Sold Out To Fear

What happens when a society chooses to force a narrative upon its youngest members? Parents must choose to either reject the importance of their beliefs, or remove their child from yet another piece of social involvement. Earlier this evening, The Boy Scouts of America unanimously voted to lift their ban on homosexual leaders. This resolution permits individual charters to choose leaders without regard to sexual orientation.

The Boy Scouts of America, a long held Christian organization, is facing backlash from parents who are facing quite a choice. I didn’t have the words, but I know of someone who did. With their permission, I’ve added their open letter to The Boy Scouts of America to this blog, and I hope that those on both sides of the debate can read it with an open mind.

“To whom,

I decided, when I found out that PP took a huge chunk of money from the Girl Scouts, that I could not contribute to any effort that promoted the ending of innocent life in the name of another’s ‘rights’. Since my girls would be required to participate in these ‘fund raisers,’ I would not be sending them to join this ambiguously harmless organization. That is not to detract from the hard work and good intentions of my friends who are leaders. It’s just something I can’t add to.

And so…

It is with a heavy heart that we regretfully inform you that our sons will no longer be members of The Boy Scouts of America. And, yes, this decision is based solely on your decision to alter your position on the admission of Gays and/or Lesbians as leaders in the organization.

I cannot help if I am misunderstood in this action. My intentions are not motivated by homophobia, bigotry, bias, or fear. They are based only on my ideals of what a leader should look like from an integrity and ostensibly Christian organization point of view.

It has oft been suggested, yea verily, spitted out vitriolically, that a position in opposition of homosexuality is nothing more than homophobia. Most also suggest that we Christians are hopelessly hypocritical in that our numbers engage in adultery, fornication, porn addiction, theft, crime, and any such other malfeasance, and that we don’t have such a drastic and outspoken view on those things. If, they contend, homosexuality is wrong then we must give an equal voice to these other ‘sins’ or else admit we are hypocrites and secede the argument. On a base level, if this were true, if I mentioned my disgust at gossip but never mentioned my disgust at pride, well then I’m a hypocrite and must shut up. Also, all of these sins among others are rebuked on a weekly basis, sermon by sermon. There really is no hypocrisy. But on a deeper level, whatever ‘war’ is being waged against my beliefs – a war that I approach only with a pen, a phone, a vote, and prayer (saving the best for last), that is the issue that must be addressed the loudest. Had social media been around in the seventies, you can bet that they would have been lit up with pro life rants, and anti no fault divorce rants, anti porn rants… All issues that were bigger then than they are now because now they are seen as normal and acceptable. All the more reason, in the eyes of the Christian, to ‘act’ while there’s still time to.

We ‘hypocrites’ hold the same standards for adulterers, thieves, divorcees, porn addicts, drug addicts, etc., as we do for homosexuals. We see it as a sin. We would not want anyone practicing homosexuality, practicing adultery, promoting abortion, advocating pedophilia, demonstrating undo pride, preaching another gospel – Not relegating equality of gravity or comparing homosexuality to anything else other than sin – teaching in Sunday school or holding a position of authority in the church. It’s not personal. It’s procedural and, yes, it’s discriminatory in that we believe God has layed out clear instruction for such things. So we reject these things because they are harmful things,not because people do the things. We don’t fear homosexuality any more than we fear porn or pride or lying or cheating. We just believe that people who practice such things openly and, not only shamelessly but proudly, cannot be in a position of leadership in what was until recently ostensibly a Christian organization. Against homosexual attendees, friends, coworkers, patrons, there is no such indictment – excepting we are asked to celebrate something we think is wrong. The hypocrisy is in that some for such things judge my Christian standards by using absolute objective morality principles. Ironically, the Christian approach.

There’s this word ‘ostensibly’ again… Ostensibly, this decision was made to better meet the needs of local families. These are our needs. I’m not afraid my child will be molested or indoctrinated – I wouldn’t send them with someone I don’t trust anyway – I have two homosexual friends I trust implicitly. If they were scout leaders my position would not change. And because my friends know me, they would understand.

