Fuck Your God

Death to christianity!

noreply@blogger.com (Chuck) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:41:00 +0000

The wicked ones of religion have a saying they like to spout regularly. "Hate the sin, love the sinner." Balderdash. christians don't love the sinner. Well, to put it more accurately, christians don't love non-christians. Especially homosexuals. If these hate-mongers had their way all the fags would be killed.

You see, I was raised conservative baptist. Time and time again I was told that all gay people should be lined up and shot. Or, that they should all be shipped to one island in the middle of the ocean and bombed until they are all dead. Yes. I heard this all the time. Was I alone in this? No, unfortunately not. I still hear similar stories from those who escaped the disgusting grips of religion. Those who cling to the fantasy of their christian tenets are wicked, evil, hateful, and just plain mean. They talk incessantly of a battle between them and the secular world as if those who don't proscribe to their belief system are amassing weapons to destroy them. The world should be so lucky.

And their hatred knows no boundaries. They have been bitching and moaning for months about this new hate crimes bill. Yeah, you know, the one that says you can't physically harm homosexuals and transgendered folks. You can speak badly of them, you can disparage them, you can openly discriminate against them in 31 states, but you can't do to them what these horrific christians have been speaking of for eons. Now it's the law of the land and they are pissed off. They have just been itching to feed the fags to the lions and now they are told "no". Da Horra! But they're not done with their claims of "the world hates us" and everyone is out to get them; No, they are now claiming they have proof. This website tells the whole sordid story. A blogger writes idly and innocently about the build up of angst by the gay community and the church goes wild.

"When people are talking about violence to pro-family proponents, you have to take it seriously," said one in response to the blog.

Of course they take it seriously, they know how serious they are when they speak of killing homos. On a side note, I find it funny that this person considers religion "pro-family". These are the folks that are denying a whole group of people the right to marry and build family. These are the same folks that would rather have innocent children in Arkansas and Florida die in foster care without ever knowing family than allow a gay person adopt and love them. These are the same folks that evict their own underage children by the dozens when they come out as gay. Yes, this is what pro-family does, they hate the sinner AND the sin. That is truly what Jesus would do.

Now, I've read the blog in question and this writer was speaking hypothetically. Just like the christians that want fags lined up and shot. Would christians really kill gays en mass? I'd venture a guess that, no, they wouldn't, as much as it would bring them ultimate joy. He was writing of remote possibility and romantic conjecture. Just like the christians do.

The same "pro-family" hater goes on to say that they are taking this seriously because the events at Fort Hood show us how this idle chatter might mean something. Considering the crime he cites was committed by a religious zealot, maybe we should be more concerned with christians killing homos and less concerned with homos killing christians. It is the christians who are seeing their own numbers dwindle and their way of life in jeopardy, so they have more cause for killing "the enemy" than any queer I've encountered.

More irony in all of this is that religion is an amazingly protected institution in this country. Yet they are also amazingly evil and wicked. Our government gives them so many special rights and protections. What do they do with all of this special treatment? They bully others and work relentlessly to oppress the rest of us. While our soldiers are fighting for democracy and freedom, the christians are fighting for hatred and oppression.

Douche bags.

Chuck

Religious folks aren't very intelligent, are they?

noreply@blogger.com (Chuck) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:14:00 +0000

The religious folks in the United States are all abuzz. Hate crime legislation was passed and signed by Mr. Obama. And the religious nut bags are all crying foul. They think that this new legislation won't allow them their First Amendment right to bigotry. This is only because, I think, they are stupid individuals. Of course this group gives complete credence to fairy tales, so what should we reasonably expect? They staunchly believe that there is this major war against them and so they attack before being attacked. They hate before any hatred heads their way. Preemptive strikes against the heathens.

The goons of religion don't get it. Speech is different from action. You don't like queers? Fine. You want to express your hatred of homosexuality? Great, have at it. You want to kill or maim or attack them? That's a whole different ball of wax. It is my personal conviction that religion should be outlawed from the public discourse and my First Amendment right allows me to express this. It does not, however, allow me to punch religious people in their faces. Sad, but true.

So hate away, religious person. Be free to be bigoted. Just make sure it stays oral. And if you don't, don't be surprised should the gays better the instruction you give and sock it right back at you.

Chuck

Why do THESE FOLKS get special rights???

noreply@blogger.com (Chuck) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:44:00 +0000

Everyone deserves a second chance. If there is some manner of illness, maybe more than two. If it's mental illness, how about some kind of help; therapy can do wonders for folks looking to get their mental illness under control. Personally, I've known way too many people with this type of illness and medications have been quite helpful to them.

