All You Ever Wanted To Know About Life...

Can you say "Nigger"?

2007-11-25T16:47:00.000-08:00

Just to make it clear, I am not racist and am probably the least racist person in the world.

I'm serious. I dislike generalizations in almost all its forms and view racism as one of the worst kinds of generalizations.

That said, should we really stop using the word "Nigger"? Why? How come it is okay to say "You're a stupid-ass Negro" but you can't say "Nigger"? I know, I know, I KNOW what it is supposed to represent and how it came about. MLK, the civil rights movement, trying to get away from years of oppression, not wanting to keep derogatory terms from that era alive, all good and great but why that word? This brings up the philosophical question: Can censoring a word mean anything? Does it mean ANYTHING at all to a racist person, not to be able to use that term in public? Does it change ANYBODY's mind on any opinion they have? In my view, it makes no difference. It is a token action, that simply creates an exaggerated chip on society's shoulders.

On top of that there is the question on why blacks are allowed to call each other "niggas" and "hos" but if non-blacks do that there is a major uprising. Just enforcing double standards, that is RACIST IN ITSELF. How do you define racism? Preferential or exclusive treatment based on race. Our society ALLOWS blacks to call themselves niggers and hos in every other rap song AND in public. Tell me why that is not racist. This is like that Seinfeld episode where a friend converts to Judaism and starts telling Jewish jokes? The inference is, of course, that if he wasn't Jewish he would be labelled anti-semite.

So why can't I tell Jewish jokes? Can I tell blonde jokes? What about gay jokes? Do I have to be a blonde, gay, jewish, black person before I can do standup comedy?

All I am saying is:

There is no point making it illegal to use a word. Law should not be stepping into this territory. Society already infers much about a person from thier speech, whether public or private. Let people say what they will, and let society pass judgement on thier motivations in speech, as they do with thier actions.
If something is considered socially taboo, then make it consistent across racial/class/sex lines. A black person should not be able to call blacks niggers either.

A little consistency, too much to ask?

"People as Corporations": A revolutionary idea or idealist stupidity? You tell me...

2007-09-15T12:58:00.000-07:00

BASIC PREMISE: What if investors could invest in individuals as they do in businesses?

DETAIL: There are many under-privileged, high-potential (UPHP) human resources in the world. An umbrella organization (UOrg) institutes screening to identify these UPHP "employees" that they "adopt" and expose to the workforce as competitive professionals, for a legally binding commitment for a life-long % of earnings from this individual. UPHP is thus exposed to a revenue stream they could NEVER otherwise aspire to. UOrg gets a revenue stream that lasts decades and pays back in multiples of the investment (and can use insurance to protect "investments" against death, disability etc.)

IDEA DEVELOPMENT: To share risk/reward, UOrg sells tradeable shares of UPHPs. Income statements and growth prospects for UPHPs are published yearly. This is a new genre of financial instrument to an investing world looking for diversification.

EXAMPLE: An above-average, late-teen, high-school level, Indian villager will require, a MAXIMUM of $1K for basic necessities, and about $1K for basic training /yr. If we make it a 3 yr course and the final year has intensive training worth $1.5k, that will amount to $7.5k. Now consider the revenue stream: a starting tech worker makes $8k/yr, in 5 years this will go to $15k, then $30k by 12 yrs or so. If this person does a stint in a 1st world nation, revenue goes up exponentially to 80k-100k.
At a (giveaway) rate of 15% of income, for the lifetime of a normal tech worker bee, UOrg recoups its investment in 5-7 years and then offers dividends.

ROUGH NUMBERS (after 30 yrs for 7.5k down): A NON-reinvested, inflation-adjusted UPHP approx. return = $120k (or NPV of 50k) which is comparable to a continuously re-invested index fund@10% for 30yrs (131k/53k).

BUT a continuously re-invested UPHP (in Index funds or UPHPs) would give... 571k! (or NPV $235k).

Thoughts???