I live in a very small community and I know all of the leaders, all of the up and coming families… None of them are homosexual. If that changes, I regard them well, as I should. I have no paranoid false expectation of some kind of hostile takeover. The men and woman who put in their time here work hard, have integrity, take due pride in their work, and I will respect their decisions in all of this as well. They will be true to what that believe. I wish them not only no harm but I wish them well.

I’m chartered for next year. I will not be asking for a refund.

I will miss it, for what it’s worth. And I will mark this day as the day that one of the last – and probably the best known – private bastions of safety and keepers of Christian integrity, sold out to fear.”
cropped-cropped-blog21.jpg

Dear Ariana Grande

Dear Ariana Grande,

First off, congratulations on your new relationship. I didn’t even know that you were in a relationship until yesterday, nor did I care. Alas, my days of ignoring the lives of former Disney and Nickelodeon stars were over as of Wednesday morning when suddenly my timeline was filled with articles that begged to be read.

“Ariana Grande licks donut and says she hates America!”

“Ariana Grande and her new man lick donuts and hate America!”

“Ariana Grande hates Americans and licks donuts that aren’t hers!”

Who could resist such click bait?

My first reaction was one of shock and awe, for I’ve never licked a pastry and felt anything but love for my country. I didn’t even know it was possible to lick a donut and not have “God Bless America” gently humming in both my Parietal and Temporal lobes, pure joy bouncing from wall to wall in my patriotic pastry loving gray matter. Add coffee to the mix and, well, Ariana, I’m a freaking ball of whimsical merriment.

When I found out that you hated America (by your own admission), I can’t say I was surprised. This is a common theme among elitist celebrities, thankfully not all. I fully expect them to sit in their ivory towers and mock the little people with sheer distain for the very country and citizens who poured the concrete, built the walls, and pay for the personal chefs who support the delicate palates that have been born of their lavish lifestyles. You know, the celebrity obsessed populous who provide you with the funds to purchase the 1800 count Egyptian cotton sheets you sleep under while wearing pajamas that probably cost as much as my monthly rent. This doesn’t make me angry, for I’m not one to begrudge others for their successes in life. However, when you descend from your throne and enter our bakeries, casually violate our donuts, and carelessly offend those who have put you on your pedestal, it makes me a little perturbed. Not everyone relishes in the thought of eating a donut that contains your saliva, Ariana.

After the debacle began I was forced to go back and look at some of your Twitter history, as well as read your wildly comical apology. I’m not going to lie, I didn’t dig that hard. I was only able to find a few of your tweets that I could interpret; I quickly discovered that you’re not a fan of words. Forgive me, but I’m not fluent in Emoji. Your life truly is a rainbow of cartoon animal heads and, label me illiterate, but emojis aren’t my first, second, third, nor fourth language. Someday in the future when our great grandchildren look back at our form of visual communication, let’s call it “millennial cave art,” they’ll say about me, “This particularly unimportant woman refused to evolve and continued to speak Pig Latin when she felt inclined.” Do you know what they won’t say, Ariana? They won’t say that I randomly licked pastries that weren’t mine.

I digress.

I also found plenty of Barack Obama retweets, some love for Hillary Clinton, and a LOT about equal rights. This is where I became confused. I started ferociously scavenging through your Twitter history to find all of your tweets concerning ISIS. Okay, I didn’t go that far. I knew that if I continued digging at most I’d probably find a lone “#BringBackOurGirls” tweet between some suns, moons, mice, tea cups, hearts, and monkey emojis; along with a vast number of almost – but not quite there – words. I’m guessing that ISIS, Boko Haram, etc. have not been mentioned in your Tweets since there isn’t an emoji of a homosexual being thrown off a building…yet.