Unfortunately we immediately consider sex offenders to be merely violent criminals that deserve to be locked up or banished from society with no further question. I'm not a doctor or law enforcement official, but I wonder how many sex offenders suffer from some type of mental illness, like obsessive/compulsive disorder? Could these people be rehabilitated through therapy and medication? Could they be closely monitored and return from their banishment into a productive life of citizenry? Yes, we all agree that sex offenders have done some pretty horrible acts to innocent people, but is it at all possible that some of these people are acting beyond their own control and would benefit from psychological intervention?

In Georgia, these people are just pariahs. Exiled from any life they may be able to eke out by some of the most strict sex offense laws in the nation. I wouldn't have been struck by this Associated Press story in today's Chicago Sun Times if I hadn't read this particular line: "...Georgia law, which bans the state's 16,000 sex offenders from living, working or loitering within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, parks and other spots where children gather."

Churches? Really? Churches! Yes, religious organizations get special rights and privileges. These folks not only DON'T pay taxes, they get all kinds of special laws protecting them from everything and all kinds of people. Is there some reason that churches need protection from other people? What is so bad about churches and religious folks that they would need such special consideration? And what about the Church of Pedophilia? Do they have to stay away from themselves in Georgia? How can a state legally make such laws respecting all religious institutions in this manner if the First Amendment of The Constitution of the United States forbids any government, local and national, from making any law respecting religion or the free practice and expression of religion?

What I find to be more appalling than all of these special laws protecting religion is that they are not reciprocal. Religion and those who lead these heinous organizations are free to denounce, mock, lambaste, and HATE everyone around them. They engage in political rhetoric and fear mongering, they press for politicians to favor them, and they argue for more and more and more privilege and special laws to keep away the heathen masses who simply wish to worship, or not, in a way that doesn't agree with them. Americans who identify with religion is on the decline. Yet these people still see themselves as special and truly believe that everyone should worship as they do, even if it means via legislation. Yet if someone chooses to hate them back, those people could be breaking the law. If you wish to NOT HIRE a religious person because they belong to such a hateful group, you are breaking the law. If you express disdain toward religious organization in a physical way, you break the law.

While I agree that physical violence against any person or thing is wrong, I find it disturbing that the laws protecting religious property and people from this require stronger penalties against the perpetrator. Why? What is it about churches and religious people that demand such intense punishment? Surely it's not because religious people are so good and wonderful and blameless that acts against them are so much worse? They can't possibly think that they are so undeserving of disgust and hatred that any negative act against them is shocking and unwarranted? But, alas, they really do consider themselves special and deserving of privilege.

I think we should abolish ALL LAWS that protect the religious institutions and their hateful bunch. Let them reap what they have sown on their own. Why should they get special treatment while folks who may be working very hard to atone are thrown out into the muddy cold of exile? How many pedophile catholic priests are in that camp in Georgia? I'd venture to say not many. These people are special, they spread the love of their own warped and weird version of a god. So they are exempt from following the laws of everyone else. I'd say "fuck your god" to those folks, but I'm sure they already have.

Chuck

Constitution openly ignored by Illinois government

noreply@blogger.com (Chuck) — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:09:00 +0000

The First Amendment of our U.S. Constitution, as you've read here before, prohibits the government from sponsoring or championing one religion over another or promoting any religion at all. In the state of Illinois it goes much further and prohibits the state from funding religious institutions, in particular it prohibits funds being allocated for religious schools.

Article X, Section 3 of the Illinois State Constitution states:

SECTION 3. PUBLIC FUNDS FOR SECTARIAN PURPOSES FORBIDDEN

Neither the General Assembly nor any county, city, town,township, school district, or other public corporation, shallever make any appropriation or pay from any public fundwhatever, anything in aid of any church or sectarian purpose,or to help support or sustain any school, academy, seminary,college, university, or other literary or scientificinstitution, controlled by any church or sectariandenomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation ofland, money, or other personal property ever be made by theState, or any such public corporation, to any church, or forany sectarian purpose.

And yet State Representative Maria Berrios, D-39th, feels that the state Constitution does not apply to catholic schools. One can only guess it's because she was raised catholic? One can only guess. This supporter of the Church of Pedophilia* has given tens of thousands of dollars of tax monies to aide in the infrastructure and capitol improvements of these schools. One can also guess that, perhaps, could Ms. Berrios have a problem with adhering to the State Constitution? Isn't she sworn to uphold this all-important document and law of our lands here in Illinois? What could possibly account for this level of disdain? Why does she loathe a state she was elected to represent and a constituency that believes in the Illinois Constitution?

Anti-abortionists will appose public funds for Planned Parenthood and other providers claiming that they are murderers and that it is against their religion. Yet I'm sure they are ok with the public promotion of pedophilia by giving money to the organization that was, and still is, wracked by massive payouts, debt and legal wrangles due to this outrages behavior. A double standard, not uncommon for religious folk.

One can only hope that the ACLU will challenge this. We don't need our state Constitution trampled like this. If you get a chance, phone Maria Berrios or send her an e-mail. Especially if you're not a pedophile or some other religion.

