Offensive Defense

(I am blown away by finding out that I got faulty news (from the radio):  They said McCrory had vetoed the NC hate bill–and now I find out that he did not.  He simply spun the story it seems to go along with the idiots.  So I am deleting all the good words I had for that bigot a week ago.  My points remain, and now in spades.)

Realizing that folks only listen to flattery and fantasy concerning and confirming themselves, I only rarely spout off about my perceptions of the inanities and insanities of modern life. But on occasion, I hear someone say something so surreally irrational that I can’t let it pass without comment, though my little squeaks will probably fall on deaf ears.

Regarding the bald-faced act by the North Carolina legislature to subvert the law of the land (and Governor Pat McCrory’s craven approval), a week ago a radio news announcer apparently quoted one of the benighted legislators as saying that they were just trying to find “a way to protect faith-based communities from gay marriage.”  Say what?  Why?  Actually, a number of whys:

1) Why should a legislature look for a way to do anything to the sole benefit of a specific group?  Especially a religious group which is by definition legally irrelevant.  Even more especially when that benefit is to the patent detriment of another constituency, and triply especially when that benefit would be a gross exemption from the law.

2) Why do they plead freedom of religion as their constitutional motivation when others have the same freedom?  That freedom doesn’t allow you to compel anyone else to conform to your personal beliefs—or you to theirs—or to punish each other for not doing so.

3) Why should a faith-based community feel it needs protection from another belief system?  The threat of temptation?  Any faith has to deal with that fact of life.  If it can’t resist temptation, the faith has no strength beyond dogma.  Or is the community’s faith so weak that it requires mass confirmation?  No dissent, no differing opinions.  Welcome back to the Inquisition.  Hello, ISIS.

4) Why should another belief system be seen as an affront to or offense against one’s own religion?  And so what if it is?  You’re perfectly free to be offended by whatever you want.  Deal with it.  Sulk and pout.  But you’re not free to intentionally offend or injure anyone else in supposed defense (or support) of your personal scruples.  Or to be exempt from the law.

Just look at Mississippi  too!  So now garbage men can refuse to pick up the trash from someone they don’t approve of on religious grounds?   A doctor can refuse to treat?  Restaurant refuse to serve?  This is hateful idiocracy!

I’m proud of our Santa Fe Mayor Javier Gonzales for speaking out against the idiots.


Gay Marriage – O Frabjous Day

“O, frabjous day, calloo, callay!” I chortled in my joy on learning this morning that the Supreme Court has affirmed the right of LGBT folks to the pursuit of happiness.  Throughout human history most folks have pursued their happiness in the form of a secure, lasting, and loving relationship within a thriving family, i.e. marriage.  Up until today, LGBT folks in these United States of incredible America had been denied that security in our relationships and families.  Again, Calloo, Callay!  And again!  I’ve lived to see it!

Immediate commentaries by opponents of the decision were morbid concern about infringing (their) freedom of religion, insisting that other people should not be allowed to live in ways not in accordance with their (own) religious beliefs.   You will note that their freedom entails the subjugation of others.  Where in the world do these arrogant people get the absurd idea that their (or anyone else’s) religious beliefs are relevant to governance of this nation?  Those beliefs are immaterial in both senses of the word.  As citizens of this amazing nation, those disgruntled opponents of this thunderbolt of justice now have a civic duty to live by and uphold the law of the land.  No exceptions.  None.

I’ll defend (not necessarily to the death) the right of every one of us to hold and express our own personal religious beliefs.  This is freedom of religion.  But no one may compel someone else to share in or live according to their beliefs (divinely revealed or otherwise).  One can never be truly free at the cost of another’s freedom.  Never.

And they will wail and moan, complaining that (homo)sex(uality) is a sin.  While this pious lament is by definition irrelevant and immaterial to governance of the nation, I’d like to discuss the artificial notion of sin.  There are indeed positive and negative acts judged so by subjective standards and many also adjudged so by society, but the only guidelines purported to come directly from a deity are the Ten Commandments.

There’s nothing among those big no-no’s about sex except not coveting thy neighbor’s wife.  Not word one about coveting thy neighbor.  But there are scriptural injunctions to love thy neighbor as thyself and to do unto others as thou wouldst have them do unto thee.  As a versatile sexual being, I’m all for that.  Where’s the sin in loving anybody, even thy neighbor’s wife or husband?

Now you’ve gotten me started on sin, and you’re in for it.  The seven deadly or cardinal sins  are traditionally wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony.  In my opinion, this list is sadly deficient and not a little trivial in most of its vices.  My personal take on it is:  stupidity, greed, arrogance, falsehood, aggression, violence, and cowardice.  Of course, there are myriad vicious sub-categories of these deadly sins.

I find it amusing that the traditional list includes lust, i.e. sexual desire.  Any sexual desire, I guess.  That’s how I was catechized.  But not sex itself.  You can do it, but you can’t want to.  Maybe that’s what makes intimate encounters so tricky.  Actually, why don’t we just scratch that sin right off the list?

But let’s forget about all that nonsense.  On this frabjous day, ‘tis brillig!  Calloo, Callay!