Posts Tagged homophobia

Corporations No Longer Need Republicans To Do Their Bidding

The greedy, corporate, tax-evading pricks over at Apple Inc.said that they will not offer computers and other technological support to the Republican National Convention this coming July because of Trump’s comments about women, immigrants and minorities. The decision by one of the United States’ largest and most popular companies is the biggest corporate defection from the Republican convention, where the party will formally nominate Donald Trump.

News outlets and Clinton supporters are beside themselves with joy, seeing this as a significant win for progressive groups, which are pressuring major companies to boycott the convention over Trump.

And I am beside myself with outrage at how fucking naive and stupid people actually are.

The truth of the matter is that Apple will not endorse the RNC, not because of Trump’s stance on women and immigrants, whom they could not give a flying fuck about given their track record of running slave labor overseas and evading taxes here, but becasue Apple and all these corporations don’t need the Republicans anymore to do their bidding!!!

Hillary will be taking care of that from now on, just like she always has been.

And you know why? Because Hillary Fucking Clinton is a corporate shill and essentially a moderate Republican. She would have been a rising star in Ronald Reagan’s administration.

I really cannot believe how utterly deluded and naive people are. I cannot believe that they are buying this bullshit about corporations like Apple and all having finally turned a new leaf.

They have not.

And they are not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, or because they care about immigrants, women, blacks or anyone. They are doing it becasue a Clinton presidency is not going to hurt their bottom line, and they know it.  They do not care what the party they support is called as long as it helps them.

I mean, even the Koch Brothers have endorsed Clinton. the KOCH BROTHERS, who are the poster child of sinister corporate greed.

People need to realize that all those Republicans distancing  themselves from Trump are not doing so becasue they necessarily disagree with Trump’s stances on women, immigrants, the poor, blacks and what have you. They do so because the crass way Trump says things makes them look back. It is much harder to get even stupid people on your side and to vote against their own self interest when you are blatantly homophobic, misogynistic and racist and thus bigoted.

Trump is not saying anything out loud that the Republicans have not been dog-whistling about to their constituents and “shareholders” and creating policies for, for decades now using polite language and euphemisms. They just don’t like him becasue Trump’s crassness is so off-putting to people.

And the goes for Apple.

It would look really bad for Apple Inc to endorse Trump. No one would buy the stupid, overpriced shit anymore and people would start boycotting them too.

I am really dismayed at the state of affairs lately. It is like everyone has fallen into this collective stupor that does not allow them to see things for what they are. It is like as a nation we are digging ourselves ever deeper into a mess of our own creation.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

“Let’s Not Demonize a Man’s Tools”

“In the wake of the horrific Orlando shooting that claimed the lives of 49 people and saw countless others injured, “Pink Pistol“, an LGBT self defense and gun rights organization, issued this utterly ridiculous statement:

GUNS did not do this. A human being did this, a dead human being. Our job now is not to demonize the man’s tools, but to condemn his acts and work to prevent such acts in the future.”

Gwendolyn Patton, First Speaker of the Pink Pistols.

Demonize a man’s tools.

Wow.

Now we are hurting the feelings of guns, it would appear.

This is nothing but the old spiel about how it is not guns that kill people, but people that kill people.  Which is bullshit and a fallacious, not to mention overly simplistic, argument.

While it is true that it was a person who picked up the gun and made the decision to mass murder those people, it is  easy access to guns that is ultimately allowing such mass shootings to take place in the first place.

I have said this before and I will repeat it again: banning guns does not make us a less violent society. It is just that guns allow violence committed to be more brutal, more violent and bloodier. It is much harder to mass murder people with knives and machetes than it is with guns, especially assault rifles.

So while it is true that people carry out the attacks, the tools used to carry out those attacks do matter. If they did not, then we would just not regulate arms or ammunition of any kind at all. Then ordinary citizens could own tanks and grenades and machine guns and missiles and nukes. Because ‘hey, it is people that kill people’, right?  And not missiles/tanks/bombs.

Wrong. They are banned because overall they pose a public health and safety concern and therefore must be regulated. Like food and pharmaceuticals and safe child seats and clean water and air etc. All those things exist becasue of regulation.