You see, I was confused because Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton fan girl tweets are fairly antithetical to equal rights and the freedom to be you, the real you, the you that loves rainbows and hates donuts and America. Because here’s the deal, Ariana, Obama and Clinton have both said one thing and have done the opposite. While you tweet about equal rights, homosexuals are being thrown off buildings in the Middle East. While you flaunt your scantily clad body, women in the Middle East are being forced into burqas and brutality. Women are raped repeatedly before their captors have breakfast, women who dream of freedom day and night after being mutilated, women who dream of a place like America. A place where we have the time to worry about childhood obesity. Women who have begged for help only to have our cowardly President send his wife and daughters on luxurious vacations while he ignores the cries for mercy from the innocent. American citizens have been beheaded with little response from the President of The United States, let that soak in. Better yet, Hillary Clinton has received funds from governments that condone such atrocities, governments that support the death penalty for homosexuals. I don’t know about you, Ariana, but her rainbow AVI and newly found support of the LGBT plight fails to impress when compared to her financial gain from countries that believe gay men should be slaughtered for their sins against Allah.

I don’t listen to your music, Ariana. However, I did some research and found these beautiful lyrics:

“When I get you moaning you know it’s real

Can you feel the pressure between your hips?

I’ll make it feel like the first time”

Riveting.

“Cause if you want to keep me, you gotta gotta gotta gotta gotta got to love me harder
And if you really need me, you gotta gotta gotta gotta gotta gotta got to love me harder
Love me, love me, love me
Harder, harder, harder”

I get it, sex sells. However, you should probably reevaluate your hatred towards America since this is the country where that mediocre drivel you bring to the table – while performing in clothes designed to portray you as an object – has made you such a success. You know, as opposed to Saudi Arabia, one of Hillary’s many questionable donors. A place where women can’t vote, drive cars, sit close to men, wear make-up, swim, and Allah forbid they buy a Barbie or go without a head covering. 99% of what you do would be considered a crime in Saudi Arabia, Ariana, but Hillary doesn’t mind spending their money on drudging up support from uninformed masses who blare your cheap repetitive tunes on the way to the mall to take advantage of the blessings the vast majority in this world are denied, the blessings that brave men and women have died to protect. You walked into that donut shop and spilled your vitriol under the protection of the First Amendment rights that were paid for in blood.

I know what you’re thinking, Ariana. In your heartfelt apology you cleared all this up, you said you were extremely EXTREMELY proud to be an American. You said that your “private moment” with your friends was taken out of context. I don’t know how saying you hate America and Americans can be taken out of context, but we’ll go ahead and run with such obnoxious gibberish. You not only said it was taken out of context, you went on to say that you said those things, and licked an innocent donut, because you are an advocate for healthy eating. You licked a donut because you want children to be educated on the dangers of overeating. Your entire apology is an insult to the intelligence of everyone in this country, including those who need a reminder not to stick objects in light sockets. If someone was in the Walmart meat department randomly licking steaks because they want to end heart disease, we’d send them to a mental facility.

But not you, Ariana, not you.

I know you’ll never read this letter, and that’s alright. I also know that your popularity will not dive after you behaved like an insufferable dolt, and that’s unfortunate. It’s unfortunate because your popularity has put you on a pedestal, your popularity has made you someone that little girls look up to, and the fact that someone can sing “gotta gotta gotta gotta gotta gotta got to love me harder. Love me, love me, love me, Harder, harder, harder” and simultaneously be an assumed legitimate voice of reason goes well beyond my logic. Congratulations, Ariana, you just treated this entire country like a bunch of morons, and if you release an album tomorrow they’d prove you right by making it platinum.

– MB

donuts

Rainbows

The Rainbow – Redefined

Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for any of the 50 states not to recognize same-sex marriage, this act invalidated same-sex marriage bans. Describing the intricacies in this case is like making a delicate soufflé; if you hit the oven while dancing for joy in your rainbow pants, or get so caught up in your bible study that you leave it in the oven too long, it’s probably going to go flat. I’m planning on writing a few blog posts concerning this subject and its vast details, but for the sake of sanity I’m going to keep this one much shorter than it was when first written.

Before we get to the meat and potatoes, I’d like to offer a pallet cleanser. Eight of my dear friends on Facebook posted similar responses, examples below:

“If you aren’t crying rainbow tears of joy today, you should probably just go ahead and unfriend me.”

“If you didn’t smile every time you saw a rainbow today, you should unfriend me.”