On the "American" Family (Dis?)Association or AFA

2007-07-11T11:32:00.000-07:00

Where does one start on a post about the American Family Association or AFA? It has done so much and represents so much that it is difficult to know where to begin. Anybody who knows about the ongoing warfare between the conservatives and liberals will recognize immediately the AFA as a militant and powerful grassroots group that is a major force for conservative and right-wing policy. They have waged wars against the "homosexual agenda", the "liberal agenda", abortion, evolution and the many, many other hot-button, deeply personal issues that Americans waste their time on instead of focusing on health care, education, and the trade deficit. Its no wonder they never even get to World Affairs or Iraq or energy policy.

Anyway, I will choose to start my criticism of them with its most recent (as of this writing) Action Alert regarding a Hindu Chaplain slated to open the US Senate sessions with a prayer. You can also read this original article they posted on their mouthpiece, an excerpt of which
is pasted below:

"WallBuilders president David Barton is questioning why the U.S. government is seeking the invocation of a non-monotheistic god. Barton points out that since Hindus worship multiple gods, the prayer will be completely outside the American paradigm, flying in the face of the American motto 'One Nation Under God.' 'In Hindu, you have not one God, but many, many, many, many, many gods,' the Christian historian explains. 'And certainly that was never in the minds of those who did the Constitution, did the Declaration [of Independence] when they talked about Creator -- that's not one that fits here because we don't know which creator we're talking about within the Hindu religion.' Barton says given the fact that Hindus are a tiny constituency of the American public, he questions the motivation of Senate leaders. 'This is not a religion that has produced great things in the world,' he observes. 'You look at India, you look
at Nepal -- there's persecution going in both of those countries that is gendered by the religious belief that is present there, and Hindu dominates in both of those countries' "

"Wallbuilders" is probably the perfect name for an organization headed by Dr. Barton. We have seen the work of his kin in Germany, have we not? Anyways, there are so many logical holes and so much disinformation in this small paragraph, that I can only compare it to a genetic mutation between Swiss cheese (for the holes) and Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf (for the disinformation). But his is a gruesome Chimera indeed. Well, to begin dissecting this hideous monster, let us start by coldly categorizing its infectious slander into the following groups:

Dr. Barton's credentials "In Hindu"
The "value" of Hinduism to the world
Monotheism, Hinduism and Christianity
"The American Paradigm" acc. to Dr. Barton, and the minds of those "who did the Constitution"
Praying in the Senate

1) Dr. Barton's credentials "In Hindu": This is probably the easiest picking in this festering mess that is his commentary. Simply put:

Dr. Barton is an idiot when it comes to the Hindu Religion or Hinduism.

Yes, I want to take names and I want to point fingers. This guy has a Ph. D. but obviously
does not even know that the name of the religion is "Hinduism" not "Hindu". And to those who don't know the related language is "Hindi". So when you say "In Hindu", you are really showing your ignorance of either the English language or Hinduism and its an easy guess what ails Dr. Barton given his background as a Christian historian and not an expert on Hinduism.

2) The "value" of Hinduism to the world: Dr. Barton observes off-handedly that, "This is not a religion that has produced great things in the world". Notwithstanding that it is ludicrous to classify the contributions of ANY major group of people as useless, let us learn a little about Hinduism. It is the oldest currently practised religion, its followers descend from one of the oldest known civilizations in the world and now represent 1/6th of humanity, its followers invented most of mathematics as the western world knows it, its varied and extensive culture permeates the world through contributions in sculpture, music, philosophy, astronomy etc. In the modern day, Hindu-majority India continues to improve in leaps and bounds and hold its place in the world after being raped and sacked by the "Christian" nation of Britain for 3 centuries. Oh I think, the English know how much India/the Hindus have to offer because
they took a lot of it!

Not convinced? Two words (that everyone knows): Yoga and Gandhi.

I wonder how many of Dr. Barton's friends and family practise Yoga? Health and well-being for billions of people, that modern science is consciously turning to, seems a decent-sized contribution to me. And how many of Dr. Barton's "All-American" friends look to Martin Luther King as a great, non-violent, civil rights leader? It was a practising, religious son of Hinduism that tried to teach the world one of its greatest lessons, one that we have still not learnt: Non-Violence.