Now it was about time that gun follow suit and also got banned. Overall, the cost of public gun ownership is too high and does not justify the rather meager benefits.

At the PBS Newshour last week President Obama assured a concerned audience member that he or Hillary do not “want to take away [our] guns.

That is when I realized just how utterly powerful the gun lobby has been in this country that no matter how horrific the gun violence incidences, including the mass massacre of children,  no one, no one, is willing to stand up to the NRA and even suggest the radical notion that maybe we should consider banning all guns while reexamining the validity and benefit of the  Second Amendment on American society today.

“We dont want to take your guns away” is not the right answer Mr. President. We have to ban guns. That is the only way we will significantly reduce gun violence. It doesn’t matter that people can still get them illegally. Being able to get something legally versus illegally makes a huge difference in terms of the number of guns circulating. Making something illegal just makes it harder to obtain. It is no ‘no big deal’.

And fuck the Second Amendment. Really. It was written for a different time and for different reasons and for a different peoples and a different America and the only reason it is being cited by gun nuts as a right today, is because of gun manufacturers and the  gun lobby leading to the misguided interpretation of the Second Amendment by our equally misguided Supreme Court. 

It seems like we are just going in loops: a shooting happens, some hack steps forward whining about  why “the good guys” like them, who allegedly use guns responsibly, should be “punished” for the mistakes of others, saying trite shit like ‘people kill people, not guns blah blah blah’, just so everyone shuts up like they had a point, just so we can repeat the same discussion next time around. And again. And again. And again…and then we wonder why nothing changes. 

Thing is: there is no such thing as responsible gun ownership. That is a myth. Guns are tools designed to kill. They serve no other purpose. A responsible, decent person doesn’t need guns in their everyday life to begin with. And  I have this suspicion that anyone who thinks they are a decent guy who needs to own guns to get by, is secretly hoping to have to use them one day.

Finally, background checks (and mental illness checks) don’t work: Mental illness reporting and “checks” (whatever that is supposed to entail) are a gross violation of a person’s privacy and with it dignity. And background checks don’t work because a lot of the shooters did not have police records and thus a negative background. The Sandy Hook shooter had a clean background and would have fallen through any kind of radar and so would most of the mass shooters of late. None of them had shady, criminal backgrounds. They were not the “wrong” people to own a gun, until they were.

So background checks don’t really do anything but give people on the other side a false sense of security and that someone is being held accountable here, when in reality these checks are so pointless in reducing gun violence, we may as well save ourselves the money and not bother with them at all.

And mental illness checks will do nothing but add more stigma to mental illness, further demonizing the already vulnerable, stigmatized mentally ill who, by the way, are more likely to be the victims of violence than its perpetrators.

The only way we can and will put an end to this fuckery is by BANNING ALL GUNS. Everything else is just self aggrandizing bullshit while pandering to the stupid masses and the damn gun lobby that’s turned gun ownership into a virtue and necessity via vile propaganda, lies and scapegoating.

If we don’t stop “demonizing” that man’s tool, the gun, as PInk Pistol put it oh so romantically, then nothing will change and we’ll be having the same discussion for another 50 years. 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

The Death of A Wretched Human Being: Antonin Scalia

downloadLast week, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died at the age of 79 in some luxury resort in West Texass. He did not pay to stay at that luxury resort owned by John B. Poindexter,  a Texas native and decorated Vietnam veteran who owns Houston-based J.B. Poindexter & Co., a manufacturing firm with  seven subsidiaries and a  combined annual revenue of nearly $1 billion. Poindexter told The Washington Post that Scalia was not charged for his stay, something he described as a policy for all guests at the ranch.

I did not pay for the Justice’s trip to Cibolo Creek Ranch,” Poindexter wrote in a brief email Tuesday. “He was an invited guest, along with a friend, just like 35 others.”

A friend, indeed.

One of Poindexter’s companies was involved in a case that made it to the high court. Last year, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case involving an age discrimination lawsuit filed against one of these companies, court records show.

