Kyle Brady: Blog » Religion

On Not Tolerating Intolerance [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:05:58 +0000

The last few months in America have illuminated a large and worrisome bias like never before: citizens must respect the beliefs, lifestyles, opinions, and behaviors of others, so long as they’re legal – except when those same citizens have exclusionary beliefs that apparently allow them to criticize, condemn, vilify, smear, and generally ruin the lives or happiness of others.

This is not a law passed by Congress nor is it an Executive Order – it can’t even be found in the Constitution. The perplexing mix of “don’t criticize me, but I’ll criticize you” is based on a severe misinterpretation of a small part of the Constitution that has mutated over time into a weapon for these groups of people, most of whom have biases that can be traced to religious fundamentalism, racism, and other extremist perspectives that subjugate others for some benefit.

There is a line that divides tolerating another’s religion, political opinion, or personal beliefs, and tolerating intolerant behaviors – nowhere in modern, mainstream Christianity is there a provision that all other religions must be attacked and their people converted to a specific flavor of Christ followers, and yet this is what more and more fundamentalist Christians are coming to believe. Nowhere in any of the laws of the federal government does it state that a political party must follow the ideological whims of party leaders to the point of violence and chaos, and yet this is the behavior of the fringe-becoming-mainstream participants of the Republican Party.

These intolerant behaviors are either on a quick rise to prominence, or they are simply coming out of the dark depths, but the end result is the same: intolerance is becoming a core virtue for many Americans, and it is destroying society. In the case of the recent Fort Hood shooting, pundits were quick to jump to Islamic terrorism long before there was any public evidence to support this, simply on the premise of his name, and this is supposed to be acceptable? There is considerable media focus on the murders and destruction that those of Islamic belief create, and an extreme ignorance of the same behaviors from a more widespread religion inside America – where are the cries of religious fundamentalism when all-too-human doctors are murdered by Christians?

The tolerance of intolerance is reaching a critical breaking point, and the country, as a whole, must come to realize this. The situation is so advanced that the blatant lies and fear mongering that are spread by the likes of Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Rush Limbaugh are often treated as truth by legitimate networks, such as CNN, and this needlessly spreads their message to others. Congressional Republicans have acted on a campaign of negation and delay, using lies and misinformation to their own benefit, ever since President Obama’s arrival in the White House, and this is accepted as normal politics by many, trickling down to the polarized citizens who mimic such behaviors in their own daily lives.

All of this has resulted in banning gay marriage by referendum in state after state, a highly vicious and partisan political atmosphere, the rise of Creationism as a supposedly legitimate counter-theory to Evolution, the justification of a newfound and spreading racism, continued rash and negligent behaviors by the very banks that almost destroyed the interconnected globe, and considerably more. If America continues on its current path of tolerating intolerance, the next decade will see both civilian and military disaster on a scale unprecedented – Civil Rights laws were enacted for a reason, and yet some fundamental rights, or even common courtesies, are continually denied to some citizens.

The solution is clear: news networks must immediately cease reporting falsehoods of any kind, all forms of religion must be once again distinctly separated from the state in every fashion, and the political leaders of the country must rise to the occasion and enact legitimate consequences for those who do not follow the basic principles of sanity and legitimate tolerance. To fail to do so, soon, will result in an ever-deteriorating climate that will inevitably, truly tear the country apart.

The Holy Trinity [Thought of the Day]

Kyle Brady — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:15:31 +0000

LGBT Rights Are About More Than The Military [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:05:07 +0000

The concept of religious marriage should be explicitly divided from what the government recognizes as a legal union between two people, and yet the intertwining of church and state continues. Furthermore, the military has a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, curiously similar to many religious organizations' views on LGBT individuals, that expressly states their lack of interest in their personnel’s personal habits, so long as they do not interfere with the military lifestyle – but discovery of less-than-straight behavior often results in dismissal. President Obama has recently promised to end the policy, even as the so-called “marriage debate” rages on across the country.

What needs to be understood by so many is a simple fact: LGBT individuals are the only group in America that are still legally second class citizens. Both women and African Americans have long since been given the legal rights to which they are entitled, along with various other groups, and live without prohibitions on marriage, religion, military interests, or lifestyle. Yet it is still acceptable to tell said persons that they cannot be married, or even recognized as a legal union, in the eyes of the government, that they cannot participate in the military, and are explicitly barred from certain religions – in addition to the numerous illegal discrimination and hatred that are so often engendered.

