i hate being sick.
Apr. 11th, 2006 09:25 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rivendellroseDamn. It turns out I wasn't just randomly tired last night, I'm sick. I have a sore throat. This is Not Good for the rest of my week, considering I a career lunch today, an optometrist appointment tomorrow, and two papers due. Aaaarrgh.
Also, WTF: You're oppressing my right to oppress people!!!
Seriously, I wonder if these people have ever actually read that Bible they wave around so much. I may not be Christian, but I sure as hell know that's not how Jesus wanted people to act. Jesus would be afraid of these bastards, same as the rest of us. Guess what, people? Jesus was, in the culture of his time, a liberal wacko. Deal with it. If you don't like the things the founder of your religion says, go find another religion. I recommend you to the Holy Church of Get-The-Hell-Out-of-My-Country.
Also, WTF: You're oppressing my right to oppress people!!!
Seriously, I wonder if these people have ever actually read that Bible they wave around so much. I may not be Christian, but I sure as hell know that's not how Jesus wanted people to act. Jesus would be afraid of these bastards, same as the rest of us. Guess what, people? Jesus was, in the culture of his time, a liberal wacko. Deal with it. If you don't like the things the founder of your religion says, go find another religion. I recommend you to the Holy Church of Get-The-Hell-Out-of-My-Country.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 04:39 pm (UTC)Amen to your other comments too!
no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 04:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 04:41 pm (UTC)*coughs*
But yeah. Seriously. What?
no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 04:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 05:19 pm (UTC)Rage rage rage rage rage! Possibly, I might have something more constructive and less-inflamatory to say, but I did just get up and...Rage!
...I wonder which side I'd get into trouble with if I started wearing shirts that said "Christians are fucking faggots" >->
no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 05:26 pm (UTC)At this point, the gays would probably get you in trouble for slander. *Headdesk* The thing that drives me up the wall is that I try so hard not to associate Christianity in general with this kind of madness, but it's just so bloody tempting sometimes. I know it's not true, but it just.... eeaaagh. I never know what to think when I meet Christians any more - are they the okay kind of Christian? Perhaps even the cool kind who won't try to convert me? Or are they the totally batshit crazy kind that, should they find out 1/4 of who I really am, will attempt to a) convert me and then failing that b) stone me?
no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 06:02 pm (UTC)Yeah, it's not a terribly mature response to the problem, but I've found that the people who are really big on the gay-bashing are most alarmed by being insulted such XP ANd it was early. Maturity is beyond me when I'm sleepy >->
There must be not-crazy Christians, but it must look pretty hopeless to them; They're getting associated with whack-job Christians, and who knows when they'll be able to drag their religion back from nutter land?
...when someone says "I'm Christian", it sort of has the same effect as if you'd met someone who you were trying to chat up and you ask what they do for a living and they're like "Yeah, I'm a cop." Because then there's this awkward silence where to try and think up things to say that aren't going to get you in trouble. Even if they're cool, it just feels instinctive. Or maybe that's just me ^^
no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 06:59 pm (UTC)I grew up with a bunch of Mormon girls, for crying out loud - I even went to a church summer camp with them. Now, granted, those friendships have pretty much gone the way of the dinosaur, but so have most of my friendships from highschool. I'm not the same person I was back then, and I got tired of keeping my mouth shut to avoid arguments. But I don't mind making friends with religious people, as long as either religion stays out of our conversations, we can have intelligent conversations about our differences without either of us getting hurt, or we can find common ground where neither of us is uncomfortable.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 07:54 pm (UTC)I went to church camp after school in middle school and really enjoyed that, but that's because the pastor who ran it was less about imparting any sort of gospel to us and more about giving us a safe and friendly place to hang out and spend five hours after school at -- we watched veggie tales and played duck duck goose and did team-building exercises, that sort of thing. And in the eighth grade, I think that's pretty remarkable, to get everyone to just get along and have fun like that. So I know there are Christians out there who are not bonkers and who are wonderful people -- just like everyone else. It's just that the wonderful people never get air time. Just like the news never reports "things were good today!" because that's not exciting enough!
no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 05:23 pm (UTC)Uhhhh ... WTF? Is that guy serious? Doesn't he know the Christians currently run this whole damn country?
Jesus was ABSOLUTELY a liberal wacko. I'm always trying to tell people that. If I'm not mistaken, he spent all day making a whip so that he could go into the temples and frak things up because he was frustrated with the fact that the temples had become a place of commerce, rather than a place of worship.
Hello? Anybody see the real world parallels? Or is it just me?
no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 05:38 pm (UTC)And then morons like this asshat come in and ruin the whole thing, and make the rest of us terrified to be around anybody who claims Christianity. It's total madness! If Jesus was around today, I will bet you that he'd spend part of his day hanging out in the slums helping little kids and single moms, and the rest volunteering at a fucking AIDS clinic. And after that, he'd go lead a few rallies. Because seriously, that's the modern equivalent of what he was doing back then. Lepers, people. I mean, yes, the whole Mary Magdalene-as-a-whore thing was a latter day addition during the middle ages, but you know what scholars figure she was originally? A single woman with money of her own. Single. Not. Married. And probably a business woman of some sort. Go figure.