Is it just mere coincidence that a year later we see a Justice of that very same court invited to the luxurious home/ranch of the owner of the company involved in a case which the Supreme Court refused to hear?

Nothing about who Scalia was suggests that it could be a mere coincidence. What is for certain, however, is that it constitutes a conflict of interest.

Interesting to note is that this was not the first time Scalia acted unethically (that we know of).  In 2004, he joined then-Vice President Richard B. Cheney on a hunting trip while Cheney was the subject of a lawsuit over his energy task force, and in response to calls that he sit out the case, Scalia issued a highly unusual 21-page argument explaining why he refused to do so.

While judges have to file financial disclosure statements, including reporting of gifts they receive and disclosing when someone who is not a relative gives them “transportation, lodging, food, or entertainment” worth a certain amount (see 1978 Ethics in Government Act passed in the wake of the Watergate scandal), there is really no one who enforces that. And while every other federal judge below the Supreme Court and the decision about whether or not they should be recused from cases where there could be a potential conflict of interest is potentially subject to the review of a higher judge or other judges on his court, no one reviews the decision of a Justice and thus Supreme Court justices essentially become the final arbiters of whether or not to recuse themselves from cases that may constitute a conflict of interest.

Why am I bringing this up on the day of Antonin Sacalia’s funeral? Because while much of the mainstream press was quickly lining up to offer glowing commemorations of his career as a public servant and brilliant man, I want to be sure that Scalia’s destructive judicial legacy is  not completely whitewashed.

He was an extraordinary individual and jurist, admired and treasured by his colleagues”…  Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr  said in a statement confirming Justice Scalia’s death. “His passing is a great loss to the Court and the country he so loyally served.”

No it is not. Antonin Scalia’s death is great news and this nation’s salvation. He did not serve this country loyally.  On the contrary,  he used and abused his position in the highest court of the land to align himself with power, against the powerless.

Scalia was a contemptible human being who once during oral arguments in a pivotal affirmative action case suggested that African American students might belong at less rigorous schools than their white peers, and that perhaps the University of Texas should have fewer black students in its ranks.

He decided his cases based on what the Catholic church preaches about women and reproduction.

He repeatedly and casually equated LGBT and its advocates to apologists for incest, rape, bestiality, child pornography and murder.

He has been nothing but an antagonist to social justice ever since he took seat on that bench/ivory tower of his. Heck, his last official act was denying a stay of execution.

Scalia’s death is not a loss to this nation or the Supreme Court. Scalia was the disease that’s been gnawing and eating away at our Democracy like a malignancy.  His death is our salvation as a nation.

And that is what I have to say about him on this day of his funeral.

May he rest in the hell he believed in so much and which he created for others during his short time in this world.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Why There Is A Problem With Religion

6iu7kgL

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Brad Pitt Mother’s Anti Same-Sex Marriage, Anti Obama, Anti Abortion Letter to the Editor

Last month, the News-Leader in Springfield, Missouri, published a reader’s letter asking voters to reject Mitt Romney because of his Mormon faith.

In response, a woman named Jane Pitt, the mother of Springfield-born actor and gay marriage activist Brad Pitt, wrote a response lambasting the letter, “Barack Hussein Obama” and marriage equality.

She said:

I have given much thought to Richard Stoecker’s letter (“Vote for Mormon against beliefs,” June 15). I am also a Christian and differ with the Mormon religion.

But I think any Christian should spend much time in prayer before refusing to vote for a family man with high morals, business experience, who is against abortion, and shares Christian conviction concerning homosexuality just because he is a Mormon.

Any Christian who does not vote or writes in a name is casting a vote for Romney’s opponent, Barack Hussein Obama — a man who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for years, did not hold a public ceremony to mark the National Day of Prayer, and is a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage.

I hope all Christians give their vote prayerful consideration because voting is a sacred privilege and a serious responsibility.

Ah yes, religious people.

This is yet another piece of evidence, in a long list of pieces of evidence,  of why religion is just bad for human kind. Bad, bad, bad – in every imaginable way possible. It is like a cult, no it is a cult, that has taken over like the fucking invasion of the bodysnatchers or something. Everyone is either doing it, for it, advocating it or apologizing for it (i.e. “but no not all religious people are like that“). Umm., yes they are. Some just aren’t vocal about it but they all believe the same kind of crap essentially.