Chuck

(catholic)

Shades of Gray

noreply@blogger.com (Chuck) — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 12:47:00 +0000

Life is not black and white. There are gradations of all colors in all aspects of living. Nuances, some would call them. Nature is full of nuance. Look at rainbows. Inspect a couple of identical twins. Even cloned sheep are not exact when inspected closely. Even, sometimes, gender is not just male and female. This week we've been introduced to Caster Semenya and she has thrown our understanding of gender out of whack. We still don't know for sure that Ms. Semenya is fully female, or even female at all (though, out of respect for this individual we will consider her female). She may well be intersexed like many children born each year are. Your belief in God, or Buddha, or Muhammad, or any number of "higher beings" is irrelevant to this woman's plight. What is, however, is that there is question. There is question because she appears so ambiguous. Her "nuance" is not what one would expect in a black and white world.

In our American society there are those who only subscribe to the black and white. For them there is right and wrong, those who believe in their god and those going to hell. The case of Caster Semenya illuminates the gray in this black and white "reality" to which they adhere so strongly. You see, America is full of nuance. It is full of gray areas and full of "other" religions and non-religions. Because we are home to so many that believe in so much it is important that we extend respect for as many as we can.

In the public sphere this is not always easy. Those who only align with black and white wish to eliminate the gray. They wish to blacken that with which they disagree and whitewash anything with which they agree. Unfortunately this does not sharpen and enhance our world view but, alas, cheapens it and dulls the excitement we get from the experience of life. Those who embrace their own god and condemn those who embrace another short-change their own existence with blinders and rose-colored glasses. What they have chosen to see is not complete. Their experience is lessened. Cheapened.

Nature, however you choose to explain it, created nuance. Who are we to disallow it's existence?

Chuck

No great loss for the freedom of the press

noreply@blogger.com (Chuck) — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:48:00 +0000

Ah, the freedom of the press. It's a wonderful and much needed protection specified in our U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights. But the press treats this with utter disregard and amazing lack of importance and respect. Unless, of course, it suits a particular need. Usually not the need of the press to inform the public about important topics like government corruption or other immoral deeds done by elected officials. Usually it's self protection for their own misdeeds.

One of the most egregious abuses of this freedom was perpetrated by Robert Novack. He reported on Valerie Plame knowing that keeping her identity secret was paramount to her career. He willingly outed her with no thoughts about how this would affect her life. Or even how this would affect the security of our country. Now, he was passed this information by government officials because, I'm very sure, they felt confident he would print it. And print it he did.

Robert Novack is a dick. Or should I say correctly, WAS a dick. Robert Novack is dead at 78. I'm not saddened by this news. Good riddance to bad trash as the saying goes.

We still mourn the loss of Molly Ivens, but not this cocksucker of a reporter Novack.

Chuck

What is your god?

noreply@blogger.com (Chuck) — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:40:00 +0000

God isn't just the one of whom christian's speak. A god can be anything, what, or who, ever you hold highest in esteem. Totems and fetishes represent gods believed in by someone whether real or just imagined. Looking around your local area will reveal a great many gods worshipped by the masses. Some are completely enamored with their respective religious gods while a great many more prefer money or fame or prestige. Our politicians of all levels love and worship power, whatever trips the ego into high gear.

But suppose we chose one of these gods at random and demanded that all Americans worship that god as the highest of all deities. There would be all manner of revolt and outspoken opinions about our first amendment right to worship as we see fit. But judeo-christian leaders in our country look to do just that very thing. They pursue this kind of legislation in their efforts to ban abortion or gay marriage or prevent questionable religions from gathering in hotel conference rooms. When they demean others of different, or no, religious affiliations such as muslims or wiccans they are exerting a veiled attempt at religious censorship. When they cry about our country being founded upon christian principles they attempt to censor religious freedom.

The United States is a warm and wonderful melting pot. And in this diversity of culture we must learn to accept those who are different. We should embrace those differences because they prove the worth of all that we have worked to achieve in establishing a free nation with liberties and justice for all. It shows firsthand the importance of loving people.

Regardless of the god you choose as your own.

Chuck

We have freedom of religion here? Not if you're Muslim.

noreply@blogger.com (Chuck) — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:22:00 +0000

Oak Lawn, Illinois: A conservative Muslim faction called Hizb ut-Tahrir held a convention this weekend at the Oak Lawn Hilton in this Chicago suburb. Outside was held another convention, a convention of protesters who didn't like this group in their backyard (NIMBY?). Technically this Muslim group is a political party with their own religious agenda. Just like the Republicans want that everyone in the U.S. convert to christianity and become a heterosexual white male this group would like everyone to convert to Islam. Republicans are afraid. So much so these protesters claim Hizb ut-Tahrir should be considered terrorists. I assume because christians aren't terrorists? We all know how those bible-thumpers are full of love and compassion for their fellow man. But I guess it takes a terrorist to know a terrorist. One protester complains, "I want to know why the FBI has a terrorist watch list and why this group is not on that list?" Could it be the FBI knows more about them than this idiot does? Methinks they might.

Ah, to be a white, conservative, NASCAR loving, christian, male in the United States. Everyone else is going to hell. The way it should be. This country is only a melting pot if you become like those who hate, christian.

I'd also like to comment on the two gay guys who were harassed in Salt Lake City by police and Mormon officials for kissing. These two fellas were on private property that had their own decency standards. While these standards might not match those of others around the country they are the standards set for this area of privately held land. There are certain things that don't go on in my house, too, and if you do them I escort you to the door. These men are disrespectful boobs and should have been shoo'd away. Maybe not this harshly but sent away. These Mary's need to get over it.

Chuck

The importance, and sometimes necessity, of anonymity

noreply@blogger.com (Chuck) — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:28:00 +0000

Why do we have a Constitutional Amendment protecting the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press? Because prior to these protections the government enjoyed censorship and revisionist media. They didn't like folks to speak ill of them or to inform the electorate of their activity. Those who did received retribution and laws were passed to prevent further negative reporting. And not just in our country but all over the world (at the time). And so we have protections and have enjoyed these freedoms for quite some time. Until fairly recently.

When George W. was disgracing the Oval Office he forbid the press from publishing certain things. Most notably images of dead soldiers returning home from Iraq. These images truly drove home to many the meaning of this war and how very unjust and evil it was. And when your are either wickedly religious or courting this base of voters you can't let them see how awful they really are. Truth to these people is like water to fire; dangerous and deadly.

This Mr. Bush also went to great lengths to "claim" executive privilege so that those who sigh his paycheck could not know what he was up to. He's not alone in this, Mr. Obama is also committing to a tenure of protectionism and secrecy worthy of only those whose wicked deeds should remain hidden lest they be found out. Even here in Chicago our elected officials have worked to quash negative press by keeping secrets. Ask Mr. Daley the important questions and you will surely get no answers.

And so we have now resorted to anonymous blogging in order to get out the truth and get AT the truth to what is happening in our government.

What, you may be asking, brought about this particular column on this particular day? As you all should know by this time Sarah Palin has resigned her post of governor of Alaska without fulfilling her very first commitment to the post. A blogger in Alaska has written about a rumor of investigation against Ms. Palin for corruption. A blogger, I'm sure, very few have ever heard of. Sarah's lawyers have already begun cleanup. They have, pre-emptively I might add, already threatened a lawsuit against CNN, MSNBC, FOX, The New York Times, and The Huffington Post should any of them decide to report on this rumored lawsuit. These lawyers are claiming this reporting is defamation and libel. So much for the First Amendment. So much for the Constitution. We can only hope these large media outlets research and report, against the demands of politicians who wish to operate outside the watchful eyes of those who elect them. It would be a travesty if the rumor were true and we only found out after an important event because news outlets caved to government pressure and abandoned our Constitution.

But they've already begun that process. And that is sad and shameful.

Chuck

Happy Holiday

noreply@blogger.com (Chuck) — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:02:00 +0000

Today we revel in our Independence. Today we celebrate freedom. Today we embrace our country.

We have NAMBLA catholics in America. We have christians and jews. We have mormons and jehova's witnessess. We have agnostics and secular humanists. We have muslims and buddhists. We have every religion imaginable. While we may not agree with some or any we still rejoice in their being and the freedom they have to be who they are in our United States.

We, too, have Republicans and Democrats and Independents. We have the Cool Moose Party and the Green Party. We have parties many of us have never heard of with platforms built of outrageous and bigoted planks. And, also, in these we rejoice their being and the freedom they have to be who they are.

And we have blacks and whites. We see Indians and Asians and Canadians and Native Americans. We have communities of Irish and Italians and Russians and Cambodians. Neighborhoods comprised of Latinos/as and Spaniards and French and Ethiopians and South Africans both black and white.

In America are Elks and Kiwanis and Four H and Knights of Columbus and Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. We have non-profits and for-profits. Big Business and small business. We have cities and countries and rich and poor. In America we have everyone.

Today we will celebrate the differences and the diversity of our Country. We will light fireworks representing our deliverance to freedom. Today is our day of Independence, July 4th. And while there may still be some in our land that are not fully free we smile on our moving forth toward correcting injustice and our yearning that all breathe free.

Today we let the bells of freedom ring. Have a happy and safe holiday.

Chuck

This man is an asshat.

noreply@blogger.com (Chuck) — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:34:00 +0000

With freedom comes responsibility. And if you can't properly handle that responsibility than you should be slapped. Yes, I know that is advocating violence but some people are just irresponsible assholes that need proper reprimanding. I could say they should not be allowed to write in a public forum or open their mouth if another if human being is within earshot but that would go against all that I hold dear, our First Amendment. I know you are all wondering, "What is he talking about?"