In an era where a loudmouth public figure is scandalized over unintelligent comments about another race, and face the onus of federal-level fines and their employer, how is it legal for similar individuals to make comments about the “abhorrent” nature of gay marriage, LGBT’s are “unnatural”, or other offensive vitriol? This last front of civil rights is fundamentally no different than any of the past battles, and yet the actual rights in question are staunchly ignored by critics and commentators alike.

This is not a an issue that has opinions on one side or another – it is, very simply, ethical vs. unethical behaviors. Congressmen, Governors, or even the average citizen do not need to understand, condone, or even “agree with” the lifestyle of those in the LGBT community to legalize same-sex marriage and grant the same basic, American rights that run to the very core of the country’s foundation principles. The prohibition of same-sex marriage, along with current military policy, is akin to a public official claiming “blacks can’t be married” decades ago – this would not, and does not, stand in modern America.

The tone of this struggle will slowly change over time as younger, less judgmental generations grow into positions of power and mold the world into something closer to what it should be – the election of President Obama depended heavily on young, first-time voters that saw in him an embodiment of their own ideals, and is therefore proof-positive that LGBT rights and equality is, at this point, simply a waiting game. The aging, bigoted segments of the population can continue to rant and rave, write policy, and influence legislation, but their power will eventually wane. President Obama and California’s Governor Schwarzenegger have seen that the political power over the coming years truly rests with the vocal, politically-invested electorate, and fundamental rights will be restored for those who remain the final subjects of civil rights discrimination.

Palpatine + Giant Ewok [Thought of the Day]

Kyle Brady — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:15:38 +0000

Hail Satan’s PCP [Thought of the Day]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 07:15:08 +0000

Ethics vs. Morals – An Exercise in Proper Word Choice [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 07:05:35 +0000

Any modern debate inevitably includes the quality of “rightness”, in both arguments for and against the topic in question, and is often presented using “morality” as a base descriptor. While the word “moral” can be a synonym of “ethical”, it is often not used or intended to be defined in this fashion, with the speaker instead implying an inherently subjective view that intersperses strictly secular activities with unnecessarily religious aspects. This affront to secular life, especially in the Western World, must end.

In the religious definition of “morality”, the speaker is subjecting their views upon another person, action, or object, describing this object of their criticism from an internalized and personal viewpoint, rather than objectively analyzing the situation based on common, widely accepted ethical criteria. Where the criticisms have strict ties to religion, such as a religious leader giving advice on spiritual action, this is completely appropriate; however, when this specific word choice is applied to common, secular situations, such as politics, healthcare, or interpersonal behaviors, this is entirely unacceptable.

The assault on secular life by religious institutions and their followers is not new, nor will it cease in the foreseeable future. But with the recent, and inexplicable, rise of Christian fundamentalism in America as an extremely vocal and volatile minority, this battle is taking on heights not seen in half a century. This is not to say that religion itself is inherently negative, but that its ideas and principles have their own place within society, either kept separate from the public or completely internalized within a practitioner. What is difficult to swallow, however, is the evangelical nature of many modern day Christians, who do not approve of religions other than their own and wish to either convert or condemn those who are not their spiritual brethren.

Besides the obvious issues that arise with the condemnation of one religion for another, an extremely vocal minority drowning out the voices of others, or the judgment that is subsequently cast upon outsiders, word choice and usage is a major problem. The English language grows, changes, and morphs by virtue of its viral nature, and humans are naturally inclined to reuse words that are common in their own interactions of others, which illuminates the growing problem: when an individual with a certain religious affiliation uses morals, rather than ethics, in discussions of common activities, the word choice becomes instantly associated with the topic in the mind of the other party, and the chances of its repetition increase significantly.

It is by this very method that phrases such as “Obamacare is immoral” become commonplace among certain population segments, where a slight rephrasing as “Obamacare is unethical” would be more appropriate – completely disregarding the illogical nature of the claim in the first place, of course. To many, this is not an issue of concern since they are themselves religious and see no issue with such a word choice. But among those who are strictly secular - including atheists, agnostics, and others - or those who are sympathetic to their interests, it is of great concern.

These nonreligious individuals already receive a large amount of criticism and prejudice because they choose to base their existence in rational thought rather than speculative fantasy, and do not appreciate the inequalities dealt to them in everyday life: advertisements for churches are approved, while secularist advertisements are not; religious symbolism is present in almost every facet of American government, despite the claim of being a secular nation; deferential respect is demanded of those with theist beliefs, but is not a reciprocal.