Jane Pitt is entitled to her opinion and she is also entitled to send letters to editors if she wants or, for that matter, use any other means possible to make her opinions known. This is a free country after all where even uneducated, ignorant women like her have the right to say what is on their mind.

But this isn’t about freedom of speech. This is about a bigot once again engaging in hate speech and advocating for the discrimination of a group of people (i.e. gays) she doesn’t know and who have not done her any harm, under the guise of free speech.  This is bigtory and narrow mindedness at its height and the fact that she is the mother of a famous person is problematic because there is real impact associated with her name. In other words, people will listen to her bigoted shit and she is not someone anyone should listen to.

Being entitled to your own opinion does not mean you are also entitled to your own facts.

What exactly about her letter is ignorant, uneducated and hateful you ask? I find this particular passage quite revealing:

[Romney is] a man with high morals, business experience, who is against abortion, and shares Christian conviction concerning homosexuality

The truth is that Romney is not a man with high moral convictions. His company and business practices (corporate raiding) have rendered tens of thousands of people, if not more, jobless and destitute. Yeah sure, he didn’t pull the trigger on them, like the Unabomber – whom Harvard did not even want to mention in its alumni directory – but his actions have caused hardship, sickness and even death to thousands of people. Thus they carry weight and consequences far from that of a man with “high moral convictions. ” And I promise you they won’t take Rommey’s name off the Harvard alumni directory.

The only business experience Romney has is acquiring companies, loading them up with debt, pushing them into bankruptcy, then laying people off and canceling their health benefits. As governor of Massachusetts he did the same thing: his party ruined the economy, he cut education, raised fees on the middle class to benefit the wealthy and his state ranked 47 in job creation.

The stud, his blood-drawing, vial-of-blood-around-the-neck piece and his homophobic bigot of a mother.

Mitt Romney is also not against abortion, nor could he cares less about the unborn or even born – as clearly expemlpified by his track record.  Mitt Romney is a narrow-minded, religious bigot and misogynist who, in essence, has no respect for women and love for womanhood in essence. Sure, he loves his wife, as long as she doesn’t overstep her boundaries and knows her place I guess. But his support of cuts for Planned Parenthood -whose majority of work consists of disease prevention and health promotion and very little abortion – and his support of the recent anti-woman legislation including the transvaginal ultrasound probing of women who seek an abortion, speak volumes about him and his views on women.

So, this isn’t about abortion and he is using abortion – like all misogynists do – as a stepping stone for his political agenda. If he cared about the unborn, he would not enact policies or advocate for enacting policies that leave their parents destitute. Just being against abortion but fucking people over after they are born is not a sign of high moral character.

Finally, his “Christian” convictions on homosexuality are that gays should be treated as second class citizens and human beings and if he could he would round them all up – like that baptist pastor advocated a few weeks ago – and cage them behind electrified fences until “they die out.”

The fact that despite all the evidence supporting the contrary, Brad Pitt’s fucking mother – who is a stupid, uneducated woman apparently not knowing much of anything – thinks that Romney is just a great guy and faithful Christian with a high moral character is what is truly upsetting here. In other words, the ignorance is that woman’s letter is mind boggingly staggering. And the fact that she sends a letter to the editor scolding people who don’t want to vote for Romney based on the above mentioned criteria as bad people and bad Christians, trying to shame them, is what is even more infuriating. There certainly is nothing Christ-like about this woman.

When she puts something like that out there, people have every right – and in her case every duty – to speak up.

Furthermore, with celebrity and fame comes power and with power comes responsibility. Jane Pitt knows her credibility goes up when she uses her name that is associated to her A-lister son.  There is no way she was not aware of this when she send in the letter. In the day and age of celebrity gossip and TMZ it is beyond naive to think that as a a celebrity or the relative of a celebrity, the things you do and say will go unnoticed.

Now the minions and faithful followers of her son in this country  have a real dilema: do they listen to the mother of the hottest man alive and superb actor who’s about to marry the greatest humanitarian with a gold plated  vagina and uterus of all times, or do they think for themselves?

