A long post you needn't bother read.

I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING about Newton, Willard or any other of the gawp candidates except hearsay. The same cannot be said about President Obama. Having read his books and listened to his speeches on the telly, I admire him with a respectful gaze and cast dirty looks at those who sully his name.

Considering the possibility that I've been so deranged by liberal media I can no longer discriminate good idea from terrible concept, and that perhaps the neoconservatives have good thoughts and valid criticisms I’ve failed to consider. For all intensive purposes I should be considered an Obamabot, if that is the term in actual use. The connotation that I follow orders, that I am a member of 'Obama's army', an accusation leveled at every irate liberal group alike to Wisconsinites, is not appreciated. Robot does best describe my avoidant reflex to being confronted with a swatch of deep red candidates who think gays, liberals, and minorities are sinners, and sins are real, and that there is one court higher than the Supreme Court and that is the court of Christ the King from which they received divine mandate.

Religion

Despite being raised in a fairly Christian environment to some degree or another, and a brief foray into that evangelical Christian youth group... thing... I am not a religious person. I don't identify with any particular mainstream religion or any of the "fringe" religions that some of my peers (20-something, middle-class white people) find appealing (why are all the 20-something white kids in Uptown Buddhist? I'm skeptical). I have tried, because I thought that it was important for me to do so, and I have come out of those experiences with more understanding, but not with any particular god or belief system winning me over.

Because of my lack of religious or spiritual belief or dedication, I often find jokes made at the expense of various religions and those who practice them quite funny. A couple feminist blogs recently linked to a video of a group of rapping Christians promoting the "Christian Side Hug," as opposed to a normal hug which may accidentally arouse someone if they realize they're touching someone's breasts or crotch through several layers of clothing.

Ok, that's really hilarious. And the video is certainly making its rounds, as I received my very own Christian Side Hug on Thanksgiving when at imnotme's mom's house.

You know what else is hilarious?

-Muslim men think that when they die, they'll be greeted by a large number of their very own virgins to deflower in heaven;

-Jews believe that women are impure when menstruating;

-Catholics believe that if they tell a robed man behind a cage all the bad things they did, they are free from consequence;

-Muslim women believe they need to cover their hair, and sometimes their whole head, because they should be more modest than men;

-Muslims, Jews, and Christians believe that a person's natural inclination toward same-sex romantic relations are evil;

-Many polytheistic religions like Hinduism believe that there are several deities controlling their environment and lives.

(I'm obviously making vast generalizations.)

See, all religious people, regardless of which religion they practice, believe in some weird stuff. The fact that Christians are currently quite influential in Western society doesn't make that untrue. Can we please stop pretending that we can only make fun of powerful things, people, religions, ethnicities, companies, or belief systems?

Also, sometimes women do dumb stuff, and sometimes Muslims do dumb stuff, and sometimes Asians do dumb stuff. If we feel the need to call people out on their dumb decisions or make fun of their weird behaviors, can we please stop pretending that only certain groups get to be held accountable for their idiocy? Geez.

The lament above came from the comment thread over at the Feministe post, the one making fun of the Christian Side-Huggers. Of course that's hilarious; what isn't hilarious about a bunch of kids rapping about how you should leave room for the Holy Spirit in your hug? Der. But when I brought up the fact that the post was written solely for the purpose of making fun of Christians, especially young Christians, and that this would never fly if the object was Islam or Judaism or any other religion, people jumped all over me about how it's okay to do that when the object of the ridicule is an oppressive group, and that if another group is oppressed, they are basically untouchable when it comes to parodying or laughing at their beliefs or behaviors.

I don't believe that just because a group can reasonably claim to be oppressed in one particular society, that they are somehow freed of any critique of their choices and behaviors. I do not believe that criticizing oppressive practices or negative behaviors prevalent in an oppressed group further oppresses said group. Ignoring negative qualities because of a perceived disadvantages fosters acceptance of negative and damaging behaviors. Allowing some people or groups to be absolved of responsibility encourages negativity in all senses to further prevail.

