Fuck Your God

"Hey, you have your religion in my politics" "Hey, you have your politics in my religion" Two tastes that could be great, just NOT together. Let's discuss how religious zealots are ruining the spirit of the United States and trampling your rights for the sake of their own god.

Location: Chicago, Illinois, United States

"Chuck" currently resides in the Uptown neighborhood of Chicago. While he finds organized religion and their fanatics to be morally bankrupt and power hungry he also believes in the Constitution and our Bill of Rights which allow all of us to believe in any god we choose and the ability to worship in any manner our selves feel to be correct and good and right. So long as we respect others' rights to do so as well. The latter concept being foreign to most religious folk.

Sunday, June 07, 2009

"Yes, we can!"

But that doesn't mean that we should. With freedoms come responsibilities. When we are children we are taught respect for others and acceptance of different cultures and peoples, with their religions and cultures and ways of live. We are America and consist of myriad ways to enjoy our being. Part of that enjoyment is being able to express ourselves freely however we choose. Some of us write, some of us draw or paint. Some utilize other media such as photography or acting. However it is you choose to express your opinions and thoughts and ideas is protected with our First Amendment.

Well, in the over two hundred years since this was firmly established within our Constitution and practiced by the many in our country, there are those who feel there are no responsibilities attached to these freedoms; that their freedom to speak and to be heard should allow them to run unencumbered by any responsibility for their speech whatsoever. And, as they say, one bad apple...

Many of those folks are religious and feel that speaking hatred about the "other" with whom they don't agree is not only their right but their "god"-given duty. Take Pat Robertson, a very outspoken televangelist I have mentioned here before. He is, once again, speaking out about the danger of homosexuality and it's impending slippery slope of aberration. Yes, the godless fags will soon be having sex with all manner of animals; and he specifically mentions ducks. And, of course, at the same time mentions pedophilia because, as statistics show, gays must molest children in order to recruit. They can't just breed the little fuckers to increase the gay population, after all. You would think he would reserve that for the NAMBLA catholics but, alas, that may be just too close to home.

Others who like to spread the hate are radio talk show hosts. Theirs is a little more dangerous because they like to incite violence against "others" they don't like. Pat Robertson may want to listen to this little diatribe against children. These radio hosts honestly believe that beating innocent children is a worthwhile endeavor if it achieves the desired results. They learn well from the "ways justify the means" crowd and all the ethics and morals that go with it.

And then you have the anti-whatever groups. Like right-wing right to lifers. A doctor was killed IN CHURCH last week. He performed late-term abortions and religious nuts didn't like him. He had a history of violence and hate speech perpetrated against him so often that he had body guards. Last week they got him; because killing a live person who's business you know very little about is better than aborting a fetus that won't live outside the womb. Greenpeace is like this, too. For them it's better to beat a harp seal hunter to death with a club than it is for a hunter to beat a harp seal; humanity is worth far less than harp seals. They also peg trees with large metal spikes, trees that are marked for clear cutting on private property by privately owned companies. Again, Greenpeace thinks it's better to violently harm humanity than it is for people to chop down a renewable resource.

Many of these groups are now on the defensive because of the doctor who was killed IN CHURCH last week. They are defending their freedom of speech by claiming that they never called for violence against anyone. But when you define someone as a "murderer of children" or a "baby killer" or another hateful moniker you are encouraging violence. Freedom of Speech is not a no-strings-attached freedom. We are all held accountable for what comes out of our mouths in one way or another.

This image could, very well, be adjusted to any number of hateful organizations in the world today. It would fit Pat Robertson to a "T", as it would fit those disgusting radio hosts or pro-lifers or Greenpeace or Focus on the Family or Westboro Baptist Church and Fred Phelps.

So, while we are able to say whatever we like we should also remember that there are affects. Someone will feel it. Hate speech legislation is important for this reason, to keep people accountable for what they say. And it protects those who are against this legislation, too; religious folks. And while I'm no fan of censorship I am a fan of personal responsibility. Something some folks who talk know nothing about.



Anonymous uzza said...

"I'm no fan of censorship but bla bla bla " sounds an awful lot like "I'm no fan of violence but bla bla bla"

11:20 AM  
Blogger Chuck said...

Uzza, do you care to comment with some semblance of inteligence or are you just here to cause trouble? I thought it was pretty obvious the point being self awareness and thinking before speaking. Apparently you missed that and, unfortunately, spoke before you thought. And came across rather stupid.

5:28 PM  
Blogger uzza said...

It was pretty obvious the point was taking responsibility for one's speech, and that some people don't. Then you say freedom of speech has strings attached, hate speech legislation is important, it keeps people accountable, and protects people, which sounds like a call for censorship. Your protestation that you are no fan of censorship, while making your implied call for exactly that, is eerily parallel to those who make implied calls for violence while protesting they are against it. It might be that I'm stupid, but then again, the point of your post might not be so clear-cut as you claim.

11:19 PM  
Blogger Chuck said...

I guess we are both guilty of lacking clarity. Thank you for elaborating and discussing.

Hate speech legislation holds people accountable when they step over the line and actually contribute to violence against "other" in some way.

I don't believe in governmental censorship but I do believe in personal censorship. People should have filters in their brains that hold back incindiary and hateful words. Should you attend a 50 year high school reuniion and a past date looks their age you wouldn't blurt out that fact but hold it in and move on to other topics. Fanatics don't see that as an option.

While it is truthful to call a spade a spade, sometimes it's not helpful or positive. If Pat Robertson loves the sinner and hates the sin than he should focus more on correcting the sin and less on eliminating the sinner.

Hate crime legislation seems the only way to address this point. Lesser of the two evils? I don't really know the correct answer but at least I put the question out there.

5:50 AM  
Blogger John said...

I know of no attempt to in any way outlaw or punish hate speech.

Hate crime legislation imposes greater penalty for violent crimes committed with malicious bias, but in no way criminalizes speech.

5:32 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home