Main Page

Views & Rants

First of all let's talk. Don't we all hate getting this stupid Southern Baptist Christian Right (I prefer Reich, actually, because let's face it that's what they're going for) Conservative Republican superiority complex American-way-should-be-everyone's-way guilt-trip crap? Yes. My mother, despite being repeatedly asked not to send me forwards, and despite not being Southern Baptist like all her friends, forwarded this to me. Now maybe it's because I've not slept enough but this time I was just a bit too pissed. I had to respond. So here is my response to that forward.

I would also like to thank the original "author" of this "writing" - though I hesitate to give that much credit - for using a title that works quite well for an dissenting opinion, perhaps even better than it does for the original "work." There is nothing I hate more than trying to think up titles and names for things.

Anyway, to the actual forward:

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this happen?" (regarding the attacks on Sept. 11). Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?" In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc.

So the contention is that had we all prayed more God would have come down from the heavens at the behest and on behalf of the righteous and smitten the infidels who sought to undermine us? And that since we didn't he chose to allow an assault on the World Trade Center that, under proper conditions, he would have actively intervened in? As though that ever happens? Billy Graham's publicity-hounding, Church-tax-shelter-having, shouting pro-White and pro-Baptist slop on TV ass, or his reactionary, stirring up trouble, trying to sue white folks for legitimately firing black folks (and white folks, the media outlets fail to mention) who are too stupid to do their jobs black counterpact Al Sharpton are men of God? Don't be a fool.

I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) she complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.

This is truly one of the most idiotic examples of "we're the one and only true and valid faith" Southern Baptist Association rhetoric I've ever read. Regardless of what they believe about the righteous truth, there are many religions out there, not of all of which celebrate the same customs, beliefs, and holidays as Protestants (any fool can tell this forward was written by a Southern Baptist, but for the sake of giving a wrist-slapping to as wide of an audience of bible-thumpers as possible, I'll refer more generically to all Protestants). The children of members of these faiths should be allowed access to education just like Protestant children, but should not be required to pray just like them by a Protestant school board. Their parents should also not be arrested for working on a Sabbath which they don't hold sacred by a Protestant Government, but that's another issue. If you don't believe in the First Amendment, if you don't want your children going to a school where prayer is not part of the daily routine, that's fine. Feel free to move to Saudi Arabia where your children will go to Madrassas and be taught nothing except the Koran and to hate Americans. Unfortunately if you happen to be a woman you won't be able to join the military, attend a soccer match, or even drive a car. You can be stoned to death by a group of your peers for infidelity, or for leaving the house without a full veil, without burden of proof.

I'm shocked that anyone who claims to be righteous and faithful can suggest that a woman's murder was the just punishment of a vengeful God, and even go so far as to say that religion should not be fully excised from Government? Great idea, because I definitely want my murderer or my daughter's rapist to be able to use "acting as an agent of God to carry out his just punishment" as a legitimate defense. Idiot.

Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school... the Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbour as yourself. And we said OK.

The Bible also says that father can sell his daughter into slavery, that I can't cut my hair shorter than my temples, that my less cerebral buddies are unclean because they toss around a football once in a while, that homosexual men and women are an abomination before nature, and that my father should be put to death for working on Sundays. There's nothing wrong with a religion like Orthodox Judaism that requires hair or a beard of a certain length. It's when the violation of those rules becomes a crime against the State and not your parents that a real problem of liberty arises.

Also, if we want other peoples and religions from around the world to stop hating us so much, it probably wouldn't be a good idea to force them to read these doctrines or not take advantage of the free public education that we claim is available to all.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.

Ever heard the expression "give an inch and they'll take a mile?" Parents are no exception. Every inch of leeway you give a sober father to spank his deserving child is a mile of recourse that child loses when a drunken father decides to punch him in the face instead.

By the way, for those unenlightened "MDs are the only real doctors" "there is no such think as mental health" good ole boys among you who don't believe me, go out and try to find a female porn star or prostitute who wasn't sexually or physically assaulted by a family member in her childhood.

Then someone said teachers and principals better not discipline our children when they misbehave. The school administrators said no faculty member in this school better touch a student when they misbehave because we don't want any bad publicity, and we surely don't want to be sued (there's a big difference between disciplining, touching, beating, smacking, humiliating, kicking, etc). And we said OK.

Yes there is a difference between discipline and ruthless beating. Unfortunately many administrators come from the group of Christian "Reich" ultra-conservative idiots who wrote this very forward, and draw the line between the two in the wrong place. Heck, some people don't even beat their kids themselves, they certainly don't want others doing it. While I would agree that the recourse granted to administrators and teachers often falls short of what they reasonably need to be functional, but that doesn't mean they should be granted full legal immunity to discipline as they see fit.

With power comes responsibility. To ask me to trust the decision-making capabilities of some dumbass ghetto black girl who can't even speak proper English who got her degree from a 4 year institution that only the most generous would call a University and whose job, but for quotas, would have gone to a white male with a Masters in Education from an Ivy League school is ridiculous. Here's why:

Ritalin is not a namby-pamby drug like Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, or Clarinex. Yet today this stimulant (which is in the same class as amphetamines such as the illegal street drug meth), the long-term effects of which include schizophrenia-like psychosis, is pushed on ("prescribed to") kids like it's Tylenol. Why? All an early childhood educator, stressed out over the 40 screaming kids in their classroom, has to do is write a report on a potential victim. The school's child psychologist can then prescribe the drug without ever spending a moment with the child. Any means you give these lazy, ill-educated, pathetic teachers to shut kids up and make their jobs easier will be used to the fullest extent. That is why physical abuse cannot be among those means which we make available to them.