Sorry, but I am of the belief that if one makes a choice, it's subject to criticism and judgment. While it's always a good idea to practice sensitivity and not be a jerk, if the behavior or attribute in question is not an inherent one, then it's open to be mocked. For example, I would not make fun of someone for being blind, but I would make fun of someone for wearing hipster glasses.

Critical-thinking caps, people! Don't take them off just because you're in the company of other progressive-minded folks!

Religions are funny.

Despite being raised in a fairly Christian environment to some degree or another, and a brief foray into that evangelical Christian youth group... thing... I am not a religious person. I don't identify with any particular mainstream religion or any of the "fringe" religions that some of my peers (20-something, middle-class white people) find appealing (why are all the 20-something white kids in Uptown Buddhist? I'm skeptical). I have tried, because I thought that it was important for me to do so, and I have come out of those experiences with more understanding, but not with any particular god or belief system winning me over.

Because of my lack of religious or spiritual belief or dedication, I often find jokes made at the expense of various religions and those who practice them quite funny. A couple feminist blogs recently linked to a video of a group of rapping Christians promoting the "Christian Side Hug," as opposed to a normal hug which may accidentally arouse someone if they realize they're touching someone's breasts or crotch through several layers of clothing.

Ok, that's really hilarious. And the video is certainly making its rounds, as I received my very own Christian Side Hug on Thanksgiving when at imnotme's mom's house.

You know what else is hilarious?

-Muslim men think that when they die, they'll be greeted by a large number of their very own virgins to deflower in heaven;
-Jews believe that women are impure when menstruating;
-Catholics believe that if they tell a robed man behind a cage all the bad things they did, they are free from consequence;
-Muslim women believe they need to cover their hair, and sometimes their whole head, because they should be more modest than men;
-Muslims, Jews, and Christians believe that a person's natural inclination toward same-sex romantic relations are evil;
-Many polytheistic religions like Hinduism believe that there are several deities controlling their environment and lives.

(I'm obviously making vast generalizations.)

See, all religious people, regardless of which religion they practice, believe in some weird stuff. The fact that Christians are currently quite influential in Western society doesn't make that untrue. Can we please stop pretending that we can only make fun of powerful things, people, religions, ethnicities, companies, or belief systems?

Also, sometimes women do dumb stuff, and sometimes Muslims do dumb stuff, and sometimes Asians do dumb stuff. If we feel the need to call people out on their dumb decisions or make fun of their weird behaviors, can we please stop pretending that only certain groups get to be held accountable for their idiocy? Geez.

The lament above came from the comment thread over at the Feministe post, the one making fun of the Christian Side-Huggers. Of course that's hilarious; what isn't hilarious about a bunch of kids rapping about how you should leave room for the Holy Spirit in your hug? Der. But when I brought up the fact that the post was written solely for the purpose of making fun of Christians, especially young Christians, and that this would never fly if the object was Islam or Judaism or any other religion, people jumped all over me about how it's okay to do that when the object of the ridicule is an oppressive group, and that if another group is oppressed, they are basically untouchable when it comes to parodying or laughing at their beliefs or behaviors.

I don't believe that just because a group can reasonably claim to be oppressed in one particular society, that they are somehow freed of any critique of their choices and behaviors. I do not believe that criticizing oppressive practices or negative behaviors prevalent in an oppressed group further oppresses said group. Ignoring negative qualities because of a perceived disadvantages fosters acceptance of negative and damaging behaviors. Allowing some people or groups to be absolved of responsibility encourages negativity in all senses to further prevail.

Sorry, but I am of the belief that if one makes a choice, it's subject to criticism and judgment. While it's always a good idea to practice sensitivity and not be a jerk, if the behavior or attribute in question is not an inherent one, then it's open to be mocked. For example, I would not make fun of someone for being blind, but I would make fun of someone for wearing hipster glasses.

Critical-thinking caps, people! Don't take them off just because you're in the company of other progressive-minded folks!