Three things  To Get Out of This

1) Religion is bad for people, no matter what. I present to you exhibit number 345,667,567: Jane Pitt

2) Brad Pitt should be seriously ashamed of his mother. I mean really…ashamed to the ground.

3) Now I really hope Shiloh is going to turn out to be either a full-blown bull dyke or transgender candidate to make her Christian grandmother with Chrisitan values and a high moral character very, very proud.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Comments

Kirk Cameron Joins the Ranks of Washed-Up Celebrity Bigots

The fuckery of religious people, much like stupidity, has no bounds. Aside from the majority of the general population –  that I frankly don’t really expect much out of – now also politicians, entertainers and even washed up celebrities have fallen for the Dark Side (religion and all the liabilities thereof) and they continue interjecting the darkness onto all aspects of everyone’s life, falsely calling their perpetuation of bigotry and hatred,  “freedom of speech” and “freedom to religion.”

The latest example of public figure bigotry (for today that is. New, famous bigots seem to pop up every other day), is Kirk Cameron – former child star and teen heartthrob of the popular TV sitcom Growing Painsevangelical nut job extraordinaire and current washed up celebrity tool for bigotry with nothing worthwhile to his name for the past decade but religiously themed movies and advocating far-right Christian evangelical causes.

Kirk Cameron, before the fall

A couple of years ago, he distributed 50,000 copies of an altered version of Darwin’s On the Origins of Species at dozens of U.S. universities to convince students that what they really need in life is not knowledge and facts, but myth, fairy tales and bigotry. His altered version  contained an introduction explaining  “Adolf Hitler’s undeniable connection” to the theory of evolution, and highlighting “Darwin’s racism” and “his disdain for women.” Cameron’s edition also exposes the “many hoaxes” of evolutionary theory, while presenting a “balanced view of Creationism.”

A couple of weeks ago, he stepped into a firestorm of controversy when he appeared on Pierce Morgan explaining that he believes that homosexuality is “unnatural” and “ultimately destructive.” He said: “I think that it’s detrimental, and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.”

On the issue of marriage equality Cameron remarked, “Marriage was defined by God a long time ago. Marriage is almost as old as dirt, and it was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve — one man, one woman for life till death do you part. So I would never attempt to try to redefine marriage. And I don’t think anyone else should either. So do I support the idea of gay marriage? No, I don’t.

After his deluge of unfounded insults and bigotry, Cameron actually had the nerve to complain about how unfair it is all  to him actually, since he doesn’t get to just freely express his “opinion” anymore and gets judged for them and how religion is so much under attack, making it really hard for him and the rest of the Evangelicals to express their bigotry and ignorance unhindered. He was complaining that liberals and atheists (the religious Rights’ favorite fall guys acting on behalf of Satan apparently) were trying to restrict religious freedom and were interfering in peoples’ lives and their right to religion.

Yes, dear readers, there is nothing like an unembarrassed hypocrite from the Right. It is certainly hilarious (I am hemorrhaging on the inside) that he should criticize Darwin for his alleged “disdain for women” when it has been Evangelical Christians like Cameron that  have been debasing and degrading women for centuries and continue to do so even in the year 2012; the Blunt Amendment, which would let employers opt out of a new federal health-care mandate for their employees if they have religious objections and the Abortion Ultrasound Bill, which requires women to undergo a medically unnecessary and invasive transvaginal ultrasound before having an abortion and which was signed into law in Virginia on March 7, 2012, are the latest examples of the kind of respect and esteem religious people have for women.

But it hasn’t all just started this year. Last year alone, more than 1100 reproductive health restrictions were introduced in all 50 states. Restrictions to abortion rights skyrocketed to record levels in 2011, nine states reduced funding for family planning, Texas reduced its reproductive health budget by 66%, six states passed restrictions on family planning funds and New Hampshire prevented planned parenthood from recieving Tittle X funds. (Source: Think Prgoress).  All these laws are solely and exclusive based on religious grounds.