Incidentally, that's exactly what the first wife of Muhammad was, too. Khadijah was a widow who had enough money from her trade business that she supported her husband. She was his employer to begin with. She proposed marriage. She and his daughter Fatima, as well as Khadijah's daughters by a previous marriage, were instrumental in the early church. And the veil? Was a way of making them stand out from the other women in Mecca and Medina.
...I'm sorry. Apparently the desire to avoid my homework is making me rant at random. But... argh!
no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 08:17 pm (UTC)I grew up and a VERY VERY Christian state, where almost 100% of the politicians were members of the local church. There was most definitely NOT a separation of church and state. I think a lot of my frustration with whacko nutjob Christians stems from the fact that they really, truly did intrude on my life. I grew pretty sick of having to explain that no, I wasn't a member of their church, and no, in fact, I wasn't a member of ANY church, and no, I most definitely did not want to join them at church on Sunday.
Listen, I don't try to get people like that to get drunk with me and go to the casinos -- why do they feel the need to push their lifestyle upon me?
I just honestly can't believe that there are Christians in this country who feel persecuted for their beliefs. Wake up, folks. You run the show at the moment. Enjoy it while you still can.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-12 02:24 am (UTC)I mean... here's the way I see it. I personally feel that a lot of organized religious sects discourage free thought and thus are contrary to what any deity who created us must have intended, and that people who focus their energies on a coming end-time where the righteous will live in paradise are wasting their precious years on earth, but do I yell at people and try to get them to convert to my way of thinking? No. I figure "eh, that's their problem" and move on with my life. Perhaps that makes me a jaded, horrible person for not wanting to save them from themselves, but considering that I hate having people try to save me from myself, I figure it's only fair that I do to them as I wish they'd do to me.
Blessedly, I live in an area where liberalism is still the dominant force. The worst I have to deal with are friends and family who say that I'll come 'round in my own time, and the occasional awkward discussion with my grandparents in which I explain that no, I am not going to be baptized, because that would be swearing an oath I by no means intend to keep. Religious vows of any kind are a serious matter to me, and that's what baptism is. It's not some kind of spiritual insurance that you can just... buy on a "just in case" sort of whim.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-12 03:30 pm (UTC)Ha! I personally think you're right, but just like any other belief that doesn't harm or negatively affect others, I would never attempt to change or influence someone who truly believes that way. On the other hand, when that belief crosses over into law-making and war-starting and prohibition, when a certain group's religious beliefs become "The Way We All Should Live Our Lives", a line has been crossed.
Live and let live, I say. Not live and try-to-make-others-live-like-you. But that's just me.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 05:25 pm (UTC)"Think how marginalized racists are," said Baylor, who directs the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 05:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 05:54 pm (UTC)The relevant point here is that these people are not like normal Christians. They're not interested in finding a reasonable and fair solution. They just want to find a way to establish a theocracy here because silly G*d forgot to do it when he inspired the Founding Fathers.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 06:04 pm (UTC)That's it exactly. Most Christians I can get along perfectly happily with, although some make me twitch at times for purely spiritual reasons and/or because I hate having people tell me that I'll "come around eventually." I'm totally willing to be friends with those people still, though - if they can see past religion with me, I can with them. The kinds of people who get involved in intolerant crap like this, though... that's just not at all acceptable. This country was not meant to be a theocracy.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 06:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-12 01:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 06:27 pm (UTC)By equating homosexuality with race, Baylor said, tolerance policies put conservative evangelicals in the same category as racists. He predicts the government will one day revoke the tax-exempt status of churches that preach homosexuality is sinful or that refuse to hire gays and lesbians.
"Think how marginalized racists are," said Baylor, who directs the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom. "If we don't address this now, it will only get worse."
Baylor isn't saying that racists are good people; he's saying that racists are bad people and that good Christians are being made out to be bad people like racists.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 06:37 pm (UTC)But he's right--according to some interpretations of scripture, homosexuality is just as big a sin as taking the Lord's name in vain, or the withdrawl method, or being discourteous to strangers, or worshipping before idols. None of which is illegal in the US yet.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 06:54 pm (UTC)Forgive the glibness, but as far as I'm concerned, there's no problem with that. A church that preaches that blacks are the scum of the earth would (at least I certainly hope) get its federal funding zapped away from it so fast that the preacher's head would spin. The same should happen to churches that preach the same about gays. Or anyone else.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 07:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-12 01:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 05:57 pm (UTC)In other news: Feel better! ♥
no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 06:05 pm (UTC)Thanks! ♥ I'm hoping it's just allergies or a mild cold.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 06:05 pm (UTC)That just makes me laugh. Bitterly. :/ Oh, people.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 06:20 pm (UTC)Much with the bitter laughter, yes. People are craaaazy.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 06:24 pm (UTC)I think Jesus would be spending a lot of time with the downtrodden and outcasts and basically ignoring speech laws of any kind and I suspect he would make everyone uncomfortable (both "liberals" and "conservatives" just as he made most everyone uncomfortable in his own day -- and I really like the idea of a God who is constantly challenging us even if personally I want a God who agrees with me).
