proponents of gay marriage believe the government should recognize homosexual relationships as morally equivalent to marriage as they have in other once forbidden relationships.

There are those that argue that taking away marriage is a block to a persons civil rights. The American Civil Liberties Union on the subject of gay marriage says:

Same-sex couples are harmed when their relationships are not protected through marriage. All couples should be able to access the benefits and responsibilities of legally-recognized relationships, such as health insurance, unemployment compensation, immigration status, family leave, inheritance, hospital visitation, and much more. The Project’s goal is to obtain full legal recognition of LGBT relationships through domestic partnerships, civil unions, and, ultimately, marriage. (ACLU).

They clearly believe that not allowing gay marriage for couples that wish to be married is a direct violation of their civil rights and will fight for it.

Many supporters of gay rights are religious persons and believe that God understands the gay lifestyle and while they are not able to bear children many of them would choose to adopt if given the opportunity. Gay rights advocates believe this will help the United States to be a more accepting nation and will become a better place for it. Those that believe in God believe that he would accept their choice to marry, and will not condemn them for how they were born.

While there are many areas between these two groups that clash unavoidably, there are many areas where they agree but may not be open enough to notice. Both groups believe that a person marrying a child or animal or anything else that is unable to give consent is wrong. Many from both groups believe in God and believe he has a place in their life, and helps guide them in their actions. They both agree that a child needs to be raised in a loving home. They also both believe in the fundamental rights inherent with civil rights. With so many points in agreement it seems a compromise would be a possibility with some guidance.

While there are many compromises that have been suggested for gay marriage, neither group has been able to accept the terms. Some traditional family advocates have suggested a separate but equal stance where gay couples are allowed to enter into a union of sorts without calling it a marriage, but others still believe that would be conceding the fight and do not wish for any government acknowledgements. Gay rights advocates are willing to start with a civil union in the fashion that the traditional family advocates would allow, but have stated strongly that they will still continue to fight for a full marriage acknowledgement even after they are given that right.

One middle ground stance on the issue would be to remove marriage from the government completely. Instead of having the government recognize a marriage they could recognize a civil union for everyone without making a distinction between gay or straight couples. With this change in place the laws would change to protect everyone and marriage would be left up to the church where it was started in the first place. There are many churches that do not have a problem with homosexual relationships and would be willing to marry a gay couple, but there would be no law forcing a church to unwillingly marry a gay couple that they did not agree with. Changing the law is the only way to keep marriages right in the churches eyes, and the best way for everyone to receive the same rights under the law.

Works Cited

Knight, Robert H. Talking Points on Marriage. Culture & Family Institute.

22 Nov. 2008 <http://www.nogaymarriage.com/talkingpoints.html>.

Who We Are: Relationships and Marriage. American Civil Liberties Union – Lesbian

Gay Bisexual Transgender & AIDS Project. 22 Nov. 2008 <http://www.aclu.org/getequal/aboutus.html>.

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-tea-party-leaders-consider-forming-volunteer-militia/article/3453427

Even one of the Tea Party Chapter leaders himself says that people should be scared.  And he thinks it’s a good thing!  It hard living around a bunch of wack jobs.

Glenn Beck has been popping up all over Facebook recently.  On pages like http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/pages/Can-this-DOUCHE-get-more-fans-than-Glenn-Beck/314868462495?ref=ts or the currently way more popular http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/pages/Can-this-poodle-wearing-a-tinfoil-hat-get-more-fans-than-Glenn-Beck/334162806080?ref=ts .  I say more power to them.  The word needs to get out that Glenn Beck is a moron.  Eventually people will understand, even his brain dead current set of listeners.

A Health Care reform bill recently passed the House of Representatives, with one Republican backer.  The bill is now set to move on to the Senate where it will sit and die because Democrats are too scared to do anything good for the country, for fear of losing their seats.  It appears they do not realize they will lose their seats regardless if they do not do anything and look weak.

When did this country stop listening to the VOTERS and start listening to the nutjobs that show up at Town Hall meetings?  If these people were so passionate about not having health care reform, they had their chance to show up and vote for the ‘other guys’ when the elections were going on.  They didn’t, we elected a President and Congress on health care reform platforms, then our elected leaders start listening to the minority and decide they are no longer in support of health care.

So why again do we even have elections?  Let’s just randomly pick some guy to go to DC, when he is there, whoever yells the loudest can have what they want.

The “fear” of Obama indoctrination was in the news again recently.  This time not for something he was going to do, or had recently done, but something that happened over nine months ago.

A school in New Jersey ( B. Bernice Young Elementary School )  Taught their children songs that were “Pro-Obama” after sending home and receiving back permission slips from the parents of those involved.  The amount of media coverage, and outcry at the time of the production – Zero.

The media outlet reporting on this “affront” was none other then Fox News.

Some further reading on this topic, that was written after Fox made a big deal out of it, the best part are the ignorant comments at the bottom.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/24/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5335819.shtml

(Intentionally posted late to coincide with the amount of time it took Fox to report on this tragedy)

Tin Foil Hats Arm Up!

