The Bible and Love and Christians

[frogboy4]

*sigh* Not screaming is doing nothing? How about befriending gay people? How about voting for gay marriage? How about not cringing when gays hug or kiss? How about ... I mean, really? You think the ONLY way to counter some idiot is to act like an idiot too? There was a snake at my old job. The "know it all", from a safe distance, went on and on about the biology of snakes and the danger to patients, etc. I quietly picked it up and released it far from the door outside. Which person was more effective, the talker or the doer?

Keep in mind that I have a pretty poor opinion of "protests". For me, sitting down chanting in the middle of traffic is quite different from getting someone some actual, physical help. I was accused of being racist at another old job because I said (during the massive Hispanic protests about illegal immigration and such) that if you want to prove you should have a right to work, you should, I dunno, ACTUALLY SHOW UP FOR WORK INSTEAD OF WHINING ON THE STREET CORNER. I was short-handed because an employee SKIPPED WORK to prove just how much he DESERVED to work! So, no, I will never believe that being loud is the same as being effective.


Or the most famous Muppet couple, Kermit and Piggy. Heck, we just saw a video of not only a frog famous for his relationship with a pig, but he was flirting with human women!


Hmmm ...


'emphasis mine'

Yup. All that screaming made them delay their decision by a couple of days. Gays everywhere can relax now ....


Well, good, they're not going to die. One wonders just how spiffy their prisons are.


So ... let's give a good pat on the ol' back for our good friend Political Absenteeism.


Local Christians are in full support, it seems.


But ... but ... there was all that protesting! *rolls eyes*


They stopped nothing, because they've been thinking about it for years.

Seriously, frogboy ... that article makes my case for me.

It's not perfect, but I'm shocked by the chronic pessimism. I'm choosing to look at the glass as half full. Small victories are still victories and a very important human rights issue was brought to light by activism.

Activists aren't always pleasant. I dated one and won't likely make that mistake again. I don't always approve of their means, but there are good activists who employ healthy means to deserving causes and this appears to be one of them. Why would you squash or belittle anyone's effort to keep people from being murdered no matter how small or useless you seem to find it? There's no justification or nobility in being silent.

I'm completely perplexed by your last few posts.

 

[Drtooth]

Here's the problem with Activism. People only listen to you if you speak up in FAVOR of restricting rights, killing people, and all that mess. If it's one thing the last decade or so told me is that if you have hateful, nasty, inhuman things to say, you'll ALWAYS get a platform. If you want to stop wars, give rights to people, stop genocide, you'll be treated as "AWWW! Isn't that cute? but let the ADULTS talk now because we're older and have more experience and wisdom" (read Bitterness and hatred). If you speak on the pulpit of hope and peace, you'll be marginalized. Again, Peace protesters got 2 seconds on a news cast (literally more time went to the people protesting the protesters), and the Tea Party gets its own 15 minute segment on the news EVERY NIGHT!

What really bugs me is when a celebrity says something hateful, they're demonized, they're career is over, they're the most hated person on Earth, and comedic fodder... YET if a politician, squawking head, or religious MISleader says the same thing, "Oh well, they're just being themselves... oopsy poopsy, let's move on." The ONLY way to get any change is to marginalize them. Stop talking about them, just make jokes about them, and make sure they have no influence either way... like they do to the other side.

 

[CensoredAlso]

Here's the problem with Activism. People only listen to you if you speak up in FAVOR of restricting rights, killing people, and all that mess. If it's one thing the last decade or so told me is that if you have hateful, nasty, inhuman things to say, you'll ALWAYS get a platform. If you want to stop wars, give rights to people, stop genocide, you'll be treated as "AWWW! Isn't that cute? but let the ADULTS talk now because we're older and have more experience and wisdom" (read Bitterness and hatred). If you speak on the pulpit of hope and peace, you'll be marginalized. Again, Peace protesters got 2 seconds on a news cast (literally more time went to the people protesting the protesters), and the Tea Party gets its own 15 minute segment on the news EVERY NIGHT!

I think that's very true. Well ultimately some protests are just more entertaining than others and that's what the media latches on to. The media's out for ratings and readers after all.

The sad thing is the government's learned a lot since the Vietnam War. They know not to have a draft, since that's what got the country so angry last time. But this time serving is voluntary and the majority of Americans get to just go about their lives and not think about the wars going on. So peace activists end up not getting the support they should.

The other thing at least regarding Afghanistan is that people say, "Can we pull out now?" not thinking about how we'll be leaving women to face unspeakable oppression. So it's all very well to say we should leave, but we can't just deny that these things are happening.

The way I see it, in the '60s there were people who protested the government's lies about the war and how so many Americans were getting killed. Those are the protestors I admire for having the guts to stand up against the government and for the sanctity of life. But then there were people like Jane Fonda who decided to make nice with the Viet Cong, not realizing that just because America was wrong, doesn't mean the other side was right. There are some protestors today that come across like the "Hanoi Jane" variety and the media latches on to them because again, they're more entertaining. Thankfully there are other protestors that keep it more balanced, but as DrTooth said, the media doesn't like to focus on them.