Nevertheless, let us assume for a second that Hindus and Hinduism did not contribute much to the world. Yes, India is a 3rd world nation today. Yes, it has problems as does Nepal. Is that reason to brush off the world's largest democracy? How bigoted must a person be to make statements such as the reprehensible Dr. Barton has? 'nuff said.

3) Monotheism, Hinduism and Christianity: So Dr. Barton's major gripe, from his comments, seems to be that Hinduism is a polytheistic religion, else it would have been okay. Now how many of us believe that he would be okay with a Muslim, monotheistic preacher? Raise your hands. Thought so. We all know the numbers of deities has no part in his reservations against Hinduism. But let's talk about this top contender for the World's Flimsiest Argument. Hinduism has many gods, yes. But all Hindus believe that these gods are various representations of the selfsame creator. Does this seem familiar? It should. Would Dr. Barton and his posse like it if we decreed that Christinaity is polytheistic because they refer to "The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost"? I think not. So if we took Dr. Barton's reasoning seriously, only Islamic and Jewish prayers should be allowed in the Senate. How's that for a Black Hole of reasoning? Let's move on to more fun stuff...

4) "The American Paradigm" acc. to Dr. Barton, and the minds of those "who did the Constitution": Boy, I am so full of puns on the "who did the Constitution" part of his quotes, that I have to reel myself back for lack for time and leave that to your imagination. Anyway, acc. to The Doubtable Doc Barton, what was against the American paradigm was that the polytheistic Hindu does not fit the bill of America being "One Nation Under God". Perhaps Dr. Barton does
not remember the rest of the phrase? It goes " With Liberty and Justice For All". Liberty for All, Dr. Barton. Sound familiar? The people "who did the Constitution" (I'm sorry I can't help myself) agree with this concept. Liberty including the Liberty to choose a religion. Which is what they signed in The Treaty of Tripoli. This treaty was ratified unanimously, and there is no record of any public outcry at the time. The President at the time being John Adams. Who basically "did the Constitution" or a major portion of it single-handedly. So much for the theory of a "Christian America". And where does the "dishonorable doc' get off talking about Hindus being a "tiny constituency"? So they are a tiny constituency. They don't have rights? Is he saying they are over-represented because a member of their community prayed for a few minutes at the Senate? Its only the first time since the birth of the Senate so I seriously doubt that's overkill in terms of representation. Geez.

Anyway, lets broaden the scope of this issue a little. Who defines what is American and un-American? Can any narrow-minded goofball usurp the word to push their own ideas without fear of reprisal? Shouldn't we have some kind of test that decides who is American? Turns out we do! And who better than the INS? Here are some of the questions they ask prospective citizens up for naturalization:

Q: Why did the Pilgrims come to America? A: For religious Freedom.

Q: Name 3 rights of freedom guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. A: The right of freedom of speech, press, religion, peaceable assembly, and requesting change of government....

Q:Name the right guaranteed by the first amendment. A: Freedom of: speech, press, religion, peaceable assembly, and requesting change of the government...

Hmm, we all know who WON'T be getting naturalized if they had to take this test... The All-American Dr. Barton.

5) Praying in the Senate: You know the funny thing is: I am not a practising Hindu and I don't really believe in a god of any kind. So if it were up to me, all official prayer would be abolished from Government institutions. They would take out the "under god" part of the pledge, ten
commandments from the Supreme Court, the swearing-in ceremony, the full monty. People want to pray? Fine. Do it on your own time and your own dime. Don't use public property, government sanction and public funds for it. God knows (if he exists) that there are enough people willing to fund prayers the world over. But that's not Barton's view. He doesn't have a
problem with prayer. Just with non-Christian prayer. I'm sorry but I can't let that hypocrisy pass. Which is why I am coming out of a self-imposed blogging sabbatical to call that out.

And the other hypocritical things that the AFA does. Such as using arguments made by Flemming Rose, the editor of the Danish magazine that published the infamous Mohammed cartoon, to bolster their case against Islam. Really? So you have no problem with this guy who printed offensive cartoons that enraged an entire religion? Okay. But then don't come screaming about it when someone does that to Jesus.

And, you know, its not even like it is unprecedented for a non-Christian to make the inaugural prayer. In 1992, Wallace Mohammed became the first Muslim deliver a Senate invocation, so one would have thought radicals like Barton would have had time to get used to it. Guess not. Well, he and his bigot friends better get used to it now.

And finally, Ragerman’s Hypocrisy Meter©: This is Category 10, off-the-charts, hypocrisy. But surprisingly easily fixed. The only problem with the AFA, really, is its name. Change that and you take away all the hypocrisy from this otherwise quaint organization. The RH Meter therefore recommends that they change thier name from the "American Family Association" to "Virulent Christians Association of North America" so that they can be easily be associated with the "Right Wing, Christian Agenda" which is, obviously, to convert all humans to Christianity. And as with any such, megalomanic agenda, it means to do so irrespective of whether anybody actually practices any of the teachings of Christianity (such as Love thy neighbour, Forgive others thier tresspasses, Give to Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, the Rich-man-camel-eye-of-needle parable, Judge not that ye be not judged, and oh yeah: Hypocrite, take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye).

My apologies, once again, to true practising Christians that are wise enough to not be carried away by pseudo-political groups but share thier faith through love and example rather than rhetoric and hypocrisy. As always, I try to ensure that no non-hypocrites are harmed in the making of any of my blog entries.

Peace.

PS: Follow up on my post. The Senate proceedings were interrupted today (07/12/07) by 3 loud hecklers shouting Christian slogans during Mr. Rajan Zed's invocation. Three arrests were made but they made thier point, didn't they?

Whither to, O Medium?

2007-01-18T11:51:00.000-08:00

Let's consider the Elians and Runaway Brides and Natalie Holloways. From the media and from the reaction, one would think that no other children are here illegally or that there are no kidnappings or missing teens apart from the ones just mentioned. For example, the Runaway Bride was sent a bill close to a hundred thousand dollars after it was found that she had made up the whole story. The police said that she was asked to pay because they had employed hundreds of people in the search. Hmm, putting hundreds of policemen in search of one person... let's look at this in the light of the statistic (http://www.kidsfightingchance.com/statistics.html)that "every 40 seconds a child is reported missing or abducted in the United States" (this does not mean these are all real crimes but hey, neither was the RB case). Do the math. The price tag RB received is an order of magnitude higher than the average cost of a kidnapping investigation that DOES NOT HAVE MEDIA ATTENTION. That proved, lets look at the media itself. One might be tempted to think, "Hey that's awfully nice of the media. They put this focus on issues that force the authorities to act." Nope. Today's news agencies are like hollywood starlets: a hussy, an intemperate, attention-seeking creature that will do anything for the publicity numbers. Yeah, she'll take up causes but only if it pushes up the ratings. But she will also get pregnant, get drunk, get naked or get divorced (Yes I was thinking of Britney) for a few points more. As they say No Press is Bad Press. Why is this? Because we don't pay for the news we read. Advertising pays for the news. This is a critical factor.Now I know there are some journalists that try to make a difference but look at the direction the industry as a whole is taking... Faced with the onslaught of the Internet and blogs and Wikipedias, news agencies are realizing that its difficult to compete for the advertising dollar. So they turn to the human interest story for the quick buck, more eyeballs = more clicks = more money. Consider the huge gulf that separates the online version of the Times Of India (www.timesOfIndia.com) and the printed version. Its tremendous! The titles of articles are sometimes sexual and other times totally unrelated to what the content is, which, in turn, is sensationalized beyond measure. So that was my rant. Anyway, what can be done? Probably nothing right now. News agencies will have to plumb lower and lower depths in their pandering to lowest common denominator while they try to maintain thier existing business model. And then hopefully one day, people will realize that they are missing out on important issues and start paying for quality news and then, perhaps, the media will find a revenue and a business model that allows real reporting. Until then, let's not be surprised at lopsided reactions to events such as this!

Ragerman’s Hypocrisy Meter© says, "Its the way of the world but that doesnt make it right. People without the power of the Media behind them have a right to justice too. But on the HypoScale (1 thru 10) its probably a Category 6."

(FYI, I posted this originally as a comment on http://laksays.blogspot.com/ then decided it needs to be a posting by itself. No its not pilfered.)

Muhammad Cartoon Controversy

2006-02-12T17:23:00.000-08:00

Now the Muhammed Cartoon Show (LIVE in a country near you! A Theo-Political Controversy Company production from the same folks who gave you such hits as “A Gay Wedding Affair”, “The Attack of the Killer Stem Cells!” and “The Great Satan We Want To Send Our Kids To”.) is not your typical cartoon. But the incendiary reaction that we see rippling and surging through the world does have at least one positive, it provides a serious backdrop for conversation on topics that would otherwise not be discussed, such as:

What does democracy MEAN, Basil?
Exactly how can we separate religion and state if the citizens of a country have strong
religious backgrounds?
Are you telling me this is the ONE issue that Liberals and Conservatives agree on?
And last but not least: What does Ragerman's Hypocrisy Meter say?

Now before you read what I have to say, I would suggest trying to leave behind your need to categorize me and my comments. Just read it with as open a mind as you can manage and try to keep that knee from jerking.

Answer One: Democracy is Pig's Meat (Oh, I'm going somewhere!): Does democracy mean that everybody is free to say and do anything they want? Does it confer people with rights to own anything and have personal privacy? Can you marry anybody/thing that you want? Sadly the answer here is None Of the Above. Don't believe me? Look up a dictionary, I did and it says:

Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

No mention of guaranteed, inalienable rights… So all that liberal rhetoric like "These enslaved Muslim nations need to know how we do things in a democracy", "If these Islamists only lived and enjoyed the Freedoms we are guaranteed by democracy they would not have made such a big deal" don't look so obvious anymore, do they? Those comments make as much sense as saying "If only the Jews tasted Pork Pie, they would know how sweet Pig's meat could be". Firstly, Pig's meat is only sweet in Pork Pie because it is flavored. Pig's meat can be flavored by any number of seasonings/sugars and it could taste like most anything if you wanted. Get the drift? Democracy is Pig's meat. YOU, the people, provide the flavor. E.g., the Nazi party could be argued to be democratic. (Yes, I know about the raid on the Reichstag. But that failed and they were ELECTED to power later.) Yes, but you and I know that we are conferred freedoms somewhere right? Well it’s in most constitutions, the American First Amendment, for example. There are lines which in effect say something like “We, your much balls-ier forefathers, with the foresight we know you will never have, re-invent and bequeath
to you the Freedom of Expression… etc. etc.”. (NOTE: Not the original text.) Now this is a little more specific in terms of what flavor of democracy a nation espouses. Here it is said clearly that in this democracy, you can have your say. But Democracy in Rome allowed Slavery, Democracy in the US banned Slavery but allowed Segregation implicitly continued for centuries till the 60s… And there are further levels of specificity, namely the courts of law. They interpret the constitution for the people. Laws that for example say “Rudy, I know what the forefather’s said but you can’t yell FIRE in a crowded theater. Take ten years in the pen.” Or “Sorry Mr. Dunlaw, I know you think Mr. Haberdasher is a liar and a cheat but you can’t say that in public unless you can prove it. You pay him three million dollars for the mental trauma and defamation”. See what I mean? Freedoms have limits. And who determines the limits? How much of a good thing is too much? How do you justify depriving a man of the right to say something/anything? Think it’s a stupid question? Well then let us try answering it unemotionally. Seems to me, you look at the cost of allowing that person to say something versus the benefit to society. If someone yelled “Oh Shit!” in a crowded theater it’s different from “Fire!” isn’t it? Why? Yelling “Fire!” could cause a stampede that could kill folks. The problem is not with people dying per se. The question is: for what benefit? People die all the time for wars, don’t they? But apparently society (Read: the majority, in a democracy) thinks it’s worth it. So is protecting the right of the yelling-fire-person to shout his favorite word worth the cost of a few lives? I didn’t think so.