When an unbiased word without hidden theist meaning can be applied rather than one laden with such meanings, the one without a religious tinge must be chosen - this is an issue of political correctness, religious sensitivity, and intellectual propriety. The continued reference to morality by journalists, reporters, and other public figures is merely exacerbating the issue, quickly becoming just another dagger stuck in the hearts of those who do not share the devotion of the theist population of America.

Badass Jesus [Thought of the Day]

Kyle Brady — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 07:15:50 +0000

[source - warning: occasionally NSFW]

Wolverlacheim [Thought of the Day]

Kyle Brady — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 07:15:44 +0000

[source - warning: occasionally NSFW]

Separating Government Taxes From Marriage [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:05:33 +0000

Marriage, specifically so-called “gay marriage”, is a hot-button issue in America at the moment, with some states passing legislation to prohibit the unification of same-sex couples in the eyes of the government, while others embrace the idea. No where more vehement and virulent has the argument been than in the supposedly liberal state of California: once legal, gay marriage is now prohibited by an Amendment to the state’s Constitution – which was recently upheld in the State Supreme Court. There are many arguments to both sides - some rational, some not – but they all miss the central and most crucial piece of this legislative puzzle: the Separation of Church and State.

The United States of America was founded on many principles, not the least of which was the Separation of Church and State – one of the key reasons for many American immigrants to leave England (or nearby countries of origin such as Scotland or Wales) was religious persecution by their government, and was therefore embedded into the creation of this new country. But over the last two centuries, this idealism has been lost, or confused at best, in most sectors of government: a non-Christian President has never been elected let alone had a legitimate chance, phrases and actions based on the Christian belief system have been worked into everything from Federal currency to legal oaths, and religious ideas are worming their way slowly into both education and national legislation that is, once again, Christian.

Marriage has two sides in America: unions based in government and religion. The purpose of marriage from a government perspective is to provide legal benefits such as power of attorney, recognition of family, and tax simplifications – very different from the religious idea of religion, which is typically formed around the union of two opposite-sex people being unified for long-term commitment and some sort of spiritual benefit. It is unclear as to when the lines between these two separate entities were blurred, but the fact remains that they have been. It is required for a couple married under a religion to file for the government recognition of their union, which should have helped clarify the differences between the two very different definitions of the word “marriage”. Obviously, this has failed.

A very essential question when considering the legality of gay marriage is: why is it prohibited in the first place? Is there any legal definition stating the secular union of two people has to be of opposite sex? If so, why is that recognized as legal, given the Separation of Church and State? However, these issues are being addressed elsewhere, and a more worthwhile approach is to look at the arguments of gay marriage’s detractors: the unfailingly central argument around which all opposition is based includes words like “immoral”, “unethical”, “perverted”, and other such religiously tainted words of emotion.

These claims of immorality and perversion seem to stem from the misunderstanding that a government recognized union of two same sex individuals does not affect, in any way, the principles and beliefs of their chosen religion. Vicious opposition campaigns are funded by groups like the Mormon Church, spending millions of dollars to disseminate propaganda claiming a recognition of gay marriage would result in absurd situations such as elementary school children learning the definition of “gay”. Besides being patently untrue, such attacks ensure that religious individuals perceive any pro-gay legislation as an encroachment of their beliefs.

No matter an individual’s opinion on gay or lesbian couples, any intelligent citizen should be able to perceive how embarrassingly appalling it is for our secular nation to allow itself to become even more entwined with religious ideals – gay marriage should be allowed, in terms of secular recognition, on the simple principle that the government should not be concerned with any issues of religion. Perhaps marriage as a government entity should be abolished entirely, with civil unions established as the only choice for all citizens – such an action would very clearly define the differences between the two types of marriage, while still allowing a certain level of tolerance and recognition for the religious institution of marriage.

For a country founded on rather idealistic principles, ethical decline has indeed achieved great reach within both the state and federal levels of government – and it has nothing to do with gay marriage. The allowance of religion to influence, dictate, or otherwise encourage legislation and court rulings that discriminates against citizens for indeterminate and abstract reasons should sicken every single citizen within America’s borders. And yet it is not so – the vast majority are either too reliant on propaganda for information or allow their religious beliefs, of whatever kind and strength, to influence their personal political agenda.

It’s worth noting, however, that all such “religious legislation” has a Christian foundation: where are the angry Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu citizens? Stand up and be heard, minority religions, for you are the last hope of returning America to a secular and religiously unbiased nation.

Epic Creationist vs. Scientist on FB [Thought of the Day]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 07:15:41 +0000

[source - warning: occasionally NSFW]