Sinning with a Mouse Click

My mom sent me an e-mail forward today and asked if it was true. She does this often. On one hand, I think it's kind of cute that she thinks I'm the expert on everything. On the other hand, I wish she'd spend a few minutes on Google and figure out that a handful of her friends are mildly retarded and shouldn't be allowed within 15 feet of a computer.

Below is the forward she sent me, followed by my response. The original forward was drafted in multiple colors, multiple font sizes, random CAPITAL letters, and--of course--in that dreadful curvy font that you'd use on your five year-old's birthday invitation. You know--the same way scholarly journals are drafted, right? :-/ I won't attempt to recreate the crappy font choices, as I do not want to assault your senses.

----------------

Joys of Muslim Women by Nonie Darwish

In the Muslim faith a Muslim man can marry a child as young as 1 year old and have sexual intimacy with this child. Consummating the marriage by 9.

The dowry is given to the family in exchange for the woman (who becomes his slave) and for the purchase of the private parts of the woman, to use her as a toy.

Even though a woman is abused she can not obtain a divorce.

To prove rape, the woman must have (4) male witnesses.

Often after a woman has been raped, she is returned to her family and the family must return the dowry. The family has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family.

Husbands can beat their wives 'at will' and he does not have to say why he has beaten her.

The husband is permitted to have (4 wives) and a temporary wife for an hour (prostitute) at his discretion.

The Shariah Muslim law controls the private as well as the public life of the woman.

In the West World ( America ) Muslim men are starting to demand Shariah Law so the wife can not obtain a divorce and he can have full and complete control of her. It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters and daughters attending American Universities are now marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and their children unsuspectingly to the Shariah law.

By passing this on, enlightened American women may avoid becoming a slave under Shariah Law.

--Snip--

In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. to elect the President by themselves!

I think everyone in the U.S. should be required to read this, but with the ACLU, there is no way
this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on! This is your chance to make a difference...!

--------------------

My response to mom:

Mom,

Admittedly I don't know enough about Sharia law to answer this completely definitively, but whenever someone makes such sweeping accusations, it should cause you to raise an eyebrow. Here is a website purporting to debunk most of that forward's claims: http://hatesermons.blogspot.com/2009/08/nonie-darwish-hate-monger.html.

If you Google the author, the first hit you receive is the Wikipedia page about her. (Remember, Wikipedia has been shown to be more accurate than encyclopedias in print form because it is edited by the world and then fact-checked by the rest of the world.) Here is the Wikipedia page on Nonie Darwish: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonie_Darwish. You can see that Nonie used to be a Muslim and converted to Christianity. She also founded "Arabs for Israel." She is not a religious scholar. She clearly has a bit of an axe to grind, which doesn't discredit her outright, but let's just keep that in mind.

So let's pick apart the email a bit, shall we?

1. First, forwards that are drafted in curvy fonts, different colors, different text sizes, which conclude in CAPS, and which issue a warning about the ACLU repressing your speech are never true. Never. Such forwards are about as useless as tits on a nun.

2. Islam is not uniform... nor is Christianity. There are radicals in every group. That's not to say that some sects of Islam don't have some serious, serious problems. A sizable chunk of Muslim men in places like Saudi Arabia still beat the crap out of their wives. But on the flip side, you wouldn't want your church associated with the lunatics who bomb abortion clinics, would you? It's fair to criticize another's religion--and we should be pointing out human rights abuses and never excusing them under the guise of religion--but it's always important to separate what really is "the religion" from what is some radical sect that is using a religious text to do things that rational people would never consider holy.

3. The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union. They protect people from religion just as they protect people's right to practice religion. When a town tries to put a cross on public land--such as the courthouse lawn--the ACLU sues because that's a government endorsement of religion. (I know some people won't like that, but that's what living in a country that respects the separation of Church and State is all about: it doesn't mean we suppress your Christianity, it just means you don't get to force your Christianity upon anyone else. Live and let live.) But the ACLU also sticks up for people when their religious rights are trampled. Check out this long list of pro-religious court cases the ACLU has recently brought on behalf of religious people and groups: http://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression.

Recall that Rush Limbaugh hates the ACLU. But when Rush got in trouble for illegally "doctor shopping" and getting multiple prescriptions for pain killers, who came to his defense? The ACLU. Why? Because the prosecutor was trying to illegally publish parts of Limbaugh's medical records, and the ACLU knew this violated his right to medical privacy.

4. The number of U.S. Muslims is impossible to pin down, but reputable organizations put the estimates between 2.5 million and 7 million. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States). The current U.S. population is over 307 million people. (http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html). Assuming that different groups of people vote in roughly the same percentages, we'll even take the high number and divide: so 7 million Muslims divided by 307 million people in America is 2.28% of the population.