So you understand that I find it both laughable and insincere for Cameron and religious people everywhere to complain that government interferes with them and tells them how to conduct their lives.

Religious Infestation

But the buck doesn’t stop there. Religion is permeating and infesting public life and policy on all levels. Ohio Exit Polls from the last GOP candidate election revealed that for over 80% of Republican voters in Ohio it matters that a candidate shares their religious beliefs. These voters are in stark agreement with the Taliban on this one.

And make no mistake about it: all candidates – in both parties – have been constantly trafficking in religious pandering. Even President Obama, who is a smart man, said, – with a straight face – that “I believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins and that I am redeemed through him.”

Kirk Cameron spreads the love

He is a better actor than I thought if he is able to say something so stupid and truly outlandish with a dead pan expression. It is like saying “I believe that the pink elephant circling the orbit died for my sins and I am going to make public policy decisions based on said pink elephant in orbit.”

I don’t think people understand the extent to which such answers are utterly scandalous and detrimental for this country.  That only 18 percent of Republican voters in Ohio say that they cast their votes without any religious prejudice at all is frightening. And the fact that no one seems to see that is even more disturbing.

The media are only interested in which candidates these people vote for, but there is no headline saying that religious bigtory is rampant among Ohio voters, which is what the real cause of contention should be.  Why? Because the media, just as the majority of the general population,  consider it perfectly acceptable, and a given,  for presidential candidates to have to discuss their religious beliefs when campaigning and answering questions about government.

Alan Alda, who played California Republican Arnold Vinick on The West Wing  said in fiction what I wish our real politicians and law makers,  including our President, had said in real life:

I don’t see how we can have a separation of church and state in this government if you have to pass a religious test to get in this government. And I want to warn everyone in the press and all the voters out there if you demand expressions of religious faith from politicians, you are just begging to be lied to. They won’t all lie to you but a lot of them will. And it will be the easiest lie they ever had to tell to get your votes. So, every day until the end of this campaign, I’ll answer any question anyone has on government, But if you have a question on religion, please go to church.”

Bigotry Trying to Pass as Freedom of Speech

I must say that in  way, it pains me to see Kirk Cameron, one of my teen celebrity crushes from back in the day, having fallen so deeply and so irreversibly into the claws of religious bigotry and with it hatred and the complete annihilation of common sense and intelligent thought. What’s worse, he thinks that there is no problem with what he is doing and saying because, after all, we live in America, which bigots seem to have mistaken for carte blanche to spread any amount of unfounded bullshit and hate speech they want against any group.

When Cameron stands up there, on TV, saying that he believes homosexuality is destructive to society, the kind of message he sends is very clear. This is no longer about him expressing his views on an issue, this is him instigating violence and hatred and it is irresponsible to do so in a time where teens who try to come out, are being bullied and harassed and driven to suicide in some cases.

Words have consequences and the word of people in the public sphere have even bigger consequences, because a lot of people hear them. Cameron’s instigation of hatred, which he and everyone defending him is trying to brush under the carpet as just harmless expressions of opinion, has very real life consequences, ultimately rendering him an irresponsible person.

I am tired of this country having fallen into a stupor of anti scientific ideologies and anti intellectual mentalities under the  guise of fair play and equality. Religious people, and religious people alone, are solely responsbile for the decline in education and knowledge. Rick Santorum, who is a potential presidential candidate, homeschools his children out of fear that the outside world might actually teach them reality and facts instead of the fairy tales and made up crap he and his pious doormat of a wife teach them.  He fears knowledge and ideas that emerge in a college setting so much that he is, literally, holding his children hostage at home, depriving them from access to it, because any idea that does not conform to the narrow lens with which he views the world is considered dangerous.

Religion is the Poison of the Mind, the Killer of Innovation and Philosophical Suicide

Charles Darwin - Religious peoples' Antichrist

While I strongly believe in the “live and let live” mantra and that everyone is entitled to believe in whatever they want to believe in (Jesus, Mohammed, Santa Clause, the Eatser Bunny), I feel that I can no longer just sit by idly and politely nod, thus giving credence to the misinformation, ignorance, and lies of religious people and their followers, because there is an inherent and palpable danger in doing that.