So what is the learning here? Democracy means you do what the majority says. Nothing more, usually less.
Democracy, per se, has NO COMMENT ON THE MUHAMMED CARTOONS. If the majority says let’s make Hitler the head of the nation, that’s what you do. So democracy in Denmark says the cartoons are no big deal, but democracy in Indonesia says that it is the biggest attack on Islam since the Crusades. One should see democracy for what it is, the BEST (but still highly ineffective) means to prevent power from concentrating in the hands of a few. I personally think that true democracy can only be achieved if we are willing to accord democratic rights (the non-political ones of course) to non-citizens of our nation, but that’s just idealistic
ol’ me.

That part settled, there are many variations in the constitutions of nations. Many western nations (Read: advanced democracies) that have anti-blasphemy laws. Are they implemented in courts of law? Not often but they exist for specifically such situations as this but mostly in the Christian context. Also, be sure to read up on the Blasphemy laws section here. (In all fairness, western nations typically have a liberal counterbalance to religion that avowedly Islamic nations do not.) For further reading, let us look at another similarly blown out of all proportion deal, the Salman Rushdie affair.

This is a good segue into Answer Two: Very, very carefully. (For those with impaired attention spans, the question was “Exactly how can we separate religion and state if the citizens of a country have strong religious backgrounds?” Also for the attention impaired, please contact me for a class action law suit against Television. We’re not going to win, but you could be on TV! Woo hoo!) So as we know most religions say basically the same things in terms of how to live your life. However when it comes to the mystical portion of their messages there is a wide variety of mythologies. Now it is easy to be objective about somebody else’s beliefs but all of us have our own sets of things we hold sacred. So how can we talk about these things without stepping on each other? Also, if your belief is the majority belief how much effort should/can you put into protecting the little guy’s toes? As history has shown us, it is very, very challenging. Firstly because you want to move the little guy over to your side of the fence so it is a contradiction to try and protect his beliefs while trying to convert him. This is why minorities cannot be safe in any state that strongly espouses any set of beliefs. Does that mean they are safe in liberal states? Not exactly, as the Danish cartoons showed. They might still be assaulted by such blasphemies not because the Danes are Conservative Christians but because they are so liberal they allowed blasphemy! So while Christian minorities in Pakistan are under threat to convert to Islam, Islamic minorities in Denmark is under threat to convert to a form of liberalism they do not agree with.

Now there are two outcomes of the Cartoon Controversy, legislation is put into place to prevent such expressions in the future OR no action is taken and such expression is allowed. In the first case, extremist Islamists could be buoyed by their victory and continue to make it more and more difficult for open religious conversation. How could a historian then, for example, plumb any question with regards to Muhammad? Can a biography be written of him? Can portraits of him be published? What if evidence comes up of an alcohol dependency that later caused his revulsion for the same? What if that investigation goes on to show later
regressions? Are we never to examine too closely those we have glorified? Should not people be allowed access to this information, if it were being publicly debated, before they make a conversion to that religion? On the other hand, if no legislation is enacted and the blasphemy continues, the polarization will continue. Reaction will become more and more militant. Cartoonists and humorists will pen more and more incendiary items, religious minded folks will get more and more pissed off. Finally the shit will hit the fan and many more people will die from both sides. All in all, a lose-lose situation.

How can we reconcile that seeming contradiction? Seems to me, we (i.e. our courts of law) have to distinguish worthwhile religious dialogue from the attempts of cartoonists and comedians to jerk a quick laugh.

