Re-Post 4: Hindu-Islamo-Satanic Values

29 APRIL 2006

I hate to get ranty. Well...I hate to get ranty to you, dearest blog. You listen so well and I just hate that you're the only one I trust enough to tell all the bad things. I wish you could hear the great things about my life like you deserve.

You don't tell anyone what I tell you, do you blog? Because certain accidents could happen if, in fact, you do.

Where was I...ah, yes. Me with the ranting and the writing.
I often get fixated on a very specific thing that is said or done, especially when it is:
A) Repeated ad nauseum and
B) Mind-bogglingly wrong.
Have I found such an example, say you? Quiet! say I, I'm getting to that part. It starts where all festering sores upon the disease ridden flesh of discourse start: It starts with Bill O'Reily.

I could've sworn Uma Thurman was in some movie about killing Mr. O'Reily with a Samurai sword, but her target could well have been David Carradine (they look so much alike). Unrelenting and still with all of his limbs unfortunately intact, Bill O'Reily is a forerunner for misrepresenting major religions by putting his beliefs under their name. Especially my religion, which I happen to know is something VERY different from what Mr. O'Reily thinks it is.

My main argument focuses on Bill's use of the term "Judeo-Christian", a term which, in almost every situation, has almost no value. Do Judaism and Christianity have a lot in common? Sure they do. But not to the extent that people like Bill O'Reily think that they do. My favorite (and, for brevity's sake, only) example is sex. Now, the Chritianity that Bill chooses to misrepresent has some rather strict views on sex. No sex outside of marriage, sex is for procreation, gay sex is a sin, etcetera. What really grinds my gears is when, in an argument or rant, Bill drops a bomb that is not unlike my small paraphrased tidbit:

Homosexuality is an affront to the Judeo-Christian views of marriage and sex.

Exsqueeze me? Did I just hear the terms "Judeo-Christian" and "marriage and sex" joined together like gay citizens can't be? (oh, burned) What in G-d's name do Judaism and Conservative Christianity have in common with regards to sex? Last I checked, the reason for waiting until marriage to have sex in Judaism is NOT to create a family, and that sex is BY NO MEANS just for procreation. Oh no. See, in Judaism, sex is HOLY. It is a serious, intimiate, mandated bond between two souls that is too powerful to be trifled with (hence the marriage thing). A Jewish man, according to Jewish law, is COMMANDED to have sex something like four times a week or SEVEN if he doesn't work full-time. That's right. Jews are commanded to have sex, on average, once every day or two. That's a LOT o' boinkin' your significant other. On the Sabbath, you know, day of rest, sex doesn't count as work. Actually, you're supposed to DEFINATELY have sex on the sabbath. If you don't have sex on any other say of the week, you get down and dirty on saturday.

I'm not even going to go into things like the Union for Reform Judaism (or the National Reform Council, I can't find the gorram book with the quote) supporting homosexuality (and bisexuality and such) with biblical counterclaims to all the "homosexuality is a sin" arguments. That's a whole 'nother rant. It's just that when guys like Bill O'Reily and Sean Hannity and Hell, maybe even Rush Limbuagh tack my religion onto their twisted, perverted version of Christianity (for more perversion of Christianity, see Wagner, Richard) I begin to feel like my beliefs are being violated.

My faith is not yours, Mr. O'Reily. You'll never read my little blog but I will shake my fist at the blank area in front of my computer screen that symbolizes your face. My religion has little do to with yours, especially where you think it does. My doctrine does not agree with you, and it sure as Abraham doesn't support you.

Shabbat Shalom, Mother Fucker

DubTak

Anti Gay Marriage = Treason

If you have ever said this:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all."

You have entered into a contract. You have pledged your absolute loyalty to this country and the ideals for which it stands. You have given your oath upon the symbol of freedom and equality that binds this country together.

If you have then voted against the civil rights of any individual of this country YOU ARE GUILTY OF TREASON. The text that you willingly and knowingly agreed to clearly states: "With Liberty and Justice for all". It does not say "for some, so long as we call their rights something else", it does not say "for only those with whom we agree". The pledge of allegiance to the United States of America could not more clearly state that EVERY citizen of this country is entitled to Liberty and Justice.

I will be more specific: if you live in California and you voted yes on Proposition 8, or live in Arizona or Florida and voted on the equivalent measures, you have committed treason. You have directly violated the pledge that you took, and should be prosecuted as traitors.

This is not an extreme viewpoint, I am simply taking you at your word. If you do not want to be held to this level of legal standard, do not EVER say the Pledge of Allegiance. For those who have already said it, man up and accept the contract you signed.

There is no in-between, there is no maybe. If you pledge loyalty to this country, you cannot then selectively practice its ideals.

Anti-Gay activists are TRAITORS
Those who voted against gay marriage are TRAITORS
Those who actively subvert the rights of others are TRAITORS

Do not claim the privileges afforded by this country if you are unwilling to uphold its most basic tenets.

Thoughts on Mumbai

1) CNN keeps trying to tell me that this is al-Qa'ida, but I am
hesitant to believe this. al-Qa'ida's methodology (to my knowledge)
is: quick, brutal, high body count, with high levels of martyrdom
(usually suicide bombing on a large scale). I see none of these
elements in Mumbai. Going into a hotel with guns and grenades?
Sounds more like a militia to me, but I'm getting ahead of myself.
The attacks have been going on for hours now, yet the body count is
only at 160 (give or take). Militants have been engaging Indian and
World officials with poor accuracy and inefficiency. If these
terrorists wanted maximum impact (as, I believe, al-Qa'ida would) they
would have gone into the hotels, not with guns and grenades, but with
powerful explosives strapped to their chests. Maximum impact would be
piles of rubble where once were major hotels.

2) I keep hearing that these attacks were well-executed. I do agree
that the attacks are far reaching and certainly terrifying, but
well-executed? There has been time for civilians, even Americans and
British who have been primary targets, to evacuate. Members of the
press are within camera range of the conflict, and (at least in some
areas) civilians are not very far from combat zones. I do not
consider that good execution, at least not from the standpoint of
causing terror. It, again, sounds more like a military style action
than a splinter-cell terrorist attack.

3) These attacks have a personal tinge to them. If the baddies in
Mumbai didn't care about the lives of civilians than they would not be
engaging peace-keeping forces. They would not be using bullets, they
would be using explosives. That this attack, though horrific, seems
to have more of a capture than a kill element shows me that the
baddies don't want to kill those that they don't feel deserve it.
True terrorism is blind, large-reaching attacks that do not care if
the victims share ideologies or nationalities. Even if there were
other members of the same organization in the building, it wouldn't
matter: the hardcore level of terrorist like al-Qa'ida spare NO ONE.

4) In contrast, the attacks on the Chabad community center were quick,
efficient, and lethal. That looked more like a professional hit than
anything else. I propose that, perchance, these are two separate
groups; one capitalizing on the chaos created by the other. It is
just as likely that this is a two-tiered attack, but the disparity
between efficacy of the two seems too much to me.

Those are my current theories, feel free to tell me off and call me a
wanker. I am only a layman.

-DubTak