The Christian Right and false Patriotism

This Independence Day weekend (when did it become a weekend long event by the way) many of us will be filled with a bit more Patriotic pride, show our respect to those in military service past and present, and after it's all done continue on like any other day.

While most of us will say we have pride for our country (in varying levels) and to an extent, Patriotism, there is one group that I feel has false Patriotism: the Christian Right.

Now I have no doubt that members of the Christian Right love this country and the freedoms that we have via the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the problem is that they think that those freedoms and rights only applies to them, and that everyone else is just secondary. A prime example of this would be their views on the first amendment, specifically the freedom of religion.

They believe that freedom of religion means only freedom of religion for Christian religious sects (and maybe certain Jewish religious sects), and only "true" Christians at that (i.e. those with views similar to their own). Every other religion, according to them, is excluded (most especially Islam and Atheism, the latter of which is falsely believed to actually be a religion rather than just a belief system, and both of which are, according to the Christian Right, Satanic). Because of this belief that the 1st Amendment excludes people of non-Christian beliefs (which it does not in any way shape or form) they believe that these other groups have no rights, and thus can be treated like second class citizens.

In fact many of the Christian Right do not even have a clue why Bill of Rights was created in the first place.

The Bill of Rights was created to give people more rights, not take them away or prevent citizens of this country from obtaining more of them.

Because those of the Christian Right do not realize this (or don't care) they believe that they can do what ever they want to with the Bill of Rights, and can pass what ever amendments they wish, regardless if it takes away a person's rights or not (i.e. the proposed amendments to ban same-sex marriage throughout the country), and because of this same self centered attitude, they believe that they don't have to respect a court's decisions, most especially the Supreme Court of the United States, at least when a verdict comes down that they disagree with.

Then there is of course voting it self.

Basically (according to them) if you don't vote for a Republican, or vote for a Democrat, you are not a Christian and you hate this country (and in that order).

That is beyond stupid and extremely insulting (not to mention fascist), as it is basically saying that if I don't vote for who they want me to then I must be a bad person who is going to Hell and wants to see this country destroyed, rather than someone who disagrees with them on how the country should be run, and who and who not should hold public office.

This is not Patriotism. This is actually fascism via intimidation and fear tactics in order to create a country that they want, and not regarding or respecting the rights of other people, people who they see as "undesirables". They do this by claiming that these groups are "destroying" America, or that by giving these rights, or at least protecting their rights, that that are infringing on the rights of Christians (which is false).

I believe these people truly believe that they are Patriotic, and that they believe what they are doing will help the country, but what they are doing is in fact wrong, and it actually hurts this country and those who live in it.

Respecting others regardless if they believe in something different from yourself, and respecting the rights given in the Constitution and what those rights stands for, and not trying to twist and pervert those rights into something that it does not mean, that is real Patriotism.

Breaking Stereotypes: Why I'm the last person you would expect to support same-sex marriage

I am a straight, white, southern, Christian male from the state of Virginia, who votes more often for Republicans then Democrats, who thinks society is to politically correct, who "reads" Playboy, and likes to look at beautiful women.

Suffice to say, I am, stereotypically speaking, probably the last person who would support equal rights for everyone, regardless of their sexuality, and has no problem what so ever with two adults of the same gender marrying one another.

Now I use to be against same-sex, and I admit I was wrong. The reasons why I was is mostly because of two things:

Peer pressure from an homophobic culture, and bullying from said culture during high school.

I was bullied throughout my entire school years. At first it was because the kids just wanted to pick on someone, and I was seen as the easiest target, and it continued even into high school, and in high school many people were claiming that I was gay, and were using that as a "reason" to continue to bully me (because apparently when you get older you need an "excuse" to torment a person who won't fight back). So this left an impression on me for several years on me that homosexuality and bisexuality was wrong (don't ask me why, it just did) and that same-sex marriage should never be legalized.

Eventually I got over this, and after interacting with gay and bi people and talking to gay and bi people, I realized that there is nothing wrong with gay and bi people, nor is there anything wrong with being gay or bi, and that it is the bullies who have something wrong with themselves, and that I don't have to hate, or dislike, or try to deny a group of people rights that they should already have because they are of a different sexuality than me in order to feel secure about my own sexuality, and that there are gay and bi people out there that most people would never think were gay or bi unless they either told you, or introduced you to their partner.

In fact one of friends, Sean Munger, is bisexual, and I didn't even know it until he announced he was getting married to a guy. Heck, I didn't even suspect that he was bisexual at all, mainly because he loves heavy metal music, and he writes zombie fiction (which at the time I thought that only straight guys were interested in)!

Basically, he is not what I thought a stereotypical, bisexual guy would be like, and that's a good thing too, because it helped destroy some stereotypes that I still had in my own mind.