 

[frogboy4]

Here's the problem with Activism. People only listen to you if you speak up in FAVOR of restricting rights, killing people, and all that mess. If it's one thing the last decade or so told me is that if you have hateful, nasty, inhuman things to say, you'll ALWAYS get a platform. If you want to stop wars, give rights to people, stop genocide, you'll be treated as "AWWW! Isn't that cute? but let the ADULTS talk now because we're older and have more experience and wisdom" (read Bitterness and hatred). If you speak on the pulpit of hope and peace, you'll be marginalized. Again, Peace protesters got 2 seconds on a news cast (literally more time went to the people protesting the protesters), and the Tea Party gets its own 15 minute segment on the news EVERY NIGHT!

What really bugs me is when a celebrity says something hateful, they're demonized, they're career is over, they're the most hated person on Earth, and comedic fodder... YET if a politician, squawking head, or religious MISleader says the same thing, "Oh well, they're just being themselves... oopsy poopsy, let's move on." The ONLY way to get any change is to marginalize them. Stop talking about them, just make jokes about them, and make sure they have no influence either way... like they do to the other side.

I agree that the do-gooders to tend to get marginalized and the lunatics receive the majority of the press, but I still believe that healthy activism for good causes does help.

Removing them from the process because of their problematic nature is just as useless as removing politicians from the political process. Sure, they're both largely annoying, but let's face it - things just don't work right without them. We can all say that the world would be better without politicians, however it would be anarchy.

Eight years ago some yahoos from Berkley decided it was a good idea to stand in front of buildings in downtown San Francisco. For some reason they thought that blocking and annoying people at the entrances would achieve something for their anti-war platform. I was in a suit and carrying a heavy portfolio case because I was on my way to several job interviews and would have been late to them if not for my persistence. 9-11 hit our economy hard and these protesters were helping to curtail tourism and financial progress. This was bad activism by spoiled brats.

On the other hand, there was a small, persistent group of anti-war Catholic picketers in front of a key government building near my house. They were respectful while still remaining vigilant to their cause spanning the years we were at war. Their presence did not stop the war, however it did shed light on the fact that not every Christian conservative supported the Bush war effort. In fact, a great deal of them didn't. Some could see this as useless due to the outcome, but I don't. I believe it provided hope and reason to a lot of people in a world gone crazy. It didn't stop the war. It did influence American opinions on it. Even if some believe it didn't do much, a little bit is better than nothing and I commend those particular activists.

 

[CensoredAlso]

Which person was more effective, the talker or the doer?

Keep in mind that I have a pretty poor opinion of "protests". For me, sitting down chanting in the middle of traffic is quite different from getting someone some actual, physical help.

I do understand where you're coming from. I think there's a time and a place for both options, talking and doing.

Protesting can be good for getting publicity for your cause. That's why you do it, to get the word out to many people, especially if the media shows up.

But then there are other times when protesting isn't enough and you have to look for opportunities to take action. It's about seeing the smaller picture as opposed to the larger picture sometimes. There are individuals who can use your help right now, but won't get it if you're too busy chanting slogans and holding up signs.

 

[Drtooth]

The other thing at least regarding Afghanistan is that people say, "Can we pull out now?" not thinking about how we'll be leaving women to face unspeakable oppression. So it's all very well to say we should leave, but we can't just deny that these things are happening.

I could get on a 90 page thread about that one. No matter what happens with the two completely thoughtless, completely political legacy wars is that no matter what we got ourselves in so deep we can't stay in and we can't pull out. Of course when Clinton tried to go into Afganistan, the right was so heckbent on Impeaching him for lying about having multiple affairs (something Nyeee-EVERYONE in Congress was doing at the time), they didn't let him, they ignored a LOT of red flags, things happened, and we wound up with a halfdonkeyed knee-jerk battle. Mostly with people we handed weapons to and trained 20 years before to fight the "evil" commies. And when we actually started getting somewhere, Captain Super Dummy went on his porkbarrel project of Iraq (which if anyone even paid attention, he was trying to get into those sexy pants since the 2000 debates).

Now, anyone who spoke out against that, even though it turns out THEY WERE COMPLETELY RIGHT was demonized to a cartoonish effect... hating France for not getting involved, having a Nixon-esque enemies list... I was afraid they'd start HUAC back up. We were THAT close to it. And then when the warmongering squawking heads (who were too fat, lazy, and important to actually fight anything themselves, sitting in comfy radio booths) were starting to lose credibility (they had some?) they tried changing their tune to "Yeah, the war was stupid yes... BUT WE'RE SEEING IT THROUGH! We're making progress! We'll be out of here in no time."

And now the SAME people who bullied and scared us into war with their "It's unPatriotic to question ANYTHING the government does, and they're ALWAYS right." are the SAME people saying the exact opposite of what they previously said because... SCHNIKIES! They passed a completely watered down health care bill that does little more than slap a couple corporate wrists. One that can easily be repealed by the way.

