This is how I feel about Chik-fil-a.
Excerpt taken from a website questioning the godliness of interracial marriage:
"according to J.D. Self, author of the site “Interracial Marriage is against God’s Law”,
races were created when the human race became arrogant towards God by
trying to build a tower so tall to reach heaven. And since God separated
the human race based on arrogance, Self believes races intermarrying
again is also “pure arrogance in the face and to the plan of God”.
(http://www.interracialdatingcentral.com/fyooz/is-interracial-marriage-shee-arrogance-to-what-god-intended/)
Did you think the language was familiar? I did too.
In a recent interview Dan Cathy, the president of Chik-fil-a spoke out:
" I think we're inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our
fist at him and say, you know, we know better than you as to what
constitutes a marriage. And I pray God's mercy on our generation that
has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would - the
audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about."
(http://www.npr.org/2012/07/31/157653766/chick-fil-a-comments-still-churning-some-stomachs)
I realize some don't see this as a human rights issue, they only see it as a religious issue. But don't they remember that 30-40 years ago (and still today if you count some crazy groups on the margin) people used the Bible to attack interracial marriages? They see this in a very one-dimensional way. Being gay is sinful. Being straight is not. This is Truth with a capital T to these people because in their mind God has deemed it so. They don't realize that others don't agree, and as the United States is not a theocracy, that sometimes what they believe to be God's law will not necessarily be the law of the land. What is more problematic is that they are really only considering their own perception and interpretation of God's law. Were they to do a little simple research they would find that there are Christians in this world (including myself) who do not believe homosexuality is a sin, and who also have pretty strong scriptural references to back up that claim. As somebody who has devoted their career to the study of literature in foreign languages perhaps I'm more sensitive to the fact that original texts are subject to gross misinterpretation when translated into a different language. Then you take into consideration what the Bible is - that it is a mish mash of many many different texts, by many different authors, with many different influences, in many different languages, written over thousands of years of human history (the Genesis flood story can be traced back to the Epic of Gilgamesh, the ancient Mesopotamian text that still stands as the first piece of writing in all of civilization). Biblical scholars have concluded that scripture that is regularly used to attack homosexuality often meant completely different things in their original translations, or are at least very open to different translations. Also, if you look just at the gospels and read all of Jesus' teachings, he offered tough love and strict words to sinners, but not once did he mention homosexuality. I really would think if it were as much of an "abomination to God" as people would have you think, then Jesus would have mentioned it at least once? What he mentions more than once is his hatred of hypocrisy and sinful humans' quickness to judge the sins of others. I recall that being a fairly regular message.
Sorry, tangent.
My point being that these people don't realize that even within Christianity there are opinions that differ from their own on homosexuality and gay marriage. They don't realize this so they think we're just being purposefully evil in boycotting a fast food chicken sandwich from a righteous man who is now a martyr to the cause against those horrible gays who are corrupting our society so. It is so incredibly frustrating that they don't understand that many of us see this as a human rights violation much like the bans on interracial marriage of the generations past. Calls for bans on interracial marriage were fueled by the same one-dimensional interpretations of the Bible used to push a political agenda set on taking basic rights away from people. In this case it was based on racial discrimination which has now been so (rightfully) demonized that most churches and conservatives won't broach the subject. I just get so frustrated that they can't see that it's the same thing. It is the same thing. Same thing.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Friday, July 27, 2012
Ramblings on Gun Control
Every time a tragedy happens such as the one that struck Colorado last week the same old hyper-polarized gun control debate is reopened briefly, and after a couple weeks those of us not directly touched by a shooting forget the terror and return to our quiet lives. All debate and demand for change is quietly put by the wayside and nothing changes. Is it too much to hope that maybe this time we'll finally say "enough is enough"?
