Recently, Barrack Obama argued that homophobia was unchristian. This is another one of these “New Stupid” things I’ve been talking about.
Here’s an analysis of anti-gay bible verses from the old and new testaments. It gives both pro- and anti-gay interpretations of each controversial verse. I think the anti-gay interpretations are clearly closer to the original meaning. A pro-gay interpretation of “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination” is a bit of a stretch.
Homophobia is very Christian. Does that mean that homosexuality is immoral? NO. Christianity is immoral! Don’t believe me? Have you ever read the bible? Oh yeah, Jesus wanted everyone to love each other, but the old-testament God was a genocidal psychopath. Don’t believe me? Go READ the shit. And don’t give me any counter-arguments about those parts being wrong but the “basic teachings” being right. The basic teachings are just as crazy as the rest. To summarize:
Old Stupid Idea: Homosexuality is unnatural and ungodly because it says so in the bible
New Stupid Idea: Homophobia is unchristian
Intelligent Idea: Perhaps if the bible glorifies rape and murder, cheerleads for genocide, accepts slavery and demonizes women and homosexuals it’s a stupid book representing an immoral religion.
While I’m on the subject, I just finished reading Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope. One thing he brings up is the separation between supporting the troops and criticizing policy. I’ve dealt with this before. But let’s take it to a new level:
Old Stupid Idea: Criticizing the war is not supporting the troops, hence unpatriotic
New Stupid Idea: Criticizing war policies has nothing to do with the troops, hence not unpatriotic (Obama)
Intelligent Idea: What’s wrong with criticizing the military??? The military attracts all kinds of misfits and fuckheads!
Begin Tangential Rant.
And whether or not your darling son was one of the fuckheads before he got shot is irrelevant. I used to work at McDonald’s. You won’t hear my mother defending some idiot who works there just because I used to. Furthermore, if your son died while working for McDonald’s because General Ronald sent him to do something stupid and dangerous for no good goddamn reason, would you defend McDonald’s? NO! So why do you defend the military??? GET A CLUE.
End Tangential Rant.
Let’s review what we have on the US military to date. We’ve got rape and possibly murder of female soldiers by their male counterparts. We’ve got totally uncalled for cruelty to animals. We’ve got generally terrorizing kids and more specifically gang rape/murder of a 14-year old girl. Oh, and there’s been plenty of killing innocent people.
I could go on, but there’s already a comprehensive, well-cited list of atrocities and war crimes by american soldiers here.
So can we please drop this ban on criticizing the troops? And don’t give me any bullshit about them giving their lives for “our freedoms.” Message to Americans: in case you haven’t noticed, the people taking away your freedoms are not in Iraq, they’re in the White House.
In Obama’s defense, he may understand these points very well. He may simply be downplaying such controversial arguments for the very good reason that making them would not go over well with the (undereducated, brainwashed and delusional) voting public. It’s not like any of the other remaining candidates have this stuff figured out. I’m just saying, I hope it’s an act. The current US president is clearly part of the “Old Stupid” class. If the next president is part of the “New Stupid” class, he or she will just find new and exciting ways to fuck everything up.
Edit: I can’t help but throw in one more great reason to criticize the army: discrimination against atheists.
| Comments | Published in | PREV | NEXT |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 |
essay religion politics ethics social issues |
This guy puts it into perspective and he’s funny too:
http://www.angryjerk.net/army.html
thanks much, guy
(Note by KW: this and the next comment are excerpts from Toa De Jin, a book published on Taoism published 260BC.)
Powerful men are well advised not to use violence,
For violence has a habit of returning;
Thorns and weeds grow wherever an army goes,
And lean years follow a great war.
A general is well advised
To achieve nothing more than his orders:
Not to take advantage of his victory.
Nor to glory, boast or pride himself;
To do what is dictated by necessity,
Not by choice.
For even the strongest force will weaken with time,
And then its violence will return, and kill it.
Armies are tools of violence;
They cause men to hate and fear.
The sage will not join them.
His purpose is creation;
Their purpose is destruction.
Weapons are tools of violence,
Not of the sage;
He uses them only when there is no choice,
And then calmly, and with tact,
For he finds no beauty in them.
Whoever finds beauty in weapons
Delights in the slaughter of men;
And who delights in slaughter
Cannot content himself with peace.
So slaughters must be mourned
And conquest celebrated with a funeral.