Sep. 9th, 2010 06:52 pm
thesilversiren: (Default)

I’m going to take a break from discussing important things like my kids or the shoes I covet to talk about something even more important. Tolerance.

As I’m sure you all know, Terry Jones, “pastor” for the Dove World Outreach Center planned to burn copies of the Quran on 9/11 because they believe that Islam is evil. I use “pastor” because I deeply feel that any leader of a church that actively encourages intolerance isn’t really religious. I refuse to call Fred Phelps of Westboro anything for that reason. I’m using planned, because earlier today he said he wasn’t going to do it anymore because the imam involved with Park 51 said they were going to move the site if he did. Though frankly, I think it was merely Jones trying to emotionally blackmail them into moving the site- I doubt such a promise was made.

Many people have said that it’s their right to burn the Quran, that there isn’t any law to stop them. Indeed, there isn’t. Just like there aren’t laws that bar Westboro (and on occasion Dove World Outreach Center) from protesting at soldier’s funerals. However, the lack of a law doesn’t mean that the actions are right.

The irony is that fundamentalist Muslims like the ones who call for suicide bombings say that America and Christians want to destroy Islam, and intolerant idiots like Jones only give them examples that they speak the truth. And just as sad, people who react with intolerance like this only reaffirm that they were successful in instilling fear in the hearts of Americans.

There are plenty of people that I deem to be rational who have tried to side with anti-Muslim sentiment by saying that Islam is inherently a violent religion. While we hear reports of stonings and executions from fundamentalist ruled regions, the fact is that there are millions of Muslims who peacefully reside in the United States. Violence comes with nearly any religion. Let’s not forget that Christianity brought about the Crusades which were to demolish non-Christians. Or all the wars that were fought in the Old Testament in God’s name. Or the Spanish Inquisition. Even today, there are people who claim their acts of violence were committed in God’s name. But we discount them as nut cases. Shouldn’t we listen to the many Muslims who say that those who call for violence don’t speak for them and believe that the men behind the terrorists are nut jobs as well?

I guess it all comes down to two things we were taught as kids (well, I was taught, at least)- that just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should, and that you should never stoop to someone else’s level just to prove a point- all it does is make you the same as them.

My favorite suggestion came from Facebook, where a friend reposting what a friend of his had posted- that if they plan on declaring it Burn the Quran day, that everyone else should declare it Douse a Bonehead in Fire-Retardant Chemicals Day, and yes, show up at the church with fire extinguishers. Since that isn’t against the law either.

However, I think that these two men put it eloquently. Instead of 9/11 being “Burn a Quran Day,” why don’t we make it “Read a Book” day?

I promise, back to fluff tomorrow.

Originally published at American Whitney. You can comment here or there.

thesilversiren: (Default)

One of the common complaints I’ve heard in the immigration reform debate is that the United States needs to make English the official language. That we’ll save money in only printing one versions of forms, and right now we’re catering to illegal immigrants.

Why am I even mentioning this issue? Someone on Facebook (an app friend, who clearly doesn’t know me) suggested that I “like” a page called “THIS IS AMERICA…I SHOULDNT HAVE TO PRESS 1 FOR ENGLISH.” Just a joke right? Take a peek at the profile picture.

Read the rest of this entry » )

Originally published at American Whitney. You can comment here or there.

thesilversiren: (Default)

Right now, the House has voted to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) by a vote of 234 to 194. A Senate panel has similarly voted 16-12. The next step to repeating DADT is for the Senate as a whole to include it as an amendment to a Defense Department funding bill and pass it.

And it’s about time. The US is big on equal rights. We have constant opinions on Muslim countries and their treatment of women as second class citizens, and yet, we treat gays and lesbians the same way.

We acknowledge that those who choose to serve our country are choosing to make a sacrifice for all that our nation stands for. We honor them, and in many cases, most Americans will go to great lengths to vilify anyone who dares say anything against the men and women in the military. Yet, for a percentage of them, these men and women are being asked to live a lie every day. They are forced to hide who they are for fear that they will be booted out of the military, and unable to ever return to the life that they had chosen because of the sexual preference they were born with.

What was the big deal? Did they worry that gays and lesbians would corrupt the straight soldiers and be so focused on having sex with them that they wouldn’t concentrate on the war? Because, honestly, they’re people. They know (quite well) that straight individuals can’t be swayed. They’re there first and foremost to serve their country. To imply that is an insult out and out.

From a statistical standpoint, the military is stretched far too thin as it is. Just based on populations, it’s a statistical inevitability that there will be homosexual individuals in the military. If they’re removed from the military- that’s even FEWER soldiers out there. Which means longer tours, more frequent tours… and for what? Because a few homophobic individuals refuse to believe that gay people are well, people. People who can put duty first. People who understand that sexual orientation is instilled at birth, and thus, you cannot switch teams. People who just want to lead the same life that a straight individual has.

Now that I got that off my chest, I’m going to enjoy the rest of the night and clean up the living room. Strike that, reverse it. I’m going to clean the living room and then enjoy the rest of the night.

Originally published at Whitney Drake. You can comment here or there.

thesilversiren: (Default)

(Note: After the cut I sidetracked and talked about the tea parties some more. Just in case you were wondering)

Most weekends tend to be pretty laid back here. The in-laws take the kids out, TH and I sneak out for a little grown-up time if we can. But we’re going to have a grueling couple of weekends. Today’s pretty normal, but tomorrow we’re going to Disneyland. I know, that should be fun, right? For those who’ve never taken little kids to Disneyland…. no. You have to pack a diaper bag with everything you might need (otherwise you have to pay 500% markup at the park), so it weighs around 20 lbs. Not only that, R has food allergies, so I have to pack food for him. Then, you have to bring extra clothes (in case they pee through). Then strollers, and it’s off in the car! You get to Disneyland, and the kids are too small to go on much. D’s really phobic, so you have to figure out whether or not it’s worth waiting 30 minutes to go on Peter Pan to see if he’ll like it or not. Or if it’s worth waiting in the line for Small World holding a squirming toddler to see if D’s over his fear of the dark. Then the kids rebel and decide not to nap, so suddenly… they’re the worst behaved children in the world. They scream, throw tantrums, and decide to ignore anything you may try to do. So it’s time to leave before Mickey and crew escort you out. (Having worked at Disneyland, I know that children behave worse and we won’t be escorted out. But as a parent, it’s still totally embarrassing)

Next weekend, my mother in law leaves on a cruise… so it’ll be just me and the kids most of the weekend (if TH has overtime). I will also be the only woman in the house. Eep!

Read the rest of this entry » )

Originally published at Whitney Drake. You can comment here or there.

thesilversiren: (Default)

I admit, I’m liberal. I’m definitely in favor of a more socialistic government.

But, when I read op-ed pieces, I do try to be as neutral as possible to at least see the merit in the piece. Courtesy of Rej, I give you “Obama’s Ultimate Agenda”. It’s written by a conservative. But…

Well, it isn’t terribly effective. Oh no! Obama seeks to level out the inequality in the American economy? Where a small percentage of people hold our nation’s wealth, while millions live just at or below poverty level? He wants people to have access to health care?

Many conservatives have made the case that Obama’s government will be far reaching and expensive - and most very clearly so. Instead, what is his grand summation? “If Obama has his way, the change that is coming is a new America: “fair,” leveled and social democratic.”

Oh no. I’m quaking in my boots.

Originally published at Whitney Drake. You can comment here or there.


thesilversiren: (Default)

July 2011

      1 2
10111213 1415 16


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 25th, 2017 09:55 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios