The Tolerance of Intolerance

Why is there so much hate in the world? I mean, everyone has their own opinions; everyone has their own world view. Most importantly: everyone truly believes that what they believe is actually 100% true and right. This gets dangerous when what they believe is damning or hurtful or even violent toward other people or people who don’t agree.

 

I’m all about free speech. It is a constitutional right to be able to say what you believe in any public space. But it is also my right to refuse to listen; to disagree. This article is for all those who disagree without respect. Without tolerance. They respond to hate with hate.

 

Kirk Cameron is a born-again Christian. He honestly believes with the firmest convictions that homosexuality is destructive to civilizations. Honestly, he’s not the first Christian I’ve heard preach this. I’ve heard it from Church leaders and priests. I’ve walked out of speeches given by what I perceive as narrow-minded demagogues. Did I slander them? Did I respond to their hatred with hate? No.

 

Yet that is exactly what the self-described tolerant folks are doing. Cameron responded to the hate-speech by stating, “I should be able to express moral views on social issues, especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years — without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach ‘tolerance’ that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I’m in the public square.”

 

He’s absolutely right. He should be able to. And you know what? Responding to his inflammatory remarks only gives him—and anyone like him—more power. You know what the world should have done? Stood up, and walked out. Regarded his remarks as comically antiquated. Because you know what? THEY ARE.

 

Attacking him with hate-speech and threats? Yeah…that’s like bombing an abortion clinic. Like murdering a murderer. It’s like bombing for peace or fucking for virginity. It doesn’t make sense. You can’t preach tolerance by being intolerant.

 

GLAAD responded to Cameron’s response: “Saying that gay people are ‘detrimental to civilization’ might be ‘loving’ in Kirk Cameron’s mind, but it’s gay youth and victims of bullying who truly suffer from adults like Cameron who espouse these ideas.”

 

I agree with GLAAD, there are hundreds, thousands, of adults who espouse these ideas and who indoctrinate their children into believing that LGBT people are different and destructive to society. Hundreds and thousands of people firmly believe this and use it as an excuse to hate, to bully, to torment, beat those that are different than themselves. I know “ignoring it” seems like such a naive and elementary thing to say, especially because I am not a target of such hate, but think about it: Who the fuck is Kirk Cameron? He played Mike Seaver on a TV show that LITERALLY ended 20 years ago. Don’t give this man any more credit than he is due: just another evangelical espousing his rhetoric.

 

Now, I think there are certainly dangerous evangelicals who spout their rhetoric with a heck of a lot more power and potential power than Cameron. How ’bout that Rick Santorum? This is a man who just won three states in the Super Tuesday primary elections. He stands on a platform made from the same words about homosexuality that Cameron stated last week. I mean this man announced that he would reinstate Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and disavow all of the thousands of homosexual marriages performed in the 8 states where gay marriage is legal (so much for states’ rights, huh Republicans?). This man is—potentially—the next president of the United States, and he—every single day—uses his religion as a weapon to excuse and perpetuate unequal rights. He uses his faith to stand on while he announces that homosexuality is, exactly as Cameron did, destructive and unnatural.

 

And while I find it destructive to attack this man and stoop to his level of hate and intolerance, I truly believe that if enough people stop listening to him, he will stop exercising that right of his to speak.

STOP CENSORSHIP

<p>I’ve censored the following, in protest of a bill that gives any corporation and the US government the power to censor the internet–a bill that could pass THIS WEEK. To see the uncensored text, and to stop internet censorship, visit: <a href=’http://americancensorship.org/posts/17664/uncensor’>http://americancensorship.org/posts/17664/uncensor</a></p>

<p>███████ is ████ ████ ███████ was ███████ ████. ████ ██████████, ████ #████! : ████://ow.ly/█████</p>

<p><a href=’http://americancensorship.org/posts/17664/uncensor’ style=’border: none; display: block; margin: 10px;’><img src=’http://americancensorship.org/images/ac2-uncensorthis.png’ alt=’Uncensor This’ width=’349′ height=’53′ /></a>

Get in line….

Catholic Democrats are often seen as an anomaly. They are the “Cafeteria” Catholics of the world…picking and choosing what to believe and what to deem “mystery meat,” never to be digested by the likes of me. And I suppose I personally am a Cafeteria Catholic (see: The Sanctity of Marriage if you have any doubts). But what about the other side of the political spectrum? Those holier than thou conservative and Republican Catholics do a bit of picking and choosing themselves.