Then someone said, let's let our daughters have abortions if they want, and they won't even have to tell their parents. And we said OK.

So we're done with the Christian "Reich" fun, now we need to go into Conservative Republican policy initiatives. Horrible idea, this legalized abortion thing. Because we want 13 year old girls abandoing babies in dumpsters and rape victims having children and subjecting them to monumental emotional and even physical abuse because they resent them so. And if a pregnant girl does get an abortion, we certainly don't want it to be in a hospital or clinic. It needs to be performed in an back alley with improperly sterilized instruments under the cover of darkness. Idiot.

Then some wise school board member said, since boys will be boys and they're going to do it anyway, let's give our sons all the condoms they want so they can have all the fun they desire, and we won't have to tell their parents they got them at school. And we said OK.

This isn't South Africa where the government refuses to admit a connection between HIV and AIDS and the lack of understanding of AIDS precipitates a stigma so severe as to preclude empolyment for anyone who is even rumored to be Positive. Teenagers of both sexes (not just 'boys being boys') are going to have sex. Accept that fact, it cannot be changed. Now, I contend that it would be preferable for them to have safe sex and slow the spread of AIDS. For those who disagree with me here and insist on keeping condom-distribution programs out of schools and requiring all schools that wish to recieve government funding to teach abstinence only, I really hope that you feel (as you should) personally responsible every time a baby is abandoned by a teenaged mother, or an American Citizen dies of AIDS.

Then some of our top elected officials said it doesn't matter what we do in private as long as we do our jobs. Agreeing with them, we said it doesn't matter to me what anyone does in private as long as I have a job and the economy is good.

I have a hard time arguing with this one. The last conversation a troubled mother in th PJs needs to have is:

Then someone said let's print magazines with pictures of nude women and call it wholesome, down-to-earth appreciation for the beauty of the female body. And we said OK.

There are certainly scores of pornographic and distasteful magazines showing women, alone or with partners, in sexual acts. I find magazines such as High Society, Hustler, and Penthouse as distasteful as anyone else. But there's also Playboy, which promotes a healthy appreciation of the female body with classy and high-quality photography that qualifies not as 'smut photography' or 'porn' but as 'glamour photography.' Open your idiotically conservative mind and realize this. Plus Playboy great celebrity interviews :).

And then someone else took that appreciation a step further and published pictures of nude children and then further again by making them available on the Internet. And we said OK; they're entitled to free speech.

Don't be a damned fool! Not one person said "OK" to this. Child pornography is legally and socially considered to be one of the most henous crimes a person can commit. Those who produce, distribute, and even possess child pornography are actively searched out, arrested, and put in jail. Try not to say things this stupid in public, you'll embarrass yourself.

Then the entertainment industry said; let's make TV shows and movies that promote profanity, violence, and illicit sex. Let's record music that encourages rape, drugs, murder, suicide, and satanic themes. And we said it's just entertainment, it has no adverse effect, nobody takes it seriously anyway, so go right ahead.

Freedom of Speech by it's definition lacks the qualifiers "only if noone gets offended" and "only if it's tasteful." It wouldn't be Free Speech if it didn't. I may agree that much of what is described above is distasteful, but that doesn't mean I have any right to stop its production. Parents, on the other hand, have every right to keep their kids from watching those shows or buying those CDs. I know my parents (and to a greater extent my friends' parents) did that when I was a kid.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves. Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out.

Parents are going to have to face the truth and take responsibility. There are lots of religions in the world, and many don't follow the "King James Demonization and Abridgement of the Holy Bible." Many believe in non-violence to the extent that they cannot hurt insects. That certainly extends to their children. Believe it or not, these societies produce sensitive, moral, constructive members of society. So modern societal mores preventing you from whipping your kid with a belt is not an excuse. What TV shows he sees when you should be playing catch with him or taking him to the zoo is not an excuse. It's the parent's responsibility to limit what TV shows and CDs a child has access to. When I was a kid I wasn't that heavily restricted because I'm not a dumbass and I can discern fantasy and reality, but many of my friends were not so much as allowed to watch Saved By the Bell in middle school (FYI, I didn't watch that dumbass show even though I was allowed to). The next person who I hear saying it's NBC's responsibilty take Law & Order and ER off the air so that kids won't be exposed to graphic violence and death, and not the parents' responsibility to not let their kids watch those shows, is going to get hit over the head with a stick. A big one. Why not try playing catch with your kid during Cops next time instead of letting him watch it and then picketing the local Fox affiliate. Maybe if you fucking communicated with your kids more than "Mommy be back" as you're heading to the club at 3 AM, they might KNOW SOMETHING!!

I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."

How about that for a coincidence. That's the point I just made and, in fact, I was about to type those very words.

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says.
Then again, it's not really that funny is it?

It's not funny at all. It's STUPID. Making a point with statements like "Funny how blah blah blah, but when blah blah blah...." is how I argued in the 5th grade. You want to recruit anyone new for the cult? Want to accomplish anything besides making people who already believe as you do nod in satisfaction as they read? Try making your arguments with facts and reason instead of "Funny how..." guilt trips. I'm not going to feel guilty because not everyone on my mailing list is an Ultra-Conservative, Southern Baptist, or even a Christian. If you find that everyone on yours is, and you don't have a single friend you would have qualms about sending Ultra-Conservative Southern Baptist dogma to, it's you who should feel guilty. Bet you don't have any gay friends either. In fact, lynched any niggers lately? Point made, I'm out. Thank you for your time.