The fact is that I no longer see homosexuals and bisexuals as being wrong, or wicked, or even abnormal. They're normal people, and just because they are attracted to people who are the same gender as they are does not mean there is something wrong with them. Heck, there are some women that I am attracted to that other straight guys would believe I am wrong for being attracted to. Does that mean that I truly am wrong for being attracted to said women? No, it's just a matter of that other person's personal preference, and their inability to get over the fact that not every other guy thinks like them, or has to think like them, and in the end it just makes them look like a jerk.

The same applies with people who think that homosexuality and bisexuality is wrong. They just can't get over the fact that homosexuals and bisexuals are not attracted to the people that they feel they should be attracted to, and in the end it just makes them look like jerks.

These people need to get over their insecurities like I did, that they don't have to be a societal stereotype, and that believing that someone that is different from them should have the same rights as they do doesn't make them a bad person, it makes them a better person.

Same Sex Marriage: Why there is no valid argument for keeping it illegal

Same sex marriage.

Throughout the the 1990's and up til now it has been very controversial. While many people support it and believe it should be legal nation wide (and world wide for that matter) there are still many whom oppose legalizing it, despite the fact that the movement to legalize it is growing, and opposition is shrinking. In fact many people who once opposed same sex marriage now support it's legalization (I happen to be one of them).

Those who still oppose same sex marriage will often give four primary reasons why they believe same sex marriage should be illegal. Those reasons are is that they believe that it's immoral, it's against nature, it's disruptive to society, and it will increase child molestation.

Of those four reasons (and many others) there is the one thing that they all have in common: not one of them is valid.

As for the first argument, that it's immoral, is more of a matter of opinion then fact.

Not all people consider it to be immoral. In fact several religions consider same sex marriage to be as perfectly moral as heterosexual marriage.

One could even argue that not legalizing same sex marriage might be a violation of the 1st Amendment, particularly the part about freedom of religion, because one could say that denying a marriage license to a couple because they are the same gender is illegal and unconstitutional because the state would be imposing one religious belief (that being only heterosexual couples can get married and that homosexuality is wrong) over the religious belief of another (that being that homosexuality is okay, and that same sex marriage is okay under that religious belief).

The second argument that opponents of same sex marriage make is that it is against nature.

That argument is total non-sense, as it has been shown through observation that many animal species have members that are homosexual (I believe the number is somewhere between 300 to 400, but it could be much higher).

There is only one species that has shown to discriminate against the homosexuals of it's species: Humans.

Not only is the nature argument invalid, one could even say that discrimination against homosexuals is against nature.

The third argument, that it's disruptive to society, is also not true. In fact many of the best countries in the world have legalized same sex marriage. The Netherlands for example legalized same sex marriage in 2001, and is currently one of the richest and most stable countries in the world.

If anything it helps improve society because it shows that society treats everyone as equal.

Plus, it hasn't affected American society either because what most people who oppose same sex marriage do not realize is that same sex couples have been getting married in this country for decades now, it's just been in the last decade that some states have begun issuing those couples marriage licenses.

The forth argument (and one that has often been described as homophobic propaganda) is that it would result in a higher amounts of child molestation.

This argument stems from the belief that most homosexuals are also pedophiles, and that married homosexual couples would molest any children that they adopt.

Besides this accusation being quite sick, it's completely and totally false.

Every legitimate study about this has shown that homosexuals have no more higher rates of pedophilia than heterosexuals. The studies that say otherwise on the other hand are not from legitimate institutions, and are for the most considered to be fraudulent and nothing more then propaganda created by religious institutions that strongly oppose homosexuality (it should be noted that the organizations that do promote this type of propaganda are listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups).

Now while there are other arguments that are made against the legalization of same sex marriage, these are the four big ones, and as I have shown, none of them are valid (along with any other arguments not mentioned).

The fact remains is that there is no reason what so ever to keep from allowing same sex couples from having their marriages legally recognized.

Let the kids get a chance to choose

One of the most frustrating things that I had to deal with when I was a kid wasn't the fact that I was unable to legally smoke or drink booze (although I could have done that illegally if I wanted to, and besides, I don't smoke or drink anyways) or even that I couldn't legally drive a car until I was 16. It was the fact that until I turned 18 I didn't have the legal right to vote.

For years I wanted to vote, and I even asked my parents at certain points in time during my childhood if I could go with them to the voting place and vote for them. They of course always said no, and now I understand why (I wouldn't want someone else to use my vote either, even if it was my kid).

Still, even though I've been able to legally vote for thirteen years now (and have voted in most elections since then, including the four presidential elections I have been legally able to vote in), I still feel that at least certain young people under the age of 18 should be able to vote.

Now of course I don't feel that all teens under the age of 18 should automatically be given the right to vote. In fact I feel that only the ones who should be able to vote are the ones whom have done, or do certain things that in effect should have earned them the right to vote.

