Christians support Nazis and the KKK.

Now that I have your attention, provide me with a moment to explain.

Much of the Right-Wing rhetoric these days coming from the likes of Fox News and other such organizations has been about how "Muslims" attacked us on 9/11, or that the planned mosque should not be built because "Muslims" are responsible for the deaths resulting from the collapse of the Twin Towers.

What's more shocking to me than the above statement, is how those who say it think it's a truthful, acceptable statement to make.  Muslims did not attack us on 9/11.  Muslims did not plant explosives in a van in Times Square.  A small minority of terrorists did those things.  By the way, they happen to be Muslim, and yes, according to them, was carried out in the name of Islam.

The title to this blog has a purpose.  I thought for a while about how to effectively piss off the most people, and that's what I came up with.  Did it make you angry?  I hope it did.  I hope it shocked you.  I hope, even for a moment, that you felt how the majority of Muslims in this world feel when they encounter people with the above opinions.

For centuries death and destruction has been carried out at the hands of Christians.  We can start with the Crusades, fast forward to the Ku Klux Klan, stop by in Nazi Germany and finally land in present day with the WBC (Westford Baptist Church) who are best known for their picket signs held up at military funerals that read "Thank God for Dead Soldiers".

Does this mean that all Christians believe in genocide, violent attacks on African Americans or blaming the deaths of U.S. Soldiers on homosexuals?  Of course not, that would be a ridiculous stance to take... almost as ridiculous as the title of this article. 

So why would we blame 9/11, the war in Iraq and bombs in Times Square on Muslims?  Why would we single out this religion, yet spew venom in every direction if someone insults our own religion?

Bigotry.

Corporations are not People

Since when did we start thinking that somehow our rights as individual humans in this country were less important that those of big business, or any business for that matter?

Well right now, those businesses do think they are more important, and most of that thought comes from the fact that they have more money than you.  They can buy politicians, who will vote in Congress the way they want them to vote, not the way you need them to vote.

Take a look at some of the races going on right now for the mid-term elections.  Unidentified large donations are being poured into these Republicans campaigns.  They are scared of what the Democrats might do if they stay in power.  Why are they scared?  Because what is best for them is not what's best for the majority, the middle class.  Somehow, someway, money has outweighed the majority.  It's all an illusion though, the money being poured out, is in the form of ads made to target us, and convince us to vote for these Republicans so that the illusion of "majority wins" is upheld.

Let's take another stab at those Teabaggers.  The Tea Party likes to put a lot of pressure on some of the oldest documents in US History, so let's look at what may be the first one.  The Declaration of Independence, it starts out with "We the People", not "We the Corporations", we would all do good to remember that come November 2nd.

Christine O'Donnell - Enemy to Humanity

I don't care if you are on the Left or the Right, Christine O' Donnell is the single most popular figure in today's news when it comes to dismantling everything Women, People of Color, Gays and Lesbians have fought for.

Christine O'Donnell is the Republican "Tea Party" Candidate in Delaware.  She beat out all the other Republicans in the primaries, which I find it hard to believe they thought she could help the party in any way.  I'm pretty sure she will be the exact reason a Democrat wins that seat this year.

Whether it's her view of Aids, Masturbation or the causes of "date rape", Ms. O'Donnell is an enemy to our right to free thinking and if she had it her way masturbation (she claims is the same as adultery), condoms (which she says don't prevent AIDS) and a woman's right to wear her choice of clothes (causes date rape) would all be illegal.

She has been quoted as saying that birth control is (Anti-Human) and in an attempt to help her point, stated that condoms do not help in the prevention of AIDS, with seemingly no regard for how detrimental that statement really is.  If anyone took her seriously and decided that there is no difference in using a condom and not using a condom the work the AIDS Community has done to stop or slow the spread of this disease would come to a grinding halt.

Masturbation, she says, is lustful and therefore adultery, whether you are married or not.  According to her belief, if a single man or woman masturbates (which is widely known as the safest form of sex) they are then guilty of Adultery and if she gets her way, it would become illegal, although I have no idea how they could ever enforce a law like that.

Christine O'Donnell further states that "Date Rape" is the product of the type of clothes the woman chooses to wear.  If her statements were ever taken seriously, every creep in the universe would be trying to use that as a defense in court.

So I don't care what side of the political fence you are on, we cannot let this person get into office.  Vote against her on November 2nd and file her in the outcast pile that we threw Sarah Palin into.

On a related note, I put together this montage for you all, it's my first so please be gentle when it comes to the technical aspects.

How many sections of the Bill of Rights are you willing to give up?

How many sections of the Bill of Rights would you be willing to let go by the wayside?  I would imagine for most of you that answer would be, zero.  I would also EXPECT for you "TeaBaggers" that answer would also be zero, since you seem to place so much stake in a 200+ year old document.

So you want to make it illegal to protest at funerals?  I agree.  I believe those individuals representing the church should be punished.  Those young soldiers families have lost something they can never get back.

But how?

How do you punish those people without infringing on the bill of rights?  Without violating "Freedom of Speech"?  Our founding fathers realized that is was not "safe" speech that needed to be protected.  Safe speech is generally tolerated and therefore we don't really talk much about it.  Speech that needs to be protected is that which most or all of us would find UN-tolerable.  If there were no speech that the general population found disagreeable there would be no need for the First Amendment.  I know what your saying, you don't care, they should be punished.  Well let me ask you, if they are punished, if their Freedom of Speech is violated, what next?  That freedom is something afforded to all of us, something we all enjoy, something we also have to pay for and in some cases, this in particular, that payment can be completely heart-breaking.

Another one in recent news is the story about the potential Mosque to be built near Ground Zero.  First a little of my opinion, is it in bad taste? Yes.  Will it cause problems? Yes.  Do all Muslims agree with it being built there? No.  Many Muslims also agree that it is in bad taste.  But there is more to this story than you will ever hear on Fox News.  There are no less than 13 locations around the country where Muslims are being denied the right to construct Mosques.  Is this one at Ground Zero a way to bring that to light?  I don't know, but I think it would be a good start.

So suppose Muslims are denied the permits and permissions to build at Ground Zero.  Also ponder if they should be denied to build in other locations around the country?  Think about how many Christian Churches are on or near land deemed "Sacred" by Native Americans and ask, are we being fair?  Are we making this decision because we are able to detach from the situation and really look at this analytically?  Or are we acting on what suits us and our principles even though others may not share that same idea?

After you've had a moment to ponder these things, ask yourself one more time, do I want to give up my right to Freedom of Religion?  Most of us have no idea what it is like to be persecuted for our religions, at least not in the Untied States so we really don't have a point of departure to fully engage in this type of issue and really understand how the person sitting across the table feels. 

If we just make a law that denies them the right to build, how will that law apply to non-Muslims?  Will Muslims and non-Muslims both lose?  I think they will.

Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and the rest of the Fox cronies and Tea Baggers alike are always talking about us losing our freedoms, but think about what I've said and think about what freedoms you're willing to just throw away without really thinking about what the true cost of that momentary victory will be.