Posts
OK, so I've been amused for -- how long now? two weeks? three? My, how the time flies when you're dealing with 17 credits, internships, and so forth -- by all the hysteria about McCain's selection of Sarah Palin. I've been content to smile as friend after friend on Facebook joins groups with names like "I have more foreign policy experience than Sarah Palin," and I have dutifully explained why try as they might the Democrats are unable to use Palin to turn the so-called "pro-life/pro-choice" dichotomy into my wedge issue. But now there is something I simply must say.
I find myself really annoyed by all the people who are calling her too right-wing, or evangelical because of all these (so far, false) rumors about her banning books and wanting to teach creationism in schools... all you who are in hysterics about her views on the womb (pun very much intended)... listen up!
I think I've figured out why I shrug off all of this. I was trying to explain to a friend the other day why it's hard to get me too freaked out by someone's religious beliefs. Here's the thing. Everyone is all "oh-my-god-she's-going-to-teach-creationism-abstinence-babies" but I have officially decided today that I'm done with all the faux-outrage about people who want to --gasp!-- impose their ideas on others.
It's crap. You know what? We all want to impose our ideas on others. At least those of us who blog do! Even those of you who pretend you don't want other people to agree with you, you want other people to agree with you that people shouldn't try to get other people to agree with them. Or so you say.
My point: I'm over the outrage about someone wanting to spread their views (in schools, or wherever). Where's the outrage about them holding the offensive views in the first place?
Who cares if crazy Christians and rabid religious right-wingers want people to think like them? That's old news: I grew up around Mormons. How about we call a spade a spade and get mad at what they think?
Why not try to convince her that she's wrong?
I've decided that everyone needs to stop pussyfooting around about the religious nonsense and just admit - like I'm admitting - that you think their religious views are a bunch of hooey. That they are -- gasp! -- wrong. Not, "oh-I'm-so-into-everyone-believe- what-you-want-accepting-tolerance-look-at- liberal-touchy-feely-me."
Here, I'll start:
The world was created in six days: wrong! Whether you're teaching it in public school, Sunday school, or around the damn campfire. Too bad if it's a "religious belief" -- it's wrong!
You are immoral if you wear tank tops. Wrong!
Not letting women drive? Wrong!
See how easy that is?
People can believe whatever they want. They will always be able to think whatever they want. That's the great thing about minds (until they're brainwashed, I guess). But I'm so tired of religion right now. And it's about more than just keeping your religious views out of the public school classroom, the government, and so on. (Which, hello - keep them out! Please! Thank you, U.S. Constitution.) It's about if you say something that is stupid, illogical, hypocritical, or nonsensical, why don't we just call you on it, instead of going out of our way to tell you how much right you have to think that but oh could you just kind of keep that crazy, b.s. to yourself instead of sharing it with any children you might come across?
How about, instead, not believing the crazy b.s. in the first place?
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
OK fine. Yes. OK.
What really bothers me about this issue is that a MAN with the same resume, would never, EVER, have been picked for this ticket. Try to picture...
Even Dan Quayle had been in government longer.
Of course they're exploiting gender. And they want to ride on Hillary's coattails with this? How dare they!
Well, a WOMAN with Obama's resume would never have been picked for that ticket. So there you go.
I actually agree with that. However, at least he had to slog through the primaries and he was not picked like a cherry and placed next to a running-mate as if to serve as a distraction. Or a decorative piece.
"A decorative piece" ... I daresay you wouldn't use that language if it weren't a woman (not even for John Edwards). So if you think about it, just being practical, why shouldn't John McCain select this woman if people who criticize him are now doing the exact same thing of which they accuse him?
I reiterate that besides being hypocritical people are hysterical, and it's unfounded. If you described this race without names and gender terms in some other year (say, 1996...or maybe even 2004) people would be like - "oh, a governor of a small state who fast and furious turned some politics of the state upside down and offers some diversity to the ticket? Yeah that totally makes sense for a VP choice." But because it's HER, and against B.O. (beloved Obama), everyone is freaking the f**k out. I think they're just jealous, and infuriated, that McCain outsmarted them.
So McCain won a game, arguably giving him the set. It's still not the whole match, people.
I stand by my "decorative piece" statement. I probably said the same of Dan Quayle way back.
I knew he was going to pick a woman. He had to do something to jazz up his ticket. Smart move. But if he was truly looking for executive experience and leadership why not pick a Christine Todd Whitman or some other Republican governor? There are at least a couple. He won this round, yes. On with the game...
I have often struggled with the way that once some piece of ridiculous drivel gets wrapped up in a religious blanket it becomes untouchable and unassailable. People have no problem telling other people that their ideas are stupid every day. But if it's a religious belief then it cannot, should not, be questioned. It really pisses me off.
Post a Comment