Let's talk about gay marriage

...I mean, why not?

when I consider what I want to write about in a blog post, I never consider my options to include gay marriage, abortion, or the death penalty (the Big Three), because... well, everyone has already made every argument known to humankind for or against all of them. We've all heard it, we've all chosen a "side." They're all tired subjects these days, when it comes to social commentary. But, who cares. Today, I'm thinking about gay marriage. It's on my mind, so I shall write:

Why does anyone oppose the idea of two men or two women getting married to one another? The only opponents thus far seem to be opposed for religious reasons. If one is concerned that gay marriage would oppose their religious beliefs, then there is a really reasonable solution to that: if you're a heterosexual religious person, then simply don't elect to marry a person of the same sex. If you're a religious official, do not elect to marry gay couples. I'm fairly certain that there's some part of our Constitution that says something along the lines of "freedom of religion" or something like that.

All right, sarcasm aside, the part of the First Amendment that discusses religion says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Which means that Congress cannot establish or maintain a religious structure to dictate the laws and lives of US citizens, and/because as US citizens, we all have the right to religious freedom and expression as we see fit. No religion shall be considered dominant or influential in our law making, and no law shall be passed that prohibits or discourages people from expressing their religious beliefs.

Now, luckily for Christians in the US, church officials are legally allowed to perform marriages. This means that you can go to the county government office like your atheist or agnostic friends, get your marriage license, and have your priest, pastor, imam, or whomever, perform the marriage, and it becomes official, according to secular US law. Luckily for non-Christian or non-religious people, there is also the option of a Justice of the Peace or otherwise secularly ordained officiant to legally marry you. In fact, it's really astonishingly easy to become legally allowed to marry people.

What I understand is that a Christian person may feel that a gay couple being married is a sin in the eyes of their god. This is understandable, and not something I'm interested in arguing about with someone who is religious. I'm not trying to debunk anyone's (usually) harmless belief systems. However, if one is married by a religious official, the marriage is blessed by God, and therefore a holy matrimony. If your local justice of the peace marries two women tomorrow afternoon, well, what does that have to do with anything? If it were a heterosexual couple being married by a JOP, you wouldn't consider it to be a holy matrimony, either, right? That would presumably be because a JOP isn't giving God's blessing to your marriage. A JOP is simply making a domestic partnership into a legally binding contract. Where are the objections to heterosexual couples being married by secular institutions? I have heard of absolutely zero complaints about non-religious heterosexual couples being married by a judge, or their rights as married people.

What I truly don't understand is why a heterosexual Christian person would find a gay marriage threatening. It doesn't change the meaning of their marriage in the eyes of God.

If heterosexual religious people object to gay marriage within their church or religious institutions, then I say, more power to them. Have at it. Discriminate all you want. Why? Because your religious beliefs don't have an effect on the secular lives of those around you. At least, they shouldn't. Likewise, allowing homosexual people to marry someone of the same sex has no impact on religious people.

I understand the implications of saying that I believe that religious institutions have the right to be discriminatory in their allowance of certain ceremonial events. It would be discriminating against gay Christians, for one. But... well, if I don't want someone's religion to dictate my life, then I'm also not willing to demand that secular practices dictate the lives of religious people in a way that undermines or negates their religious beliefs. So, men can marry men and women can marry women legally, and Christian churches (and other non-Christian religions) can decide who they want to marry under the guidelines of their religion. Seems simple enough, right? They can all be legal under US law, so... what's the problem again?

Furthermore, is there anyone out there who is not religious, Christian or otherwise, who believes that gay people should not have the right to marry a person of the same sex? I haven't heard of any.

It seems so utterly simplistic, and I can't wrap my mind around what the actual problem is. The religious right seems to think that their interpretation of what certain people said that their god said should be universal law, but that's obviously incorrect in the context of our legal system and the founding of our nation, so where is the disconnect? Why are we stalling a civil rights issue over a group's beliefs, when the solution is to simply... you know, continue separating church and state?