Present Day Religious Tyranny

I was going to rant about a bunch of stuff, but this post became very long. So, today I talk about religious tyranny.

The religious right is trying to force Christianity on the rest of the country. How are they doing this? The Religious Freedom Restoration Act for starters. This is not a freedom of religion act. This is an act of discrimination and bigotry disguised as a freedom of religion act. There was only one reason this was put in place: so business owned by Christians could deny services to the LGBT community.

And now republicans in Idaho and trying to get the Bible into schools as a text of History and Science. Complete and utter bullshit! Not everyone believes in the same god. Not everyone, even some Christians believe that the bible is to be taken literally. A book that no one can verify is factual has no place in our school system. A book based on religion has no place being anything more than  a study in literature like Siddhartha or Paradise Lost.

The Pilgrims and Puritans left Europe to be free of religious tyranny. These are the people that founded our country. Do you think they would force their religion on us as the Church of England did to them?

And what about the Revolutionary War? Sure, it wasn't solely based on religion or religious freedoms, but it played a part. People were moved to fight for their freedoms, including their religious freedoms. Thomas Paine had a hand in this when he published Common Sense. He blasted the monarchy as taking on a sovereign authority that should only belong to God. He suggested that Americans follow the lead of Jews in the Old Testament and reject a monarchical government. He urged the colonists to take up arms to protect freedom of religion for dissenters and declared the colonies as an asylum of religious liberty.  Let me repeat that. Asylum of religious liberty.


Liberty's definition is: the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.

No one's religion should be forced upon us.  It's right there in the Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; 

This means no national or state mandated religion. It says we are free to exercise religion. It does not specify Christianity as that religion. So, what do you think you're doing when you place a book based on Christianity in our schools and treat it as fact. Hey, private schools can do what they want. But public schools, schools run by our government should not impose Christian beliefs on those who attend.

We don't need the bible in schools. If you want to teach your children the bible, do it at home, take them to church. I'm not saying that some curriculum shouldn't be based on theory, after all, much of science is based on theory. However, the bible isn't science, and it's not a proven history. Religion simply doesn't belong in schools unless you are teaching children about ALL religions.

As for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act - it's original purpose was "ensuring that interests in religious freedom are protected."  It applies to all religions, but is mostly was put in place for Native American religions and their sacred grounds that have been victim to the expansion of government projects.

The Indiana RFRA allows individuals and companies to assert that their exercise of religion. Really? The Constitution protects our religious freedoms. Why do we need this? Oh that's right, so companies and individuals in your state can turn away people they don't deem "worthy" of their Christian value services. Governor Mike Pence says it's all a big “misunderstanding.” And, “This bill is not about discrimination, and if I thought it legalized discrimination I would have vetoed it.”

Liar.

In response companies have halted expansion to Indiana. It's also been criticized by the likes of the NCAA, Apple CEO, Tim Cook, Gen Con, Disciples of Christ, and Subaru.

All of this, as I stated before, is nothing more than religious tyranny. Something many of our ancestors fled from and fought against. Our country is not a Theocracy. We cannot let the ball keep rolling in this direction. If they force this on us, what of our rights will be in jeopardy next?

Rape Culture and the Religious Right

I'm so tired of people, mostly right wing middle aged men, trying to find the "positive" side of rape so they can advance their anti-abortion laws. Rape is a brutal, violent, traumatic crime that can leave victims with lifelong problems. There is no "positive" side.

In 2012 U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock of Indiana thought that “...even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

I'm pretty sure no one's God would wish that on someone.

Or how about the Former Representative  Todd Akin stating that  "...if a woman experienced a “legitimate rape” she wouldn’t get pregnant because “the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down.”

Hmmmm, what exactly is a legitimate rape? Are there different levels? This one is implausible, this one absolutely fake, this one is invalid...Really? 

Washington Congressional candidate John Koster noted on what he called the "rape thing," "...how does putting more violence onto a woman's body and taking the life of an innocent child that's a consequence of this crime, how does it make it better?"

First, "rape thing" sounds like he doesn't even believe the crime exists. Secondly...how does it make it better? I don't know, how about ridding yourself of the reminder of being brutally violated instead of carrying it around every day for the next nine months? I think that makes it better.

Photo by Gage Skidmore

And we all know good old Mike Huckabee, right? Well, "Ethel Waters (who is a singer by the way), for example, is the result of forcible rape."

Wow. Okay, firsts off, like "legitimate rape" is there any other kind of rape than "forcible?"  Of course, that doesn't matter because you've sold me. I won't abort my rape baby because it could become famous! (I have no idea who Ethel Waters is).

Representative hopeful Tom Smith compared having a rape baby to having a baby out of wedlock because, "Yes, it is similar."

O.o

And oh, good lord, is this a good one. "The facts show that people who are raped - who are truly raped (againt, "truly" raped. WTF?) - the juices don't flow, the body functions don't work, and they don't get pregnant." - former Representative Henry Aldridge.

I would like to see these "facts." Were they published in a medical journal? Complete bullshit.

"As long as it's inevitable, you might as well lay back and enjoy it." Another former Representative contender, Clayton Williams, comparing rape to the weather.

Let's see if you would be able to "lay back" or in your case "bend over" and enjoy it if it were you.

And just recently, "Obviously rape is awful. What is beautiful is the child is that could come from this." Delegate Brian Kurcaba.

There are SO MANY MORE! Some from women. This disgusts me. The ignorance these politicians display is truly sickening. Here is a site that has some posted.

I'm so happy that many of these people are no longer in Congress or lost their bids. These are not the people that should represent us, especially women.

There is nothing "beautiful" about rape. Not even a baby conceived as the result. It's violent. It's traumatic. It's an invasion, an assault, a desecration of the female body.  Forcing a woman to carry the reminder around for nine months would be agonizing, tortuous, and morbid.  There would be mental and emotional consequences for the rape victim, again, probably life long.

What if the victim is a child herself? 17, 15, 13? You want a child having to bear that responsibility? What if it were your daughter? Or, what about a baby conceived as a result of incest? What then? Should we just expand the family tree?

These politicians have no way of stepping into the victims shoes to see the damage a forcible pregnancy would cause. So why should they have the right to determine what choices we make with regard to the fetus? 

I'm not for or against abortion, I'm pro-choice. I think abortion should be available for those who choose that option.  You could be a child, impoverished, too old, your health is at risk, a victim of rape or incest - the reason shouldn't matter. I will say that I do not think it's a good alternate to birth control. If you're having sex, you should be protecting yourself. But the fact is that people don't, and who am I to tell them what they can and cannot do with their bodies. 

If I was a rape victim, I would more than likely choose abortion. I have enough problems, mentally, financially, physically...I don't need to add another to my plate. You may not agree with my opinion, but I expect you to recognize that it is mine. I own it.

My life. My body. My choice.