“If your heart is not bursting with rainbows, you should unfriend me.”

First thought: Are you a Care Bear?

Second thought: Since when did I agree to do the work for you? I’m not going to unfriend you. Listen, I have unfriended six people in the last three years, four of them were doing the Argentine Tango with stalking, and the remaining were personal. I get up Monday – Friday and go to work, I drink coffee, I have a glass of wine at night. Respectfully, I have enough age under my belt that your opinions do not have the power to make me so unnerved that I deem it necessary to remove you from a social media page before marching off the playground with my hands on my hips. You’re not capable of driving me to psychotropic medications, nor is your opinion making me lose sleep. Alas, I’m not going to unfriend you. I can enjoy being your friend without agreeing with your every opinion. So why should I be the one to unfriend you? If you can’t respect the opinions of others then you have a choice to make. If you only want those who are close-minded towards opposing arguments in your timeline, then you have a choice to make – not me. I am very open-minded to the opinions of others, and would love for you to remain my Facebook friend.

Moving on –

Twitter proved to be an incredibly educational model of social interaction this week. For example, if you request that someone kill themselves you will more than likely be chastised for being a horrible person, and rightly so. However, if you give such a request under the right circumstances, e.g., use the hashtag “#LoveWins,” it is magically commendable.

Example #1: “Don’t like it? Kill yourself. #LoveWins” (Yes, this was an actual tweet.)

Recap:

Encouraging suicide = VERY BAD

Encouraging those who disagree with you on same-sex marriage to commit suicide = good

Example #2: “GAY MARRIAGE IS NOW LEGAL IN THE UNITED STATES AND ANY RELIGIOUS, BIGOTED A——S WHO DON’T LIKE IT CAN EAT S—T AND DIE #LoveWins”

I have no words for that one. None.

On top of the ever growing hashtag diplomacy is the fact that corporations and celebrities are cashing in on “love.” Opposing it is now considered an act of war by the masses. It is a sign of oppression of opinion – even if you speak against the ruling for reasons completely unrelated to the Bible – you are automatically labeled a hateful, bigoted ignoramus with absolutely zero wiggle room. There are only two options; the red pill leads to the Westboro Baptist Church, and the blue pill leads to high IQs, Starbucks Lattes, and refrigerators sold by a company that “bravely” added a rainbow filter to their AVI. A Newspaper even released a statement that any opinion piece submitted that expresses objections to the Supreme Court ruling will not be published. This is just the beginning, folks. The militantly colorful have convinced the United States that there are only two sides to this debate, the rational and the irrational, and any thought in-between is a crime against that adorable retired gay couple on the TV right now. Apparently “Hey kid, I have an adorable puppy in my large unmarked black van” is making a comeback, that’s the level of emotional enticement we have going on. And how dare you say, “Wait! I don’t care that you like puppies, but that van contains a lot of stuff that neither of us are going to like.”

*Raises hand* “So, what happens if I don’t pull out Bible verses that speak against your lifestyle, nor care if you get married, but I still have a problem with the ruling? It’s for completely unrelated rea…”

“You can just shut your stupid face.” (Sends you a cartoon mocking flyover states that portray an older you as a fossil holding a picket sign)

“But maybe you could hear me o….”

“No, you bigot!” (Sends photos of same-sex marriage ceremonies)

“That’s nice, but can’t we at least ta…”

“Your argument is irrelevant.” (Sends you a biased study done on a sampling of 100 people that concludes by labeling progressives as the more intelligent humans)

“But you haven’t heard it ye…”

“It doesn’t matter. Why don’t you go back to church and pray to your imaginary friend.”

And this is from the very people that label me close-minded. Irony. Do people not see how horribly hypocritical this is? “Keep your opinions to yourself! Unless of course I like your opinions…” This morning a football player by the name of Benjamin Watson released a beautiful statement on the matter, here’s an excerpt:

“Love truly IS the greatest gift of all. It never fails and covers a multitude of sins. Ultimately Love DOES Win. But Love wins us with compassion, not endorsement.”