First, any one under the age of 18, has a job (and has had one for over six months), pays income taxes, and is in school, should be able to vote in all elections regardless of age. Not only would this encourage kids to stay in school, it would also encourage them to get jobs and earn their own money and get them to be less dependent on their parents at an earlier age. Also it would encourage them not sit around at home wasting their time playing video games and trolling the internet (and yes, I do see the irony in me saying that kids shouldn't spend so much time on the internet because this is posted on the internet, but how else am I going to spread this idea to the vast amount of the American public).

Second, any youth that is currently in the military (the military does allow people as young as 17 to join) or any youth currently in some other type of voluntary civil service (EMT, Fire & Rescue, etc.) should be allowed to vote as well. This would encourage more teens to volunteer to do things that would benefit the community and the nation as a whole, and they could even learn certain skills that could benefit them later in life.

Third and finally, anyone who has graduated from high school before the age of 18 should also be allowed to vote, regardless if they are employed or are involved in the military or a voluntary civil service. Not only would this encourage youth to work harder at school, it might also encourage them to go to collage sooner and work harder at collage as well.

Not only would giving youth a chance to earn the right to vote be beneficial to the youth of the nation, in the long run it might be beneficial to the nation as a whole.

It would not only instill and/or reinforce many positive aspects into the minds and hearts of our nation's teens (like volunteerism, the importance of education, having a job, and if you want something badly enough you need to earn it) it could create a generation of youth who would more benefit the nation then burden it, and instill the belief in them that they shouldn't take for granted certain rights (amongst other things) that we take for granted today.

In the end not only could giving certain teens who have earned the right to vote create a generation better then us in terms of education and financial resources, it could create an overall better society.

8 Questions for people in the 9/11 Truth Movement

As everyone knows, the 9/11 Truth movement is a loose group of people who believe that the United States government committed the 9/11 attacks.

Now despite the fact that they have never been able to prove that the government committed the 9/11 attacks, they still hold steadfast to the belief that the government did.

It seems to me that most people in that movement have never really sat down and asked themselves some serious, logical questions about the attacks.

Here are eight questions that I feel that people in the 9/11 Truth movement should ask themselves, as well as should be asked by others:

1. If the government did commit the 9/11 attacks, then why would they hit more then one building?

Hitting one building with a plane would have been more then enough for the government to justifiably giving it an excuse to go to war. More then one would be overkill.

2. If the government did commit the 9/11 attacks, then why did it attack the Pentagon for?

The Pentagon is the United States top military headquarters. Hitting it with a plane could have killed our top military leaders and seriously harmed our ability to fight. The government attacking the Pentagon makes no sense both logically and militarily.

3. Assuming that the Twin Towers were brought down in a controlled demolition, then why would they be brought down in the first place?

There would be no reason for the government to bring down the towers. Not only would flying a couple of planes into the towers would have been more then enough to justify going to war, but bringing down the towers would be another example of overkill. Also, it would have been cheaper to repair the towers then it has been to clean up the rubble and build new buildings at the site.

4. Why would WTC 7 have been intentionally brought down?

Wouldn't intentionally bringing down WTC 7 have been a pointless action? There would have been no reason for the government to ever bring that building down and create a bigger mess. Not to mention many in the 9/11 Truth movement see that building's collapse as a "smoking gun" for a controlled demolition. If the government did do this, shouldn't they have had the foresight to see that it might look suspicious to some people?

5. Assuming that drones were used, then how come the forth plane crashed in a field instead of hitting another building?

If the government had complete control of all the aircraft, then why didn't they crash the last one into a building? Why would they just waste it and crash it into a field for no reason what so ever?

6. If the attacks were allowed to happen so we would have an excuse to go into Afghanistan and Iraq and gain control of those two countries natural resources, then why haven't prices on things like oil gone down?

One of the biggest claims from the 9/11 Truth movement is that the attacks were staged so that we would have an excuse to go into Afghanistan, and eventually Iraq, and gain control of those countries oil fields, along with other natural resources. The problem with this is that the cost of oil based products (gasoline, diesel, home heating oil) has kept going up instead of going down since the invasions of those two countries. So if we invaded those countries for their oil, then how come our oil prices have been steadily rising? And how come very little oil has ever actually come out of those two countries since we invaded them?

7. Why haven't we seen a serious decrease in our civil liberties?

While it's claimed that our civil liberties have decreased since the 9/11 attacks, in fact they really haven't in most cases. Most people haven't even been impacted at all by the Patriot Act. You can still create blogs that speak out against the government. You can still claim the government committed the 9/11 attacks. You can still belong to anti-government organizations. So why haven't people like this ever been thrown in jail? Wouldn't they be the government's biggest enemies?

8. How come the 9/11 Truth movement has never presented any evidence that has not been dis-proven?

One of the main problems with the 9/11 Truth movement is that it constantly presents old evidence that has been discredit and dis-proven, and rarely, if ever, presents any new evidence. So why hasn't the 9/11 Truth movement ever revealed any real evidence of what they consider to be the real culprits behind the 9/11 attacks and would prove what they were claiming is at least possibly true?