Will someone please, please explain to me how in just twenty years' time, 2.28% of the population (and that's using the high estimate) will produce enough children to elect a president that will impose Sharia law upon the U.S.? Are all Muslim women going to start having 100 babies a piece starting today? Because, remember, the kids can't vote until they're 18, and it takes 9 months for a baby to gestate, so that's almost 19 years right there. Are all non-Muslim women in the U.S. going to stop having children? The whole thing idea that Muslims will be a majority soon and will be able to elect a president is retarded--even with immigration and converts. Not gonna happen. Period.

Furthermore, the idea that a Muslim president who wanted to impose Sharia law could even do so without overturning the constitution we've had for over 200 years is even more retarded and shows a complete lack of knowledge regarding how our government really works. (Are two-thirds of Congress going to go along with this? Are three-fourths of all the state legislatures, as is required for amendments? Would the Supreme Court even allow the First Amendment to be stricken, as would have to happen for Sharia law to replace freedom of religion? Is the author of this forward smoking crack, and, if so, where can I get some?) Anyone who forwards such numerical nonsense should be ashamed of their math skills, their U.S. history skills, and their inability to spend two minutes on Google.

5. Finally, remember that your son worked at Target in college. There is an old e-mail forward that still circulates asking people to protest Target because it's allegedly anti-veteran and French-owned. Aunt Jackie even forwarded it to you, as I recall. In truth, Target is neither anti-veteran nor foreign-owned. The truth may be found here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/target.asp.

Think about the consequences of sending the Target forward. I only got to work when Target needed me. Target needed me when the store sold enough merchandise to justify giving me more hours. So for each idiot that sends that forward and stops coming to Target, Target loses business, and I don't work. My life is therefore harmed not by anything bad that Target actually did, but by the harmful, childish, unintelligent lies that some half-wit has spread from the comfort of his or her computer chair.

And make no mistake about it: it's a lie. A lie is something that is not the truth; we all know this, but somehow when it's just something we shuffle along with a few mouse clicks it seems less offensive. But it isn't less of a lie because you sent the e-mail along not knowing if it was true or not. Gossiping--if untrue--is still lying.

If your religion holds that all sins are equal (or at least all sins besides blaspheming God), then lying is as bad as rape. If lying is as bad as rape, then the person who sent you this ridiculous e-mail is as bad as the Muslim man who just brutally raped his wife. Think about that: by clicking "send," your friend just committed the sinful equivalent of rape. Gee, all the sudden sending this crap over the Internet doesn't seem so Christian, does it?

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, your friend should think of whom she is hurting when she sends out lies. Think of the poor, peaceful Muslim immigrant who moves into her neighborhood. If all her other neighbors got this e-mail, how do you think they would treat that immigrant? (Again, this isn't to say that some Muslims aren't violent. That's a national conversation we need to have: how to allow religious freedom while at the same time protecting against terrorists and extremists. But there is a difference between Islamic terrorists and the little old lady named Fatima who moved here so she and her family could have a better life.) Better yet, turn the tables: if you suddenly had to relocate to Indonesia and were the only Christian in the neighborhood, how would you feel about someone who was spreading lies about Christianity in your new village?

Sending forwards like this without fact checking is cruel, it's immature, and it's woefully un-Christian.

But if you remember nothing else, remember this: whenever you see forwards written in crazy colors, different sized fonts, and with the word "ACLU" thrown in... it's gonna be bullshit. Every time.

Love - your liberally educated devil child,

Paul

Prostitution... It's All About the Timing

Prostitution should be legalized. Why? Because in most situations, it's already legal... it's just overlooked. (I'll leave others to debate the moral consequences and the subjugation of women issue, which are perfectly valid points. Personally, I think prostitution is a tad creepy for the same reason I find selling one's organs creepy: it's just horrible to think that this is the only way some people think they can make a living.) For my purposes, though, I think a good argument for legalization can be made just for the sake of consistency in the law. Let's be honest about what makes a prostitute a prostitute: it's when you hand over the dough.

If you pick up a hooker on the street, take her back to a hotel, bang her, and give her a few benjamins, she is a prostitute. If you pick her up in a strip club while she's working, take her out to dinner, buy her jewelry, bang her, and marry her, she is Anna Nicole Smith. (Note that just because you're married doesn't mean you're not still a hooker.)

Gay men are no different. If you're a hot, young 20-something and your boyfriend is much older, wealthier, and saggy, spare me the crap about liking older men because they're "mature." Watch the elder's stock options evaporate and see how long Junior sticks around. Junior, you're a prostitute.