There is nothing honorable and polite in giving credence to insanity. If my actions allow for the truth to be suppressed and for fallacies to take its place and influence everyone else’s life, then my actions in that regard need to change, which means speaking up against religion.

Kirk Cameron believes in things that a fifth grader’s textbook could disprove. He is dangerous because his faith is not just confined to his personal realm, but it is infesting society. He is advocating it on TV, in schools and he is judging others based on his skewed beliefs. He believes that facts and knowledge are secondary, if not irrelevant, to god and the fairy tales spewed in the Bible.

When a child makes up an invisible friend, we smile and think it is really cute. But when an adult does pretty much the same thing, we call it faith and elevate that fictional person in their mind to some kind of authority figure; the divine.

Subsequently, the person with said holy invisible friend in fairy tale land wants everyone else to conduct their lives according to this fictional reality they have created, no matter how detrimental, and any opposition or criticism is called foul play and infringement upon their right to religion.

And as long as us intellectuals, us logical and intelligent people, remain pushovers, people like Cameron (and Santorum, Gingrich, Romney and the other 250 million living in this country) will continue the infestation and contamination of the public sphere with their backwards, unfounded, bigoted religious beliefs.

Out of fear to be branded intolerant, religious people have been given far too much  leeway to continue spreading ignorance, bigotry, anti-intellectualism and misogyny.

Alas I would rather be a logical beast than an uneducated sheep, because there is nothing glorious or heroic or even admirable in giving credence to the kind of thinking that has ultimately proven detrimental for society.

The hatred and vile diatribes lodged against women, homosexuals, transgendered people, atheists, liberals and evolutionists is mortifying. And neither Rush Limbaugh, Kirk Cameron, Rick Santorum, or anyone really, has a right to use their words to incite their cult-like followers to act out against others whom they happen to disapprove of and/or disagree with because their views don’t conform to their religious views.

The First Amendment

The First Amendment separates church from state, explicitly saying that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

Being anti abortion and making it into law is respecting an establishment of religion.

Saying that gay people are sick abominations and should not get married because marriage is defined as between a man and a woman according to god, is respecting an establishment of religion.

Demanding that stem cell research be defunded because using microscopic cells of an embryo in the fridge is murder and against god’s plan is respecting an establishment of religion.

Santorum demanding that people only have sex for procreation and ought not to use contraceptives because it goes against god’s plan, is a law respecting an establishment of religion.

Demanding that they teach Creationism and Intelligent design in schools to make religious people feel better is respecting an establishment of religion.

Wanting school prayer is respecting an establishment of religion.

Degrading a woman into being transvaginally probed to shame her into carrying a pregnancy they don’t want to term because aborting such pregnancy goes against your religious beliefs, is respecting an establishment of religion.

Free speech does not apply to this. Religious people are, per the First Amendment, free to exercise their faith without government persecution but they are not  free to make laws or establish policy that incorporates and respects their faith.

Why the fuck do religious and non religious people alike not understand that and call demands for them to stop infesting public policy and government as infringing upon their freedom to religion.

It is like the King of France saying that the demands of his subjects for equity constitute an infringement upon his rights to oppress them.

Religious people have set into motion a plan and worldview which is a slap in the face to the enlightened and reason and they keep getting away with it by pulling the “right to religion” card – which they completely misinterpreted and misrepresented as shown above.  For far too long, religious people have put us intellectuals and rational people, the atheists, on the defense where we have to, time and again, guard against and explain ourselves to these delusional fools.

It was about time, however, that they started defending their unfounded stance, their delusions, their fairy tales, their bigotry. No one should have to sit by idly and politely nod when these people take humanity down a dangerous path.

Kirk Cameron is a delusional, severely ignorant fool who is so blinded by his faith that he doesn’t even recognize how detrimental his actions and words are. He seriously considers calling an entrie segment of society destructive as his inalienable right and in a very un-christlike manner, his message is not, as he have us believe, of love, but of hatred. This is not the kind of mindsets we should embrace and condone for the sake of politeness.

As Mark Twain said “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.” 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

6 Comments