Bigoted conservative Christians become the snake eating itself and the duplication of systemic issues is complete.
“Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” Mr. Obama said. “In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”
Still, the president went on to focus on the terrorism carried out under the guise of Islam, saying that the last few months have shown the degree to which faith can be “twisted and misused in the name of evil.” (NYT)
If plain-spoken, accurate metaphors are labeled by a faction as hate-speech (ridiculous irony being ignored), then the essence of the fourth estate to be a representative voice of critical thought against those in power has finally become a fabrication of true intent.
Only when relative norms are established can proper social discourse occur. If we can’t even agree what facts are, or if our view of facts are swayed by whoever is telling us them, then let’s all sit back and watch the world end one reblog at a time. Everybody lies.
As the 2016 election cycle gets underway, I’d like to start up the abortion debate. Because really, what fun is the completely insane spectacle of American political back-and-forth without actual fertilizer?
Here’s my question for those who would seek to elect officials based primarily on their views in the pro-choice vs pro-life debate: at what point does government oversight in to what a woman can do with her own body violate the laws of nature?
Let me be a little more specific: If the country and courts decide to overturn Roe vs Wade and make abortion illegal, where exactly can we draw this line imposing big brother’s hands in to the lives of citizens? Can we then impose a strict intelligence-based exam to which only those who pass can then have children? Because that’s what I’d like to do.
Do you believe that tax breaks for the rich and cuts to education are a viable and sustainable economic model because you really like the image of Ronald Reagan on TV? Nope, no kids for you. Do you believe that America was better during an age when minority citizens were segregated from the white suburban population in public areas? You get snipped. Do you think that teaching any religious text or ideas in a public school is acceptable? Fuck off, no future for your bloodline.
Or, maybe you just think that the general psychology of your rural Christian town that benefits greatly from the federal government’s incurred debt would be better off if your half-wit opinions replaced the law for whatever reason. Cool. As long as you can’t teach that to the next generation.
Inherently, the concept of voting based on moral compasses instead of practical laws that require intellectual debate is just this. And I feel that it’s about time we show these mother fuckers the actual absurdity in their own insane dialogues by turning the tables.
So yes, take away a woman’s right to choose how she lives her life based on whatever stupid fucking verse of an archaic text you want, but then I get to decide your future based on my interpretation of present day logic and fears of an overpopulated future. It’s only fair, right?
Maybe what people realize is they really are pro-choice after all.