Sunday, April 28, 2013

A Selective Acceptance of Faith

In this post I would like to point out the current social acceptance of the differing faiths present in the world and the disparity in which respect is shown to them. For many years the Christian faith and it's subsets have been marginalized by the social structure here in America. Don't try and say it's false, I'm guilty of it myself and it has been the media as a hot button issue for years. Although for some reason, that universal distaste for religion that the atheists and many liberals proclaim, does not hold true for how they view the Islamic faith. Who knows, this post just might earn me a 'Fatwa' like Salman Rushdie.


Liberals and self proclaimed atheists fight to remove prayer from schools, religious icons and celebratory decor from government buildings and do this with a self righteousness that proclaims inclusion rather than exclusion. Media latches onto these stories like rabid dogs, of course a nothing feeds ratings like a good controversy. Poor little Johnny, son of an atheist, will be forever scarred if he has to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school. What happened to inclusion? According to some polls, better than 70% of Americans identify themselves as Christians.

Currently we are at war with a fractured group of individuals who buy into a faith that instructs its people to commit heinous acts against 'non-believers' without fear of repercussion from their god. That faith is Islam. In our current society our chosen spokespeople in the media and government speak highly of this religion and try to explain away the actions of 'a few' from it. These are the same people that continue to marginalize the majority chosen faith of America, Christianity. In order to be able to criticize something you must first understand it. I'm not fluent in Arabic, so I am stuck with reading interpretations of the teachings of Islam by others. Christianity was much easier to understand, being that a bible is available just about anywhere, but that too is rife with interpretations by others. The original wasn't written in english either.

Now before we can make a comparison, let's look at Christianity. 1000 years ago we had the crusades. Christianity tore through Europe, the Middle East, and Northern Africa. Armies charged with 'spreading' Christianity did some pretty unspeakable things in the name of God. Now we look back at those actions to be the actions of misguided men who misinterpreted the prior interpretations of a man. Currently Christianity adopts a more 'love everyone' even if it hurts doctrine. More warm and fuzzy, and more effective at recruitment I might add.  Fast forward to the present day. Here now we have Islam. Of course these people have been warring for 1000's of years, but it's more about the present we are concerned with. They are sweeping through the world much like the Crusades. A swift dangerous fire, for what? They stand to gain nothing and bring shame to their religion.

I've perused the teachings of the Muslim's core faith and it's got more contradictions than a goats got hairs. Now, there's a bunch of contradictions in the bible as well, but people of that faith ain't blowing shit up. One of the biggest contradictions I find fascinating is that Islam states that there have been 124,000 prophets before Muhammad, but none of their teachings matter, only Muhammad's. Another glaring contradiction that caught my eye was that "Allah may or may not guide. He also leads astray. He forgives or refuses to forgive as he pleases." Sounds more like a pissed off old man, or a petulant child rather than a god. The funny thing about that statement is that these bombers that think they are doing Allah's bidding for the good of their people, taking that verse into context, it may just be the equivalent of "hold my beer and watch what I can make this idiot do". I have to be honest, they make up some pretty wacky shit to get these people to blow themselves up. Seventy-two virgins all to yourself in the afterlife if you become a martyr, that even looks like horse shit in text. Must be a shallow friggin' gene pool they're pulling these suicide bombers out of. Or how about burying a woman half in the ground and stoning her to death for getting raped? Explain that line of reasoning. I could come up with a dozen more examples, but look for yourself here .

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcReXGT6J-RRCrQNI1yu5Ff42arCf3zrpUwdbJOdZcF5DIbCNbBWlw

This a religion that classes people by sex. The rules only apply as they see fit. I'm skeptical of any god that calls for the murder of woman and children for no reasoning aside from angering someone of faith. That's the job of whomever your chosen god is. There is only one 'god' other than Allah that condones the murder of innocents and he wears horns. 