I'm not suggesting that we ban all firearms overnight and all the people of the world will join hands and form a giant peace sign and sing camp songs around a bonfire... I'm not suggesting we ban things like hand guns, I'm not asking for the same strict gun legislation you'll find in most other countries. However, I will never understand why any civilian needs military-grade weapons, and why it's such a supposed infringement on their rights if we take them away. I don't care if you're a responsible, law-abiding collector. Some things don't belong in a collection (Biohazardous materials, for instance? Nobody's shouting from the rooftops their rights to collect dirty heroin needles). Defenders of this right claim that laws prohibiting sale of military-grade weapons to civilians will not stop crime. Of course it won't, and I think most people understand that. I think, however, that the massive impact and damage caused by military-grade weapons could be reduced when tragedy does inevitably strike. Military-grade weapons are made to inflict mass damage. If we want to prevent mass killings we need to place restrictions on access to guns designed to kill masses of people. Some also argue that criminals don't follow the law, therefore they'll still find ways to access these weapons. If we research mass killings however, the grand majority of shooters have bought their weapons legally. Every purchase the Colorado shooter made was legal. Yes, people will still be able to find these weapons illegally, but shouldn't we at least try to make it difficult for them? When it comes down to it, I feel as though the "right" to own military-grade firearms infringes on other Americans' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Perhaps it's difficult for generations before Columbine to understand, but I think that many of my generation and those currently attending school have felt the terror in a very real way. I was a freshman in high school when two young men walked into their school and opened fire, killing 12 students and one teacher. That was the moment that everything changed, and we knew it. Most adults and school administrators, in an attempt to maintain some illusion of control and perhaps thinking they were shielding us from an ugly and violent reality, chose to avoid broaching the subject with students. We noticed the changes. Survailance cameras appeared in every hallway, on every corner. The principal said it was to monitor student population increases. We knew better. Along with fire and tornado drills we suddenly had a new kind of drill to interrupt the tedium of classes. The principal announced over the intercom that teachers were to lock all classroom doors and take an inventory of their students. They always said it was a drill, and yet it happened enough times throughout the year that we students knew that was also a lie. There were bomb scares for earlier generations, only ours were so terrifyingly real. There were times the power went out on a bomb scare day and you could hear the screams echoing through the halls. We were afraid to use the vending machines because we saw bomb sniffing dogs investigate them. Police officers with bomb sniffing dogs checked our lockers. One day rumors spread so badly that the local news arrived on campus, police were everywhere, and parents arrived in droves to the school to pick their children up and take them home. The school was in total chaos. I was also personally threatened by a very troubled young man in my school who, inspired by Columbine, wore a black trench coat to school and very proudly collected all sorts of weapons. I turned him down for a date and so he showed up after school hours claiming he had a gun. I was locked in the auditorium and he was escorted off campus by a security officer. My generation also witnessed school violence enter college campuses in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting. You would think our parents would remember what happened in Texas.
Our children have the right to go to school and not feel like they're walking into a war zone. We all have the right to go to work, go to dinner, go to the movies without fearing that we won't make it home. Isn't this the kind of terror we tried to fight in two wars?
Why aren't we fighting terror in our own country?
I'm not suggesting that we ban all firearms overnight and all the people of the world will join hands and form a giant peace sign and sing camp songs around a bonfire... I'm not suggesting we ban things like hand guns, I'm not asking for the same strict gun legislation you'll find in most other countries. However, I will never understand why any civilian needs military-grade weapons, and why it's such a supposed infringement on their rights if we take them away. I don't care if you're a responsible, law-abiding collector. Some things don't belong in a collection (Biohazardous materials, for instance? Nobody's shouting from the rooftops their rights to collect dirty heroin needles). Defenders of this right claim that laws prohibiting sale of military-grade weapons to civilians will not stop crime. Of course it won't, and I think most people understand that. I think, however, that the massive impact and damage caused by military-grade weapons could be reduced when tragedy does inevitably strike. Military-grade weapons are made to inflict mass damage. If we want to prevent mass killings we need to place restrictions on access to guns designed to kill masses of people. Some also argue that criminals don't follow the law, therefore they'll still find ways to access these weapons. If we research mass killings however, the grand majority of shooters have bought their weapons legally. Every purchase the Colorado shooter made was legal. Yes, people will still be able to find these weapons illegally, but shouldn't we at least try to make it difficult for them? When it comes down to it, I feel as though the "right" to own military-grade firearms infringes on other Americans' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Perhaps it's difficult for generations before Columbine to understand, but I think that many of my generation and those currently attending school have felt the terror in a very real way. I was a freshman in high school when two young men walked into their school and opened fire, killing 12 students and one teacher. That was the moment that everything changed, and we knew it. Most adults and school administrators, in an attempt to maintain some illusion of control and perhaps thinking they were shielding us from an ugly and violent reality, chose to avoid broaching the subject with students. We noticed the changes. Survailance cameras appeared in every hallway, on every corner. The principal said it was to monitor student population increases. We knew better. Along with fire and tornado drills we suddenly had a new kind of drill to interrupt the tedium of classes. The principal announced over the intercom that teachers were to lock all classroom doors and take an inventory of their students. They always said it was a drill, and yet it happened enough times throughout the year that we students knew that was also a lie. There were bomb scares for earlier generations, only ours were so terrifyingly real. There were times the power went out on a bomb scare day and you could hear the screams echoing through the halls. We were afraid to use the vending machines because we saw bomb sniffing dogs investigate them. Police officers with bomb sniffing dogs checked our lockers. One day rumors spread so badly that the local news arrived on campus, police were everywhere, and parents arrived in droves to the school to pick their children up and take them home. The school was in total chaos. I was also personally threatened by a very troubled young man in my school who, inspired by Columbine, wore a black trench coat to school and very proudly collected all sorts of weapons. I turned him down for a date and so he showed up after school hours claiming he had a gun. I was locked in the auditorium and he was escorted off campus by a security officer. My generation also witnessed school violence enter college campuses in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting. You would think our parents would remember what happened in Texas.
Our children have the right to go to school and not feel like they're walking into a war zone. We all have the right to go to work, go to dinner, go to the movies without fearing that we won't make it home. Isn't this the kind of terror we tried to fight in two wars?
Why aren't we fighting terror in our own country?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)