Here it is. You see, Mr. Dahlgren is passing on an e-mail he received and allowing his audience to believe it is truth. Mr. Dahlgren, you do no one, including your audience and your cause, a good service. You are, essentially, treating them with contempt in your assumption that they will believe something simply because you post it on your site. Mr. Dahlgren is a poor poster of "news" and should have given appropriate caveats to this column.

There are some very important fallacies contained in the e-mail he received and he has not only believed them himself but allowed his readers to believe them. The e-mail lists certain paraphilias as sexual orientations. This website goes into great detail as to why these are NOT orientations, and it can be taken as a good source because of the research the writer went through and the appropriate sources she cited for her determination. Mr. Dahlgren should have done even a minuscule amount of research and he would have been able to write a truthful, informative piece. In its stead he chose to purpetuate lies and hatred to further a cause.

It is truly sad when someone puts their own ideal above truth. We should all strive to remain curious for better education about topics we deem important. We should do due diligence before writing or "reporting" on something. I still receive e-mails that Bill Gates will send me money if I forward an e-mail to everyone in my list. Really? Really. And those who send it truly believe it and do no research before sending it along. Have any of these people received their checks? No, yet they continue to send it along EVERY time it pops into their inboxes. The same stupidity can be attributed to Mr. Dahlgren. Why?

Well, this Bill has been floating around for some time. And several of those folks who have written about this whole "pedophile" thing have been proven wrong and hate filled. It stands to reason that someone as "enlightened" as Mr. Dahlgren would have know about those corrections and simply deleted this bogus e-mail. Alas he did what right wing hate filled people do and decided to march on with incorrect rhetoric and spread the hate a little more. As the saying goes, "If you tell a lie enough times it becomes the truth." Way to go, sir. Let me guess, you told your wife and kids you love them, too, didn't you? And I would be willing to wager a buck you swear by your religious affiliation.

Chuck

Anti Semites Unite!

noreply@blogger.com (Chuck) — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:03:00 +0000

This has not been a good week for Jews. Is there no end to the persecution?

Earlier this week Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, expressed disgust over "them Jews" not letting him speak with or see his former parishioner. Now, for those of you who are not familiar with conservative evangelicals, this manner of speech against Jews isn't an anomaly. Growing up conservative baptist I heard this all the time, though it was usually followed up by some sort of praise for the Jews because, after all, they are god's chosen people. And while they may have it all wrong for not believing in Jesus and are most definitely going to hell because of it, god did choose them first so we must not speak ill of them. Well, now Mr. Wright is offering an apology. Nice.

Let us remember another "famous" person extolling Jewish virtue from several years back. Mel Gibson had so many wonderful things to say about these folks that he was forced to issue an apology. Poor guy.

These two guys are very religious. They work very hard to impose their views and moral code on the masses. Both are openly anti-gay. I don't think it would be a stretch to assume they would love more legislation championing their respective religious gods. Yet they spew hatred of others. They say that it is easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission, and perhaps that is true. But what these two religious people should also consider is their own religious text that states, "from the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks." Matthew 12:34. Spoken by their Jesus.

How good can these people be? I'm guessing not much. By their own sword their hearts are wicked.

And this week the national Holocaust Museum was shot up by another anti Semite. Tragic. Once can only guess how emboldened to action he may have been by other's hate speech and rhetoric.

What one says matters. Pat Robertson and his hate might disagree, Jeremiah Wright might not, either, and Mel, well, what can I say about this strict catholic who's divorcing amid infidelity? With morals like these guys have, who needs religion?

Chuck

My apologies

noreply@blogger.com (Chuck) — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:33:00 +0000

In the writing classes I've taken we rely on honest peer review. These are the equivalents of editors in professional publications and are not only helpful but necessary for quality writing. It has come to my attention that I have more peer reviewers of this blog than I thought and I welcome the critique and correction.

My last post was quite the mess of information. First, I was unclear in stating my point. Second, there was a glaring error. Two readers pointed this out in the comment section and my thanks goes out to them. I would like to fix these two points in this post.

I'm going to start with the error. John is correct in his statement that there is no law preventing freedom of speech. The hate crimes legislation simply considers crime based on certain criteria "hate crimes" against protected peoples. The new legislation is meant to clarify this and specify new classes as protected. It is not attempting to limit the freedom of speech or inhibit it as I might have implied in my previous post. This implication may have been explicit or implicit but was not intended. I should have spent more time reviewing my post before posting it and I would have caught this.

The point of my last post was also muddled. When this was first pointed out to me by Uzza I didn't see it and came across rather harshly. With their clarification I began to understand the point of the comment tried to clarify my post. A favorite quote from a friend of mine when we would discuss personal difficulties of mine would be, "Can you please be a bit more vague, I think I'm understanding you too well." Being sarcastic myself, this often prompted me to be far more specific than I was used to being.