His entire post was about loving each other without forcing the other to endorse opposing personal opinions. It didn’t take long before people were comparing him to a slave owner, calling him by atrocious names, and assuming without any evidence – whatsoever – that he is a hateful bigot. This is what we’ve become as a nation. Individuality be damned, you must fall in line and submit yourself to the gods of conformity and mirror the opinions of the rainbow masses holding their tar and feathers, waiting for you to say one word that contradicts their edict.

This hashtag, #LoveWins, has served to combine feeling of revenge into one lovely little location on Twitter, but it has also served to bring together the rejoicing masses under a false pretense. See, a legal marriage has nothing to do with love; it is a legally binding document that unites two parties for tax and benefit purposes. It also makes for entertaining court television, but that’s beside the point. “Love” should never be involved in a legal argument, yet we allowed the opposition to control the argument because we didn’t clarify this earlier on, instead we pulled out verses and tried to use them against those who don’t hold themselves accountable to the very Bible we’re reading from.

Rule of thumb: If you preach directly to those who are non-believers, keep it to the Gospel. They don’t care what your Bible says. It’s similar to when Catholics tell me what the Pope supports and I look at them cross eyed. I respect their right to be a practicing Catholic, but the Pope’s opinions matter about as much to me as Matt Lauer’s opinions. You can have your reasons to believe what you want to believe, and you can act on those beliefs with your votes, but trying to push for blanketed legislation because of what the Bible says is just as bad as leftists pushing for blanketed legislation because of how 2.5% of the nation feels when they look at the same sex. I mean, preach to them until the sun comes up about their sins if you so choose (Thanks, 1st Amendment!), but understand that when they say it should be legalized because they think it’s right, you have no right to counter that argument because you’re doing the same thing. Biblical marriage is between a man, a woman, and God. If that’s what you believe, your issue should not be how the state views it, but that the state is involved in the first place. That is why the argument turned from logic to “Love vs. Hate”… I hear a lot of Christians defend their position by saying, “As Christians we must remember that God defines marriage, not the courts.” Really mull that over. If that’s the case, why would you fight to keep marriage in the courts?

“Love is love” is not anywhere close to a valid, nor rational, argument. It’s not even in the same neighborhood. Like if rational arguments bumped into “love is love” at the grocery store, they wouldn’t even recognize each other. I get it, it gives you all the feels, but it still isn’t a rational argument. See, I want the government to get their dirty little hands out of the marriage industry. It’s a rather simple request: I want everyone to mind their own business. Sure, preach your word, say your opinion, wave your skittleishious flags and your church pamphlets, but at the end of the day, don’t try to use the government as your personal Frank Nitti. See, when you start suing bakeries, suing farmers that don’t let you get married on their property, forcing individuals you know have a different set of moral beliefs to bend to your stance – just out of spite – you’re not minding your own business. The group taking over the internet this week likes to use the tagline, “If you don’t like same-sex marriage, don’t get one.” Thank you, oh obvious ones. The problem is that this militant movement is not demanding acceptance, it is demanding endorsement. “If you don’t like same-sex marriage, don’t get one.” That’s a fine saying, but if we’re being honest it only expresses a small part of the sentiment. The remaining portion is never put on a picket sign: “However, just so we’re clear, I get to be open about my beliefs, you do not. Oh, and I’m going to need you to make my wedding cake, allow me to marry on your property, and indoctrinate your kids. But make sure you keep your nose out of my life! #LoveWins”

“As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death.” – Kennedy

I’m going to go ahead and file that under “Ideological Argument,” and keep it far, far, far, far, far, far, far away from “Legal Justification.”

“14th Amendment, B—–s! #LoveWins” (Once again…real tweet.)

*Taps microphone*  “The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868.”

“What of it?”

“Well, there were 37 states in the union at that point, and homosexuality was a felony in every last one of them. So, those who passed it clearly didn’t have your rainbow AVI in mind.”

Now, suddenly those who adore the 14th Amendment start to go back to their old ways of not caring about the Constitution, suddenly it’s outdated again, or we’ve evolved and the 14th Amendment magically protects same-sex marriage. “Yeah, let’s go with the latter!”