There has been a recent trend of “greed is good” republicanism. This certain breed has been especially popular with economically successful Christians. In fact, there is a book entitled Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism is the Solution, Not the Problem. The book’s official Amazon description reads, “Jay Richards presents a new approach to capitalism, revealing how it’s fully consistent with Jesus’s teachings and the Christian tradition—and our best bet for renewed economic vigor.” Yeah, if you’re jaw just dropped, you’re probably not alone.

In fact, you’ve got the pope on your side. A recent Vatican document “proposed the creation of a world political authority to regulate financial markets and rein in the ‘inequalities and distortions of capitalist development’” according to The Catholic Register. While the pope had not officially signed it, he warned a week later against the ”unconditional surrender to the law of the market or that of finance” and later unveiled his own document on the subject. In it, Pope Benedict XVI asks all members of the Church to, “work and speak out in favor of an economy that cares for the poor and is resolutely opposed to an unjust order which, under the pretext of reducing poverty, has often helped to aggravate it.”

Those Catholics who choose not to agree with the Pope’s stance are doing just that—choosing. They are disagreeing with a fundamental tenant of the Catholic Church and are, therefore, standing in line in the Cafeteria. Mark Silk wrote a quick blog post about it, essentially telling conservative Catholics to wise up and get with it or openly admit that they disagree with the Pope’s stance on capitalism. Admit that you, too, are Cafeterian.

Capitalism is, in itself, not evil, but unregulated it leads to, as we see today, a ginormous gap between the wealthy and the poor. There is no one who puts in better than Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite in her Washington Post blog, “It’s not ‘class warfare,’ it’s Christianity.” Thistlethwaite reflects on the surge of so-called “Christian Capitalism” and how it’s not Christianity at all. It’s greed, pure and simple. Greed is not good. Greed is a sin. Those who are for unregulated capitalism, and those who argue it’s a good thing like Jay Richards, need to realize it.

Maybe then they won’t be so quick to judge us Catholic Democrats.

The sanctity of marriage…

I’ve seen a couple of similar quick articles and tweets about this, but I really thought it was a good time to finally write down my opinion of it all.

As I’m sure EVERYONE in the entire world (all 7 billion of us!) knows, Kim Kardashian is filing for divorce from her husband of 72 days, Kris Humphries, as of today. So, does the GOP and Tea Party still want to contest that marriage is sacred?

It really irks me that loving gay and lesbian couples are not allowed to be married when bimbos like Kim Kardashian can get married the second time, make millions and millions of dollars off of something that is supposed to be sacred, and cheapen the entire ritual by filing for divorce not even three months later. And don’t get me wrong, I am not arguing against divorce here. There are serious issues that sometimes cause two people to split up. But if marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman—as the right would like to have us believe (and enforce)—then guess what? Stop calling it marriage when people divorce. If marriage is supposed to be for 1) love and 2) procreation (as the Catholic Church would like to have us believe) then stop calling couples who are unable or unwilling to have children married. When Newt Gingrich is on his third wife how can you honestly tell me that the bonds of marriage are sacred in our society and that you would be willing to limit American citizens’ rights in this country in order to keep it that way?

Honestly, “marriage” is a religious institution. Whatever you want to do and believe in your own religion, by all means. But there is a second “marriage” which is legal and civil. There are certain rights and tax breaks with this “marriage” that come just as a privilege of entering into it—including the right to divorce. Now, maybe we should start calling them all civil unions, since that is the legal institution, and allow every single American to partake in it if they follow the right channels. (This is called equal rights. It was established in this country by means of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution). If you want to go the extra step and have that civil union confirmed in the eyes of your god and call it marriage, that is your prerogative.

But don’t you dare try to tell me that you approve of Kim and Kris merely because they are man and woman and not couples like those who wed in New York this year who had been in committed relationships, some for 20 or more years.

Duty. Honor. Country.

I’ve been thinking a lot about West Point recently. After seeing this amazing preview for Showtime’s A Game of Honor, which highlights the annual Army/Navy Football Game, I’ve come to realize how much I really miss it.

Seriously, do yourself a favor and take the 3 minutes to watch the preview and watch the documentary if you have the chance. It highlights all the amazing things about the men and women who attend USMA and the Naval Academy. It gives me goosebumps every single time I watch it (which is a lot) and tears about 50% of the time.

Now, maybe I miss West Point because I really don’t like my new job. But it’s honestly more than that. There was this amazing sense of pride that I had working there; this feeling that I was a part of something much bigger than myself. I miss that. Now, don’t get me wrong, I still feel a sense of pride for West Point and Army (GO ARMY! BEAT NAVY!) but I’m embarrassed as to say why. “No, I didn’t go to West Point….I used to work there. For one year.” Really? So you have no ties to USMA at all now, huh.