My point from last post: I don't believe in government censorship. I do, however, believe in personal censorship and think that individuals should have private filters that work between their brains and their mouths to prevent certain things from being said. The radio hosts linked to in my last post engaged in their right to free speech when they spoke of beating innocent children simply because they didn't like them. Aside from being mean spirited this kind of talk could, quite possibly, embolden someone to act accordingly. It was this type of talk that "allowed" a school student to kill another student simply because the other student was different. One student was raised hearing homophobic hate speech and, when the other expressed his attraction to this student of the same sex, shot him. The rhetoric he heard regularly "allowed" this action. When anti-choice people consistently label abortion doctors and women using these services "murderers" they diminish their human-ness and reduce them to evil "others" deserving of death. This speech "allows" folks like Mr. Roerden, the gentleman who recently shot an abortion provider in a church, to feel justified in ridding the world of such beasts. When Greenpeace labels lumberjacks "rapists of the earth" they justify the spiking of trees and the injury or death of those "rapists".

It's unfortunate that these are repercussions of our First Amendment. It would be fantastic of people understood and considered the consequences of their actions before committing to them audibly or in written form but, alas, we aren't all the concerned with consequences these days.

I hope this post is clearer than the last and I apologize for that miscommunication. Thank you for your honest peer review and thank you so much for reading.

Chuck

"Yes, we can!"

noreply@blogger.com (Chuck) — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:34:00 +0000

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.

Chuck

Are Republicans relatable any longer?

noreply@blogger.com (Chuck) — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:23:00 +0000

There's a lot of talk about the sinking ship that is the Republican Party. They're losing the voting base and, because of dwindling support, are grasping at straws to be something meaningful. The religious part of their support has turned into a pariah for most people. Is it the GW debacle that has turned people off to religion and the GOP? They shifted too far to the right and narrowed their views too much for main stream voters.

So they chose an African-American as their chairman. A desperate attempt to draw in more minorities without alienating the male-centric ego and giving the white affluent male a warm fuzzy feeling. Too bad this guy is just a dancing monkey. His performance so far has been less than stellar and borderline embarrassing. But check out his latest effort to demonize the homosexual community and rally the money-men; he says that if you allow same-sex marriages than companies that once didn't recognize them or allow same-sex benefits would now be forced to. This would increase expenditures and reduce the bottom line.

I find this fitting for the party of religious kooks to reduce marriage to a monetary drain on society and eliminate any love and commitment in the institution. Marriage is one gigantic financial burden on companies now. So that's what is so sacrosanct, that is what is so important to married couples. While we all knew this to be the reason for matrimony it's nice to see the GOP finally saying it aloud. It's not the religious ceremony that makes marriage sacred but, in stead, the bottom line.

Way to go!

Freedoms are only for Christians

noreply@blogger.com (Chuck) — Mon, 25 May 2009 14:56:00 +0000

It's funny how people only believe in our Constitution and it's Bill of Rights when it helps their own cause. It doesn't apply to anyone else. You see, we have a First Amendment that states:

"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You, my fellow American, are free to worship whomever, however, whenever, wherever, whatever you wish in this country that is The United States of America. The government is not allowed to infringe upon this right, according to the above First Amendment to our Constitution.

Unless you choose no religion. Or you are gay. You see, if you are no religion or you are LGBT you have no place in our country. You have no place on this planet and you have no place in humanity. Please understand that this is not hate for you and your lifestyle choices, this is hatred for your actions; hatred for your sin, if you will. Our Constitution is only for those who practice real religions; religions like NAMBLA, aka: Catholicism, Protestants, Jews, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses. All others, such as Atheists, Gnostics, Secular Humanists, Muslims, Scientologists and Wiccans practice heathen lifestyles and, because of this, aren't covered by the First Amendment. And Jehovah's Witnesses are only covered by a very thin thread.

Who decides these things? Self-Proclaimed Constitutionalists such as Devvy Kidd. This "christian" woman claims to be a woman who does not hate but, instead, is a woman who loves amazingly. Evidence to this claim is in her most recent article espousing such bullshit. In all of her christ-like wisdom she knows more than science and far more than any LGBT person on the planet. How did she come upon all of this knowledge and wisdom? By reading what many who are NOT CHRISTIAN would consider fiction; the bible. When you peruse her website you will, no doubt, become just as convinced that the only way to be a true American is to denounce and reject anything that is not christian. A true Constitutionalist such as herself knows that to be a real American and to stand for true First Amendment principles is to outlaw any lifestyle that is not the one proscribed by this woman.

I find it fascinating that anyone would read the First Amendment in this way and still consider themselves fair-minded and loving. Currently this way of thinking is on the fringe of American society. But there are still a great many people who think the way this woman thinks. We can only hope it remains on the fringe. Satan is subtle. And pretty. Maybe even a redhead.