I must confess I laughed at the depiction of Jesus Christ in South Park being trash-talked and beat up by Satan in a boxing ring. But on further thought, while that didn’t affect me very much, it was very hurtful for Christians, and I have many Christian friends. Furthermore, I’m an agnostic but I don’t need to laugh so desperately that it causes pain to others, especially when there are less hurtful ways to get your joke fix. Also, can we ever be on friendly terms with those whose strongest-held values we ridicule? While we rabidly fight for the right to dialogue, we must equally strongly prevent the baseless vilification of things others among us hold sacred.

That does not mean we compromise on everything. That does not mean we cannot expect people to laugh at themselves but we cannot be expected to laugh at that which we hold sacred. To provide another illustration, it may be necessary to have a conversation with a good friend if his wife seems like she is being unfaithful, but it is not okay to make public jokes about her when it can’t be proved to be true in the first place. That is just a mean, selfish act done for a cheap laugh. It is funny when the person you are talking about is someone no one cares about, but how different would it be if that were your father or mother? Not so funny then? Why not? Can you afford to be so conflicted personally with such questions? I cannot. I am not being holier than thou, and I have many conflicts that I am unaware of. But as and when they surface, I try to reconcile them as best
I can. The flip side and added benefit of this is also to get the Muslims to afford other religions the same respect it demands.

Answer Three: YES! The one thing that liberals and conservatives agree on! How can that possibly be wrong? Hallelujah and Peace on Earth! Two viciously opposed sides agree that Muslims should forget about a stupid cartoon and just get back to work or whatever it is they do. Open and Shut? Crystal Clear? No-Brainer? I THINK SO! Both groups come to the same conclusion on this matter by being wholly self-centered and apathetic. The “No Brainer” there is that they are BOTH wrong and pursuing selfish interests.

To the liberals, there ARE many freedoms you cannot have. You cannot have the freedom to have sex with whoever you choose, when who you choose is a minor. You cannot have the right to slander someone and get away with it. You cannot have the right to drink alcohol if you are under age. You cannot walk around naked in public. Who is to say which freedoms can and cannot be had? Let us approach the issue logically and we can only arrive at the solution I outlined earlier.

To the conservatives, your opposition to the Muslim’s emotional display is much easier to see through. You just don’t like ‘em. There is a long history of hatred between Christians and Muslims so it’s obvious that anything that reflects negatively on them will not receive much opposition from you. But how easy it is to cry “Blasphemy!” when portrayals of JC are made in the media isn’t it?

So to Christian groups that think the Muslims should just get over the Muhammad cartoons but want the
Book of Daniel off the air and censorship for Will and Grace, I say: HEAL THYSELF. And to liberal groups that did nothing to support Matt Barber in his right of expression when he was fired for posting his opposition to gay marriage, I say: IT IS NOT FREEDOM IF IT IS NOT FOR EVERYONE.

And finally, Answer Four: Ragerman’s Hypocrisy Meter© says, “It doesn’t matter whether you want a Democracy, Autocracy or Theocracy, what you get is inevitably a Hypo-cracy.” (Yes, it’s a talking meter, do you mind???)

The Muslims who are so bent on getting this blasphemy rectified conveniently overlook their own blasphemous actions with respect to other religions. Pakistan uses their blasphemy laws to persecute its minority Christian and Hindu populace, Saudi Arabia routinely confiscates and destroys bibles, Islamic nations worldwide crack down on other religious expression as a matter of fact. There is no doubt that Islamic nations are much more hardcore in enforcing religious limitations on minorities, so what right do they have to get self-righteous? IMHO, they don’t have a right to be holier-than-thou, but they do have a right to keep their sacred myths sacred, as do the Christians, as do the Jews and Hindus. So perhaps this is a time for state-level talks on what they are doing to protect the rights of their minorities and the numerous blasphemous acts against other faiths that take place, so that the same rights can be respected universally? A give and take? A no-brainer, logical step to respect each other’s space and live like adult nations and adult religions? I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Peace out, y’all.

Hello World

2004-06-03T05:00:00.000-07:00

Entry into the wonderful world of blogging.