It was an honor to work at West Point and to serve the men and women who attended the Academy, knowing full well that graduating meant much, much, more than just getting a real job. It meant going to war. Leading men and women on the battlefield. It meant dedicating your life to 5 or more years of service, all while knowing full well that life may not even last that long. I’m incredibly sad to have left such an institution, but it is my goal to one day return there. Maybe one day when I have enough experience and money I can move to the city and reverse commute. I would be happy to do so if it means feeling that pride and honor again.

How Ignorance is Ruining the Movement

I know I said I don’t “get” the Occupy Wall Street movement, and in A LOT of ways, I still don’t. I don’t get what the goals are, I don’t get why there aren’t more concrete and effective strategies, and I don’t get who the leaders are. I finally saw an article yesterday about an actual strategy that actually has merit behind it and could work if people participate. The OWSers are calling for every one to pull out of “big” banks and invest with smaller banks and credit unions by November 5th. I’d like to proudly say that I’m ahead of the curve as I closed out my Bank of America account a week and a half ago in favor of a smaller credit union found on Long Island. (What foresight I have!)

However, I DO empathize with the 99%, as I am one. I saw this picture yesterday and I was FILLED with anger:

Now, I’m sure this is true. But don’t think I’m not going to dispell everything this bitch thinks. Right. Now.

First off, good for you. You work hard. Do not think for ONE second that everything you have or everything you are has been entirely based on the fact that you work hard. First off, you’re clearly white, so you have an advantage in this society already, based solely on something you have utterly no control over. Secondly, I’m not even going to pretend to know where you’re from or what kind of home you came from, but you really need to ask yourself those questions. Were your parents well off enough to be able to live in a good neighborhood with a decent school system? Did you come from a broken family? Were you fortunate enough to be able to get your good grades in high school because your parents had decent enough wages that you didn’t have to get a part-time job at 14 to help them pay the bills and you were able to focus solely on your school work and sports or clubs? Did you grow up in a home without the stress, strain, and fear of depression, abuse, or addiction? Did your guidance counselors and teachers provide you with a decent education and encouragement, or were you in a senior class with an average 7th grade reading level, laughed at when “college” was brought up?

If you were fortunate enough to have even one of these advantages do not forget that it is just that. An advantage.

Now I’m not saying that people ARE where they live or how they were raised. Plenty of people live in these situations and go one to excel and flourish in life. (Isn’t that the American Dream? I personally think it’s dead, but hey, you’ve got to keep believin’ right!?)

Let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you didn’t have any of these advantages. That you attended a school where you literally feared for your life and the lives of your friends because every month another kid gets shot in the parking lot or down the street. Let’s say you lived in single parent household (receiving government benefits, no doubt) and worked every day from 4pm-11pm to help your mom out. Let’s say you then came home every night, studied hard (with pathetic resources), got good grades, and got the last laugh when you did, in fact, get into college and got TWO scholarships at that.

Wow. NOW I am proud of you. But wait, you haven’t even graduated college yet? Oh. So you have NO IDEA what it is like to lose your job as a direct result of the 2008-2009 recession, which is a direct result of the housing crisis, which is a direct result of the subprime and predatory lending practices of….BANKS. Wow. There’s someone to blame. You have NO IDEA what it is like to graduate from your state school, all shiny-eyed and smiley, and look for a full-time job in the field in which you graduated. A field which, no doubt, is flooded with people with a hell of a lot more experience and a hell of a lot more desperate than you because they lost their job of 10+ years after the recession.

Now, let’s again give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you nobly keep your part time, low paying job while you continue to look for a more lucrative career. But wait, you’re not a student anymore, so suddenly you find yourself without health care. You have two choices: you can pay an astronomical amount for coverage each month, or you can go without. Which is fine. Until you need a root canal. Or a heart transplant. Hell, even a throat swab to check for strep. That’ll run you a pretty $300. But hey, again, benefit of the doubt. You’re healthy as a horse. Now, let’s say you were lucky (or let’s say you knew someone) and you got a job three months after graduating. It’s probably not exactly what you want to do, but hey, it’s a job. But the job is across town. There’s no direct bus or train route to get there (because America’s infrastructure is sorely outdated). Ok, no problem, you’ll just need a car. Undoubtedly, you’ll head to the banks where you’ll get a loan, but at a pretty high interest rate (you don’t have ANY credit, your own admission). So now you have debt. Your job is fairly low-paying (let’s say $35,000/year) but you can comfortably call yourself a part of the middle class. Welcome to the real world. Guess what? You’re being taxed at a higher rate than the CEO of your company, who makes $500,000/year plus a generous bonus. Your voice, your vote, your opinion matters 99% less than his. You’re part of the 99%. Unless you’re making over a quarter of a million dollars a year, don’t act like you’re not. And don’t you dare pretend even for one second that “everything you have” is a direct result of how hard you “work your @ss off.”