But don't worry.. they use the same homophobic, xenophobic, mindwarping rhetoric to sell their point across, as usual. it's ALL about what sells... that's why when John Stewart had the rally for sanity, it was all... "Oh! Isn't that cute. The comedian is trying to be funny."

 

[CensoredAlso]

Of course when Clinton tried to go into Afganistan, the right was so heckbent on Impeaching him for lying about having multiple affairs (something Nyeee-EVERYONE in Congress was doing at the time), they didn't let him

No question that the Republicans wasted time on going after Clinton, claiming to be standing for morality when their own was very much in question, lol. But as I said, I've don't buy into the idea that the Democrats would do the right thing, only the Republicans won't "let" them. Plus Clinton did embarrass himself and the country with his lying behavior.

I do wonder how many more years we can just keep picking between two loser parties over and over before we realize neither one is working in our best interests.

 

[frogboy4]

But don't worry.. they use the same homophobic, xenophobic, mindwarping rhetoric to sell their point across, as usual. it's ALL about what sells... that's why when John Stewart had the rally for sanity, it was all... "Oh! Isn't that cute. The comedian is trying to be funny."

Hey, that's just copying Newt Gingrich's platform!

 

[frogboy4]

Recent Clips

This anti-gay bullying ad from Ireland is really sweet. Standing up for your gay friends doesn't mean telling them what you believe about their lives on the subject. It just means standing up.

Also, the viciously anti-gay Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was just confronted by an unhappy activist. No, I don't think this necessarily did much to advance gay rights. Some activists have used pie-throwing to communicate their messages, but I actually like that this one threw glitter instead. It gets the point across with shiny color rather than stained clothes and cruelty.

Nutcase Newt in a nutshell: Newt married his high school geometry teacher at 19 and divorced her after she was diagnosed with cancer, mothered his two children and personally funded his very expensive education. Newt cheated on wife number two after she'd also been diagnosed with cancer and served her with divorce papers on Mother’s day in order to marry a staffer. This very vocal Catholic, who is now on wife number three, believes that equal rights will somehow defile marriage in a way he’s hasn’t been able. It's not just the divorces that are problematic. It's how inhumanly tacky he's been in each and every one of them. How he's broken up the home of his kids in favor of his runaway sex addiction, yet draws up legislation against gay people and proposes how other families should act. Heck, it’s a free country to be a home-wrecking jerk. Just don’t set standards in the lives of others that you can’t meet in your own. And don’t get me started on his fantasy fiction about the South winning the Civil War. He deserves a daily pie-in-the-face for being such a hypocritical bigot that brings shame to his religion, his party and humanity in general. /soapbox

Nonetheless, I like the idea of a glittering campaign. Obnoxious, but shiny!

 

[Drtooth]

-

Also, the viciously anti-gay Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was just confronted by an unhappy activist. No, I don't think this necessarily did much to advance gay rights. Some activists have used pie-throwing to communicate their messages, but I actually like that this one threw glitter instead. It gets the point across with shiny color rather than stained clothes and cruelty.

Nutcase Newt in a nutshell: Newt married his high school geometry teacher at 19 and divorced her after she was diagnosed with cancer, mothered his two children and personally funded his very expensive education. Newt cheated on wife number two after she'd also been diagnosed with cancer and served her with divorce papers on Mother’s day in order to marry a staffer. This very vocal Catholic, who is now on wife number three, believes that equal rights will somehow defile marriage in a way he’s hasn’t been able. It's not just the divorces that are problematic. It's how inhumanly tacky he's been in each and every one of them. How he's broken up the home of his kids in favor of his runaway sex addiction, yet draws up legislation against gay people and proposes how other families should act. Heck, it’s a free country to be a home-wrecking jerk. Just don’t set standards in the lives of others that you can’t meet in your own. And don’t get me started on his fantasy fiction about the South winning the Civil War. He deserves a daily pie-in-the-face for being such a hypocritical bigot that brings shame to his religion, his party and humanity in general. /soapbox

Which is what bugs me. The Reps whine about how the left caricatures them as a bunch of evil backwards, imbecilic, hedonistic, bigoted piles of moldy dough, and they keep letting the evil backwards, imbecilic, hedonistic, bigoted piles of moldy dough be their front runners. The pile o' Poo was the very same one that headed the charge to get rid of Clinton for boffing an intern when he was basically running around pants-less the whole time.

Worst of all, he could very well win the election because his side keeps the uneducated, mad at the wrong people general public in check with scary buzz words like "Socialist" so the rich can keep their hard stolen money, and no one gets any rights or freedoms unless they're gun owners.

If the right is SOOOOO desperate to expunge the whole "greedy evil bigot" stereotype, why don't they just dump the Viagra chugging sack of rancid butter and get someone who actually speaks for financial security instead of their own favors?

Seriously, Newt is like the Spice Girls... an annoying screechy voice that should stay in the 90's.