Well the day has finally come. Today Obama will indoctrinate your children in his liberal ways. Ensuring the survival of his cause, and moving toward your feared world of “White slavery.”

In other news… The President is going to speak to the school children of the United States in a non-partisan way, that other Presidents before him have done on more then one occasion. Put on your tinfoil hats people, someone from Texas said that he will be placing subliminal socialist messages in with the video!

When will the conservatives realize that making your fringe right-wing popular isn’t the best idea? Everyone knows there are fringe left-wing nuts, but there aren’t (Fox) news stations out there agreeing with them and giving them legitimacy. Therein lies the difference.

There are many arguments for and against the separation of Church and State in the United States. Some focus on what our Founding Fathers wanted, others focus on what is best for the country, and others believe that God has no place in our current government. No matter what your faith, or lack of, there has been evidence throughout history that mixing faith with government is generally a bad idea. Our current government is one that attempts to keep most matters of state separate from religion, but there have been times that those lines seem to be blurring and coming together. This is something that cannot continue for the success of our way of life, and our freedoms that we enjoy in the United States of America.

So-called “Christian Nationalists” believe that the United States should support their Christian religion nationally and in government. They argue that the founding fathers wanted a Christian society, and would be for religion in government. The fundamental flaw in this argument being that the founding fathers specifically worded the constitution in a way that there could not be a national religion. The founding fathers were immigrants from European countries that a majority decided to leave because of their countries oppressive religious governments.

As stated by Austin Cline, “The American government was not designed or set up in any way, shape, or form under the guidance of heaven or in the service of any gods. Government is instituted by humans and for humans, not by gods and for gods. The authority of government stems from the authority of human beings, not from the authority of churches, church leaders, self-proclaimed spokesmen for gods, or indeed any gods themselves.” (1) Which is referencing many written thoughts of our founding fathers that believed religion should be freely practiced in the privacy of ones own home or church. Forcing people to live under one religion is not living in a state of nature, as the founding fathers intended for the United States.

As a matter of public policy in the support of human rights, the United States attempts to promote the freedom of religion with other nations. This might actually be more successful if our own President were promoting the same here at home. In his 2004 State of the Union address, President Bush made a new call for Congress to make his faith-based proposals permanent that would allow religious organizations to compete for more government grants and contracts without a separation between their religious activities and social programs. In essence giving religious groups funding to promote their religion at the same time as helping the population, giving the impression that they have the backing of the United States government. Although the administration has not admitted to backing a specific religion, President Bush has made it clear that he is a Christian and is working for their support. Supported by his first act during his administration as stated by Alan Dershowitz from the Los Angeles Times “The very first act of the new Bush administration was to have a Protestant Evangelist minister officially dedicate the inauguration to Jesus Christ, whom he declared to be ‘our savior.’ Invoking ‘the Father, the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ’ and ‘the Holy Spirit,’ Billy Graham’s son, the man selected by President George W Bush to bless his presidency, excluded the tens of millions of Americans who are Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Shintoists, Unitarians, agnostics, and atheists from his blessing by his particularistic and parochial language.” Our President, arguably the most powerful man in the world, promoting the Christian religion in public speeches, doesn’t sound like he supports freedom of religion.

As if that is not enough we are also subjected to comments from other political figures, including the attorney general John Ashcroft who stated that America has “no king but Jesus.” Or another John Ashcroft quote “We are a nation called to defend freedom- freedom that is not the grant of any government or document, but is our endowment from God.” When you have an entire administration that is blatantly going against the constitution by basically creating a national religion through comments and the overt backing of certain religious beliefs, it becomes a lot harder to maintain any type of separation between church and state.

Keeping the government separated from matters of religion is one of the most important issues we have today. Without a separation we cannot truly be a free society. Would it be freedom to be forbidden from speaking out against a god that you do not believe in? Freedom has to allow for the population to practice whichever religion they choose to, or choose not to. If we start backing specific religions over others we will end up no better off than countries like Saudi Arabia, that have to fear for their life if they choose not to believe in Islam. Saudi Arabia and Iran should be considered a standard for what can happen when religion and politics mix together unabashed. Their streets are filled with religious police, and just about every law they follow comes from their religious doctrine. According to the State Department website, Mutawwa (or Religious Police) in Saudi Arabia, can request proof that a couple is married or related and if not and they deem it appropriate a woman can be arrested for socializing with a man who is not a relative and charged with prostitution.

It is clear that our society necessitates a separation of church and state. If we want to continue to live in our free society, with standards of conduct above those of most civilized nations, we should continue to promote the separation that our founding fathers intended. When we fall victim to certain sects of society and abandon our minority groups and other free thinkers we will erode into a society where free thought is a crime. Continuing to separate our churches from our government is essential for our children and grandchildren.

References

1. http://atheism.about.com/b/a/258197.htm
2. Alan M Dershowitz, in “Bush Starts Off by Defying the the Constitution,” Los Angeles Times, January 24, 2001
3. Christopher Hutchens “God is not Great” Page 49
4. Sam Harris “The End of Faith” Page 154
5. http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1012.html