So the next time you see the brightly painted women or "women" on Halsted in Chicago or Jarvis in Toronto or wherever hos may be found, before you cast a stone, remember this: just because your "payment" comes in the form of a BMW or a Tiffany's diamond band or even five free drinks at the bar, if you wouldn't have hooked up with the guy without that extra sumthin sumthin, you're doing it for the money. In short, you're a ho.

If You're Not Part of the Solution, You're Part of the Problem

Yesterday Maine's citizens prevented their gay neighbors from getting married by blocking the enactment of a law that their representatives had passed which would have provided marriage equality. Also yesterday, Virginia elected a virulently anti-gay governor, and New Jersey chose not to re-elect Democrat Jon Corzine which, had it done so, New Jersey was all but assured marriage equality.

The predictable scenes unfolded: members of black churches high fiving one another like they had just scored a touchdown, cruel Christians grinning from ear to ear at the joy of having shattered their fellow man's dreams. But there was something more disturbing: gay Republicans on Facebook simultaneously reacting with sadness to the Maine results but reacting with utter glee to the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial results.

It's easy to lash out at such people as self-loathing homosexuals, but that's both oversimplistic and often wrong. To the extent I hurt anyone's feelings by mocking your god or your conservative credentials (yes, I'm mostly talking to you, Kyle), I apologize. Well, sort of. Because the flip side of the coin is this: if you're attacking my rights with your support of a particular candidate, you are, in no uncertain terms, attacking me personally. The personal is political.

But wait, doesn't that make you a 'single issue voter,' Paul? Not at all. But I struggle to think of anything more important than upholding the basic equality if your fellow man. Why do some of you gays vote Republican? Smaller government? Lower taxes? A more strong-arm (though not necessarily "stronger") national defense? A belief that the stimulus was a tax on our grandkids? (P.S. You're not Paul Krugman. Win a Nobel Prize in Economics then start complaining about government spending in a recession.) Really, what's your reason? And just to anticipate the objection: Yes, I know lately Democrats aren't much better, especially with Obama's slow movement on gay rights. But at least he's done something, and he appointed Justice Sotomayor who is assuredly more of an ally than anyone McCain would have appointed. I, like many attorneys, think this will ultimately be decided by the courts, so we need the best judiciary money can buy!

But again: Why vote for an anti-gay Republican? The issue gets even more perplexing if you claim to be a religious person. Can you really stand before God on Judgment Day and explain to the Almighty that you thought having a few more bucks in your wallet was more important than someone's right to equality, to being allowed to have kids, to being able to visit a sick partner in the hospital? Perhaps you're staunchly anti-abortion. If that's the case, I can begin to see your point, but even still, how does one elevate a potential life above the lives of those people who are living, breathing, and suffering here and now? (More thoughts on abortion and the multitude of ways of looking at it are here.)

I know, I know. Just because you vote for the Republican candidate doesn't mean you agree with everything he stands for. And abstaining is no cop out either: those who don't vote are the ones who allow the victor to win. Which is why it really does come down to that 60s catch phrase: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. If you voted for a Republican, accept the fact that you just voted against the fundamental civil rights of your fellow man. If you put money in the collection plate at the Catholic Church, accept the fact that you just voted against the fundamental civil rights of your fellow man. There's no way around that. None. No mental leaps, twists and turns escapes that conclusion. You voted against your fellow man.

What's the big deal about marriage?

I did a speech on gay marriage in college. During my research I uncovered countless heart breaking stories. Due to the time limitations, I only shared two. One involved a lesbian couple who had two children. The children were the biological children of one of the mothers. When the biological mother died, the state took the kids from their other mother and gave them back to their biological father, even though there was evidence that he had been abusive. As they were ripped away from the only family they knew, they cried and screamed for their "mommy." Without marriage rights, the theft of those poor children was perfectly legal. The second story involved a gay couple from Hawaii who had been together over 25 years. One night one of the men had a heart attack. The ambulance whisked him away, his partner not far behind. When the man's partner got to the hospital, he was told he would not be allowed into the room. He wasn't "family," said the hospital. For three (yes, three) days, he and his lawyers fought with the hospital. On the third day, the hospital informed him that he could finally see his partner of 25 years. His beloved partner was--they informed him--in the morgue.

This crap happens. Every. Single. Day.

A conservative friend told me that we don't need marriage to fix this. He worked at a Christian hospital and even they respected the advance directives of gay couples. Well golly gee willikers, how Christian of them! If you're rich enough (or wise enough) to draft advance directives and have them handy when you rush to the hospital in an emergency, you just might be allowed to see your dying partner in the hospital. Are you listening, faggots? For a price, you might get what Britney Spears can get after drunkenly marrying her high school sweetheart in a ultra-brief Vegas wedding. Who needs equality when the alternatives are so, um, appealing?