Chuck

Not all christians are un-christ-like jackasses.

noreply@blogger.com (Chuck) — Fri, 15 May 2009 12:01:00 +0000

While it would be quite true to say that many of the religious horde are wicked and contradictory to the holy books they espouse, some of them are actually civilized. I know it's shocking but every now and then I come across one that might actually be like-able. And it's refreshing.

The other day I took part in an on-line dialogue with just such a person. A man that engaged in conversation with several non-christian folks and showed amazing respect for the other side of the story. Happily, I can report that those with whom he disagreed also showed respect for this man's opinions. It was an amazing back-and-forth and one that I thoroughly enjoyed.

It's good when people of differing opinions and set of religious beliefs can come together and not get all hot-headed but, instead, work toward mutual understanding while still remaining true to our beliefs and opinions. David C. is to be commended for his respect of others. He is one of the all-too-few that give religion a good name. Maybe one of the folks Lot saw that were worthy of saving from the fire and brimstone?

If you're not already reading Fannie's Room each weekday you really should start. And continue religiously.

Chuck

A change of topic, sort of.

noreply@blogger.com (Chuck) — Tue, 12 May 2009 16:22:00 +0000

Freedom of the press; an important part of our Bill of Rights. Our forefathers understood the value in allowing the press to run free and print good, solid news without repercussion from government retaliation. They saw this as a check by the electorate to keep the government in line. And for quite a great many years the media has done a fairly nice job in their reporting.

With the onset of web-based content print journalism is on the decline and many newspapers are falling into bankruptcy. This fact alone is scary and a travesty. There are still many people without the means to access on-line news and will become less informed and unable to make sound decisions or to fully participate in government. This, in turn, will allow our elected officials to run roughshod over the minority of society, those who are poorer and with limited means. And government does not have a good track record for equality and fair treatment of these people as it is.

But I'm finding it hard to feel any pity or sorrow for the print media itself. More and more often we are seeing journalists resort to opinion based solely on emotion with no factual evidence to support those opinions. Ironically, any facts on the subjects about which they write are usually opposite those opinions. Or any facts they do choose are one sided without well constructed arguments. What is left available to those seeking out print media is poor journalistic endeavor at best. News has become sensationalist, emotionally based fluff. And less and less of us are interested. It's a sad testimony to the industry when BOTH leading newspapers in the third largest metropolis in the United States are in bankruptcy.

What will happen with this important check on government gone? Like a room full of kindergartners with no supervision. Chaos.

Chuck

Our Constitution is in good hands.

noreply@blogger.com (Chuck) — Sun, 03 May 2009 13:17:00 +0000

The GOP is smarting. They are continually being trounced in elections and the country is telling them they are out of touch. And most of what we hear from the right is just that. The issues that matter to the American people right now are not the issues Republicans are talking about. In stead of relevancy they are engaging in hissy fits and acting like sore losers. And these tactics are losing them face, respect, and will lose them more elections. The people want solutions and bipartisanship. They want a government that works together to get things done for the people. But the Republicans feel that it's their way or the highway and they will simply pack up their toys and go home. For shame.

With Justice Souter retiring in June, the Democrats are able to appoint someone to the Supreme Court this year. I can't think of a more appropriate person to have this honor than our current president. Barack Obama was a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. He is not an "it's who I know" Ivy League MBA grad. Our President actually understands law and the high law of our land. He has studied it and practiced it and taught it to others. Who better to appoint an interpreter of that law?

Whether you like Obama or not, whether you voted for him or any other Democrat or opted for a Republican, there can be no arguing that he is perfect for this opportunity. What we must hope, though, is that the Republicans will not make this into yet another "Circus of Irrelevancy" that they have developed such a knack for. Of all the things they are getting wrong we wish for them to get this right. No current politician is better suited for this than the one set to engage in it.

I collective sigh of relief. Maybe we should ask him to nominate Fannie? She seems relatively even-keeled and with common sense. And she has a great sense of humor. We could use a good woman up on that hill. And how progressive would it be to not only have a woman, but a lesbian vegetarian? We'll just have to wait and see.

Chuck

I could if I wanted to.

noreply@blogger.com (Chuck) — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:49:00 +0000

If I wanted to use the word "kike" I could. Or "nigger" or "zipper head" of "dago" or any number of derogatory terms referring to a contingent of humanity. Our first amendment allows me this "right" to voice my opinion however I choose. But simply exercising my "right" to hate speech doesn't make it "right." Using these terms to describe people is wrong. The other day I called a man a girl and a cunt. One was a term he used to describe someone and the other was my own dig at his orientation. I was wrong to use those terms regardless of our liberties. This does not, however, change my opinion of this man. He's still despicable.