Okay… So here’s the fact: The Constitution doesn’t protect same-sex marriage; it provides a way for the people to protect whatever they want. That’s key. If we don’t follow this specific set of rules, then voting becomes a rather large waste of time. If we allow a handful of unelected men and women to vote in accordance with their preference, well, that’s not a republic. The law already treated every person equally. Every person in the United States had the power to enter into a legally binding marriage contract with someone of the opposite sex. The law treated everyone with equal respect, however, it did not treat every personal desire equally, nor should it. See Man/Boy Love Association as a reference. However, the Constitution gives us the power to, through the right steps, make specific changes.

Even as a changed nation in 1920, we still didn’t find that the 14th Amendment awarded women equal rights, so we amended the Constitution through the correct process and put in place the 19th Amendment, a specific amendment. Was it outlandish to think that women should not be allowed to vote? To think that men were of superior intelligence? (Perhaps, if they time traveled to a current day feminist rally.) It was indeed outlandish because they had no logical reason to keep women from voting. Now we look back and think, “Man, whoever was against that was clearly a sexist moron.” Yet we STILL went through the proper legal steps. In 1870 we didn’t sneak racial voting discrimination into the 14th Amendment, no, we passed the 15th Amendment. We make amendments because a vast number of disturbing things can be approved under the 14th Amendment, especially if we make marrying whomever you love a protected privilege. To clarify, if the state wishes to approve same-sex marriage, it’s specific to same-sex marriage, and it’s voted on by the majority. If the United States chooses to amend the Constitution as we’ve done in the past, it is up to the voting majority again to approve same-sex marriage, specifically. See, that’s the cool part of the U.S., we The People get to choose, or at least we did… Loosely translating the 14th Amendment as they did, however, attempts to legislate love.  What does all of this mean you ask? I want you to read the 14th Amendment and then give me a reason why the following scenarios aren’t covered under the Supreme Court’s reasoning as well:

“My son is 20, we’re in love. We have just as much of a right to marry as anyone else. Love is love.”

“These are my four husbands, given to me by God, we have just as much right to legally express our love as anyone else. Love is love.”

“I fell in love with my Father, you can’t choose who you love, our rights matter too.”

Are you going to give a moral reason against, say, Cody Brown legally marrying his four wives? That would be hypocritical, who are you to define love?

Well, that’s the door we’ve opened. Polygamists have already begun to speak out saying, “Wait a second, we’re covered under the 14th Amendment too!” See, if we amend the Constitution, or leave it to state choice, that doesn’t happen. Those issues may still arise, but state by state they can be shut down without claims of discrimination. However, now if the Supreme Court turns them down, it’s because the powers that be didn’t like the idea as much as they liked same-sex marriage. Hey, all of us who have a concealed carry license should be covered in states that don’t, according to the 2nd & 14th Amendment, right? Those Mormons that you considered to be religious sex addicts, well, they have a flawless argument under the 14th Amendment. You guys didn’t just vent the can, you yanked the lid off in overwhelming merriment, then you poured a can of Red Bull over all of the slumbering worms. Not going to lie, it’s actually going to be pretty fun to watch you attempt to shove them back into the can.

So when we say that you’ve fundamentally changed America, for the most part it’s not because we are waiting to baptize you in scripture, it’s because you’ve fundamentally changed the way our government works, and it’s going to be negative for both sides. Wait. I must correct myself – “You” did not change America, a handful of biased judges changed America without her people’s consent because it made them feel all fluffy inside. (FYI – You and you alone don’t qualify as majority consent.) The question was not if same-sex marriage was bad, the question was whether it was legally protected in the Constitution. The Supreme Court treated it as though it was the former, and in doing so opened up doors to various fights for legal protection over a lot of questionable things.

So now you’re left with two remaining options:

  1. Go advocate for all of those worms, or be a flaming hypocrite.
  2. Just kidding, you really only have one option. I suggest gun rights be the first. I feel bad when I can’t carry my gun in California, because I love my gun, and love is love.

Rainbows