This is one person’s response. He says it much more eloquently and calmly than I do:

So there’s that. I don’t agree with the method but I sure as hell agree with the sentiment. (In fact I REALLY don’t agree with the method because OWSers finally put out a list of “demands” and many of them are a) impossible and b) impractical. Much of what they say they want would actually do more harm than good).

There’s one more thought I have about Occupy Wall Street. It really irks me that celebs are endorsing it. That the OWSers are embracing musicians and actors as if they weren’t the one percent of Americans at whom they are angry. Honestly, if the protesters are willing to overlook the facts because their favorite rapper walks by, then they are more ignorant than I thought. Don’t think for a second that that tv host doesn’t make multi millions a year and has lower tax rates than you, more access to benefits, and more political clout than you. Don’t think that just because they’re not in a suit (but instead a $300 shirt) they’re the 99%. Yeah, these people can call attention to the plight and maybe bring in media, but the fact that there is still not a lot of organization means media attention is pretty much moot. Instead, to me, it’s a huge farce. “YES! I empathize with all you un- and underemployed people! Oh hold on, I have to go make $50k at an appearance on Leno!”

Seriously, people’s ignorance infuriates me. Whether it’s the ignorance of people who believe that they bought a cow, made leather, fashioned boots, and pulled themselves up by their bootstraps all on their own, or the ignorance of the people out there without a plan and so easily distracted by a pretty rich face. Come on, people, is this the best you can do?

Occupy Wall Street?

Occupy Wall Street has been gaining momentum for the past 3 weeks. It is a large protest of Americans frustrated with the widening economic gap, the 99%, and the movement is spreading all over the country.

Now, I’m going to lose a lot of bleeding heart liberal/hippie points here (redeemable at your local Whole Foods!) but I don’t get the movement.

I mean, I understand the frustration. I understand that people believe the economy and the government is broken and they are exercising their right to voice this opinion. That, in itself, I understand, and am even proud that the American people are actually standing up to express said frustration.

But guess what? The Occupy Wall Street movement doesn’t have any specific aims. I mean, at first, no one even knew exactly what they were angry about. I might go out to occupy angry at the rising cost of health care while the guy next to me might be angry at forclosures, while the women four feet away are angry at “monopoly agriculture.”

Some of the protesters strike back saying, and this is a direct quote from the article linked above, ”Our constitution took a year to make. We’ve been here for three weeks, and we’re supposed to have an agenda? That makes no sense.”

No, idiot. It makes perfect sense. Of course you’re supposed to have an agenda. Widespread anger without an aim is called chaos. Do you know why the Civil Rights Movement worked? Because people decided that the most important focus was desegregation and an end to racism and Jim Crowe. Yes, there were hundreds of other qualms within the Black community, including equal rights for women and economic justice, but they all joined together and focused on ONE issue. (Also because there was a charismatic leader—another factor Occupy Wall Street is missing). When you have very limited resources, no agenda, and millions of grievances, you will find that your movement is not so successful. To quote one of the best movies of all time, Newsies, “Sometimes all it takes is a voice, one voice that becomes a hundred, then a thousand, unless it’s silenced.” Well, it only works if all the voices are working in harmony, shouting the same thing. A million voices saying a million things is just noise. And nobody likes noise.

People are frustrated. I understand that. And I think civil disobedience and peaceful protest are effective strategies to create change, if they are done correctly. Right now? They’re not. Even Susan Sarandon pointed that out. The one thing I can say I’m impressed with is that so far the movement has remained peaceful. There have been reports of force and the use of mace from police, but no serious rioting/beatings. It’s an interesting juxtapose to the riots that happened in London and throughout England not two months ago. That movement, too, was a reflection of the discontent society. I wonder why more people aren’t focusing on why things got so violent across the pond while things remain generally peaceful here. (Although, this article reflects on the possibility of rioting happening here).

My advice is to minimize and organize. Change isn’t easy, but it is worth it. Just marching around the financial district isn’t going to cut it.