But why "marriage"? Why not civil unions?

Some argue that civil unions are the way to go, and polls certainly suggest that. Perhaps for now, it is. But ultimately, the fight must be for marriage for two reasons: (1) for clear equal rights and (2) to allow gays to be seen as human. That which we call a rose by any other name does not always smell as sweet.

First, for clear equal rights. New Jersey had civil unions. Marriage under a different name. All the same rights and responsibilities, or so its residents thought. Then a lesbian UPS employee tried to get benefits for her partner. UPS denied her. Why? It wasn't a "real" marriage. Their contract only covered real marriages. Sorry, dyke. The employee had to get an attorney and sue for what was rightfully hers. Can you imagine the hell that would break loose if a straight couple in Jersey had to hire an attorney to prove their marriage was real? Guido would send the mob after you! You see, law is a tricky thing. You change one word and judges get confused. There have been entire Supreme Court cases over the placement of a comma. Words matter. Indeed, in states that have civil unions, state commissions have researched the issue and found civil unions to be lacking the full force of marriage. It's not the same thing.

Second, because we are human. Before you think that's touchy-feely humanist bullcrap, follow me for a second. When African-Americans marched in the 60s, some of them wore giant signs. They read: I Am A Man. Think about that. Think of how profound that four-word sentence is in the context of their battle. Their fight for equality was more than just a fight for legal rights; it was their fight to be seen as men--nothing more, nothing less. Full humans.

When the American military wanted to make it easier for its servicemen to kill Japanese soldiers, what did they do? They produced posters showing the Japanese as animals--as something sub-human. If it's not a person, it's easier to kill him, isn't it? Likewise, Hitler convinced his followers that everyone else was inferior to his Aryan race. It's a tactic as old as time itself: strip someone of their humanity and justify your actions with ease.

There is a reason some thugs feel no remorse for beating and killing gays and lesbians. There is a reason the delinquency rates and runaway rates of gay teenagers are far higher than for straight kids. There is a reason suicide rates are higher among gay people (particularly gay youth). There is a reason people feel justified in firing gays just because they were gay. Because to many people, we aren't seen as real humans... humans who deserve rights... or humans who deserve "real" marriages.

Passing equal rights legislation or enforcing it via the courts isn't a magic bullet. Changing the law won't change millennia of religious-based hatred. And allowing gays to marry won't suddenly make all gay kids into healthy, well-adjusted youths. But it will help. A lot. And it's time we start seeing the connections between the hatred we encounter and the institutionalized discrimination that permits such ways of thinking to flourish.

There's (At Least) Two Sides to Everything

A nice, liberal friend of mine told me yesterday that he didn't think now was a good time to extend marriage benefits to gays because it would be too big of a drain on society, even if it were the right thing to do. My first reaction was to bash my head into a brick wall in frustration. But then I remembered Target Lady.

In college, I worked the Guest Service desk at Target. One day, a very angry woman rolled up to my desk with a problem. You see, when you sign up for a Target credit card, Target gives you 10% off your purchases in the store that day and also gives you 10% off your first purchase on target.com. My customer didn't like that. Visibly furious, she spat at me, "I don't have a computer. So this program dis-crim-i-nates against me!" sounding out each syllable in the word "discriminates" for full effect. I stood there in shock, unsure what to say. I was trying to connect the logic in my mind: this one woman did not have a computer (and apparently didn't know anyone else who had one either or know where her local library was located); therefore, a program that gives customers a 10% online coupon discriminated... against her.

To Target Lady and to my friend, I guess I understand that it's a matter of perception: One man's "right" is another man's "privilege." To my friend, gays were apparently wanting something new, extra, and exotic: equal rights. Equal rights might cost the government some money once preferential tax treatment was extended to same-sex couples. And I get that: the status quo is comfortable; change is unsettling.

But the flip side of the coin makes an awful lot of sense too. And that's simply this: withholding equal rights from gays and lesbians has been, is, and always will be wrong. Changing the law isn't providing anything "extra," it's correcting a deficiency that's always been there. So when we make our case to others, we must always remember that, to some, we homos are just the angry woman at Target without a computer. It's our job to make others see it in--dare I say--the "right" light.

So I circle back, dear Republican friends. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. What issue persuades you so forcefully to vote against the health, happiness, and equal rights of your fellow man such that you would cheer the election of an anti-gay governor? It's a serious question. What do you find more important? Because I want to understand your position. And right now, I just don't. (And I like guns, low taxes, and small government too.)