I'm also really wary of harrassment laws due to my concerns about infringement upon free speech. Not that I think there should be *no* laws against harrassment, but I think they often go too far -- The legal argument is straightforward: Policies intended to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination end up discriminating against conservative Christians. Evangelicals have been suspended for wearing anti-gay T-shirts to high school, fired for denouncing Gay Pride Month at work, reprimanded for refusing to attend diversity training.. [I'm undecided about the diversity training issue and would need fuller details; I think anti- lots of things are construed too broadly and that liberals wouldn't jump to fire someone who wore a t-shirt that said something like "Bush is the Anti-Christ."]
Yes, I do think these people are out of line in some ways -- The letter berated students who come out publicly as gay, saying they subject others on campus to "a constant barrage of homosexuality." for example.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 06:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 06:51 pm (UTC)The constitution, as I understand it, protects freedom of speech as long as it doesn't harm other people. Once you've endangered someone via your freedom of speech, my understanding (and I admit, I've never been strong on legal interpretation) is that you have effectively vetoed that right. Let's come at this from a different angle - if people were being expelled for wearing shirts that were anti-African-American or anti-Jewish, or anti-woman, would we be okay with that? I know I wouldn't. I think a lot more people would be against it if that were the case, because Americans understand, for the most part, that it's not socially acceptable to behave in that way anymore. As far as I'm concerned, this is not a religious issue - it's an issue of protecting people. There's enough gay-bashing and bullying of gays as it is, we don't need people thinking that it's their right to actively campaign against gay rights on their university campus. That's not okay, any more than it was okay when people used religion as a cover for their racist attitudes during the civil rights movement, or as an excuse for anti-Semitism.
As for a shirt that says "Bush is the Anti-Christ," I think it would be in poor taste, and if someone in my employ wore it, I would politely ask them to keep that sort of sentiment out of the workplace. Same with if I was a professor. That kind of thing doesn't belong in a classroom. But I don't think it's on the same level in the slightest.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 07:12 pm (UTC)Also: I think these people honestly believe their religion demands their anti-homosexual attitudes and that they aren't trying to use it as a "cover." I do disagree with their religious beliefs, but I am also very aware that we all come up with religious beliefs that fit with things we already believe.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-12 01:16 am (UTC)From a purely selfish point of view, there's also a lot of people who have religious convictions to the effect that pagans automatically equal witches, and there's that pesky, ill-translated bit of the Bible that so many people believe reads "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," as well as passages regarding the stoning of adulteresses, etc. Obviously physical harm is a completely different category from all of this, but on another level it seems to be expanding the philosophy to it's obvious conclusion.
Out of curiosity, if you disagree with Bush's politics, is it only general sympathy that makes you nervous when he's bashed?
no subject
Date: 2006-04-12 01:29 am (UTC)True. I was reacting to your "...any more than it was okay when people used religion as a cover for their racist attitudes..." statement.
but on another level it seems to be expanding the philosophy to it's obvious conclusion.
Perhaps. But slippery slope arguments are always dangerous things. And I am often quick to point the logical conclusion of taking certain liberal arguments far enough. (Because what am I if not contrary and devil's advocate?)
Out of curiosity, if you disagree with Bush's politics, is it only general sympathy that makes you nervous when he's bashed?
Bush-bashing (besides often being juvenile and in no way productive, though
no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 10:46 pm (UTC)Anyway, wow. At the end of the whole discussion about "having to tolerate intolerance," which is kind of what this is in a scary bad kind of way, is that the whole idea is wrong. At least in terms of how the United States of America function. Our government has a, albiet recent, tradition of intolerance of intolerance. There are some things were we say "Look, you just can't do that, so deal." Its part of being in a society as diverse as the one we have.
As for the whole harassment deal, I do not think having people shout "God hates fags" has any place on a college campus where the enviroment should be geared toward learning, not agenda pushing. That kind of thing ties into the minimum level of respect that should be garunteed to all students at University.
The line that has to be drawn is what's government funded and what isn't. If its a private organization, as much as I hate saying this, they have a "right" to ban gays, however, the government does not. The government should have a vested interest in protecting any (legitamately) marginalized group. As for the whole "right" to ban gays, its in the vein of a person's "right" to not issue contracts with someone of a different race, say. Bad, but the government can't do anything about it cause that person is a private individual.
Whoa, that was a long ramble and I hope it made sense.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-12 01:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-12 03:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-12 12:45 am (UTC)Or silly as it may seem to some, REALLY think about that wrist band you wear so proudly that says WWJD? Think about it, don't just wear it and be smug and judgemental against others.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-12 01:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-12 12:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-12 01:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-12 01:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-12 01:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-12 01:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-12 12:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-12 02:39 pm (UTC)