I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that America used to accept all faiths. People of the Islamic faith can practice, but they also need to adhere to our laws. So that means no stoning the daughter to death if an asshole rapes her. And respecting their choices, if they want to continue in the faith or not. If the parents choose to be petty and disown a child because they choose not to follow the parents lead, then so be it. It's been accepted for years here in America and will continue for years to come. We are a unique culture. A mishmash of peoples from the whole world, but our toleration is viewed by some as weakness. I believe it's our greatest strength. 

Again, I'm not a religious but I have faith. Faith that we can all work together for a common good. Faith that some day these religious zealots see through all the bullshit that MEN sling at them and just accept their place in the world. I have faith that it will happen. It happened for Christianity and look what that built. The greatest nation in the world. The United States of America.

That's my two cents, spend 'em or put 'em in the dish for the next person.

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

More On Guns.

I post a lot about gun control partly because I'm a gun owner and enthusiast, also because it seems to be the current liberty chosen by politicians to assault. In this blog I just want to highlight a few reactionary proposed changes that make little to no sense for actual public safety.

  1. Background Check
    1. Is this really going to stop a criminal from obtaining a firearm? Anybody watch 'The First 48'? Criminals do not go to Dicks Sporting Goods to buy a gun. As porous as the border is the criminals will just be bringing in guns from where ever they can. Some places are even putting in place ammo checks as well.
  2. Assault Weapon Ban
    • This is ridiculous on it's own merits. They try to define what an 'Assault Rifle' is by cataloging any changes to the gun's appearance. If you own a semi-auto rifle with wood stocks its fine, add a synthetic grip and a muzzle gaurd and BAM it's an 'Assault Rifle'. Dianne Feinstein needs to get a grip, really. 
  3. Magazine Bullet Limits
    • Some bills want to limit the number of bullets to 10, others 7. I've watched kids go through shells in a crack back shotgun fast enough so that if involved in a shooting, no one would get near them. This is another nonsensical application of law. It only affects LAW ABIDING citizens. Do you really expect criminals to worry about this? A 3D printer can print magazines of any size and the criminals are usually the ones that'll invest in that technology to have them.
  4. Private Gun Insurance
    •  For real. California is the culprit behind this monstrosity. They are trying to push a requirement for gun owners to have insurance should the gun be used to harm anyone. For one thing, most insurances are null and void if anything that could be covered under the insurance is harmed or damaged in the course of a crime. Go and look up all those shootings the Liberals tout as reasoning behind gun laws. All crimes.
  5. Registration Of Assault Rifles 
    • How is this going to stop crime? So now the government has a list, so what? All this serves to do is centralize information should the need arise to confiscate. NO OTHER REASON. Current and future threats to the administration of law as seen through the prism of oppression. Criminals will NOT register their guns. The 'bad guys' do not tell the 'good guys' what cards they're holding.
  6.  Mental Health Laws
    • This is a double edged sword. On one hand I could advocate not letting a batshit crazy person get a gun, on the other hand I think this will drive people away from getting care for mental issues. Currently California is actually confiscating LEGALLY owned firearms from people diagnosed with mental issues. That includes soldiers that have fought for our country that came back with PTSD. The numbers of veterans seeking treatment for PTSD will fall and suicides/homocides will rise in this demographic because of this law.
  7. Increase Penalties For Gun Violence
    • This one is the only one I can get behind, but it'll only get the dumb ones. If you look at the people that have been involved in the big messy shootings the politicians use as a backdrop, the perpetrators are going away for the rest of their life anyway. Again, this won't stop these acts. 
These laws, while good intentioned, are championed by politicians as a solution. Anybody see any solutions in these seven outlined? Is anyone really going to be safer as a result? Doubt it. All it serves to do is criminalize non-criminals. As far as I can see the only thing they improved upon is penalties for gun crime. Politicians doing what politicians do, very little that makes sense just what makes them appear to be working.

That's my two cents, spend 'em or put 'em in the dish for the next person.