Miss California is free to believe

noreply@blogger.com (Chuck) — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:12:00 +0000

Sometimes people mistake their own individual beliefs for the morals of everyone. Perez Hilton is one of these people. OK, we get it, you're gay. And someone has maligned your petty beliefs by stating, in a public national forum, that they don't think like you. This woman, in fact, doesn't think like many of us. But we are a free country where she can think any way she likes. She is quite able to believe in marriage and religion any way she chooses. Mr. (Ms.?) Hilton asked this woman a deeply personal question with strong religious conviction and got an answer he (she?) didn't care for. It wasn't an answer he agrees with. Perez, you need to get your nose out of that shallow, celebrity-obsessed, uber-liberal hole in the ground and embrace the first amendment for all of it's parts. It is a part of our Constitution and Bill of Rights that has allowed you to spill your useless trash and become a financial well-off celebrity yourself. You see, Perez, it is YOU who are the cunt for disparaging this girl her first amendment rights while bathing in them for your own personal gain. Miss California is NOT an elected official using public office to legislate her own religious conviction onto the masses. She is a private citizen. She is a beauty pageant contestant. We all know these kinds of people shouldn't talk because their outsides are far more beautiful and smart than their insides, but who really watches these things for their cerebral challenges? If it is Perez Hilton, dare I say his outside is prettier than his inside. And that is frightening.

Chuck

Filing for Divorce, is that allowed???

noreply@blogger.com (Chuck) — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:01:00 +0000

So Mel Gibson and his wife are divorcing. This is quite shocking coming from this particular camp. I'm not one for celebrity gossip but this juicy tidbit had me piqued. Why this one?

Mr. Gibson is a very strict catholic. He's been married for almost thirty years and has seven children, because that's what sex is for. And divorce for those as strict and pushy in his religion is frowned upon. Let's face it, he's against gay marriage and has been quite outspoken with his religious beliefs to the point of producing and paying for his own movie about Jesus. He's talked about the sanctity of marriage and the importance of christ in his life.

Now, he's also had trouble with alcohol abuse, bigotry, and now divorce. I'd venture to say "Yeah, his religion and the relationship he has with his god is pretty high on his list of priorities. and boy howdy does it show."

Another stellar example of religion done right. Could it be Ellen's marriage to Portia caused this?

Chuck

Happy Easter?!

noreply@blogger.com (Chuck) — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 14:39:00 +0000

To all the godless christians who are so passionate about the pagan rituals surrounding this holiday, all the best this Easter Sunday.

Snake bite kits work.

noreply@blogger.com (Chuck) — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:46:00 +0000

They really do. Let's stick with the analogy and not discuss the other uses for these things, shall we? Snake bite kits contain little suction cups that are placed over the area of insertion and suck the venom out of the infected culprit. And it seems our judicial system is working in a similar fashion.

There was an article in Newsweek recently that shows a marked decline in the number of folks claiming religious affiliation. Today on MSNBC there is a story about religious groups losing lawsuits for discriminating against folks they simply don't like. The article quotes a religious leader claiming this as a lessening of religious freedom. Because nothing says religious freedom like the trampling of others and treating the "other" in society with less dignity than you would treat a house plant. That is exactly what Jesus would do, I suspect, treat people as though they were sewer sludge.

I read another article this week I found to be interesting also, though I don't have the link and I apologize. A Mexican family RE-converted to Judaism after centuries of familial catholocism. It seems the wonderfully loving and ever christ-like catholics of the Inquisition forced this family to convert to catholocism to save their immortal souls. How sweet is that? I can only imagine what Jesus-onian persuasion they used for this joyous occasion. I'm sure it was something soothing and with all the love they could muster. No pressure, really! And for this re-conversion the family had to jump through many, many, many hoops proving the past family's true religious affiliation and present commitment to the jewish faith. Another heart-warming story showing the true love religion offers the darkened hearts of the world.

But, thankfully, the practice of organized religion is waning. The vipers' poison is losing it's potency. We are on our way to true freedom and liberty. And eradicating this terrible, awful, no good scourge on society.

Have a fantastic easter weekend!
Chuck

Our local NAMBLA guy chimes in

noreply@blogger.com (Chuck) — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:28:00 +0000

So the local High Holy leader of NAMBLA here in Chicago, Francis George, has chimed in on President Obama's impending visit to Notre Dame. This catholic university has invited our pro-choice president to deliver the commencement address to this year's graduates and some are none too happy. The biggest joke comes from Chicago's own pedophile connoisseur who is calling this invitation "an embarrassment" for the catholic church. Oh? Really? Because, after all, having a boy fucker in your own home isn't an embarrassment Mr. Cardinal? You, sir, invited a man who is known to have molested innocent young boys who put all their faith and trust into him. This reprobate abused this faith and trust and had secret sex with these underage youths. Knowing that this man has a "thing" for boy pussy you decided to let him live with you in your mansion in Chicago's Gold Coast neighborhood directly across the street from a park and a block from the beach. But this doesn't embarrass you? Methinks it should. That and your claim to be holy should both embarrass you.

Chuck