anythings.org

If you read one thing on the entire internet today, make it this article (which I definitely stole the subtitle from, but I couldn’t have put it any better myself). And, if you’re going to buy one book this month/year/whatever, make it his. I haven’t read it, but I will. And soon.

You’d never guess that Dr. Kenneth C. Edelin played a leading role in one of the most tumultuous episodes in recent Boston history, that he was at the center of an abortion case that propelled him into the national debate over Roe v. Wade - a debate that rages to this day.

And so, in his quiet way, does Kenneth Edelin, at least when he thinks about his 1975 manslaughter conviction - eventually overturned - and the way his life was turned upside down for what he sees as political and religious reasons.

Edelin has written a searingly angry account of his trial and conviction titled “Broken Justice: A True Story of Race, Sex and Revenge in a Boston Courtroom.” Tonight from 7 to 9, Edelin will be at Barnes & Noble at Boston University to read from his book, in which he argues that he was targeted by antiabortion forces determined to make an example of him.

“I had to get this book done,” says Edelin, 68. “I’ve been trying to do it for 30 years. It was burning to get out.”

Prior to reading this article, I had no idea who Edelin was. Kenneth Edelin was an African American doctor who was convicted for manslaughter after performing a legal abortion in Massachusetts.

In 1973, Edelin worked as the chief resident in obstetrics at Boston City Hosptial. Performing abortions after the Roe v. Wade decision, Edelin was indicted for manslaughter in 1974 when he surgically terminated a pregnancy. Convicted on February 15, 1975 and sentenced to a one-year probation, Edelin’s case drew national attention. Edelin appealed the decision and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts overturned the conviction on December 17, 1976.

There’s nothing more powerful than a story like Dr. Edelin’s, especially considering the current political climate and the fervor of the anti-choice movement. Stories like Dr. Edelin’s may remind us of the past, but they are also a glimpse into our future if McCain takes the White House in this presidential election. Doctors will be prosecuted for doing their jobs as medical professionals: they will be sent to prison for performing a medical procedure with the patient’s consent.

In the world we live in now, I think it is worth remembering the heroes like Dr. Edelin because if we don’t, it can only happen again. There is no doubt in my mind that he wasn’t targeted simply because he performed an abortion, but because he was a black doctor. This is definitely a book I’ll be picking up on the way home. Hearing about this man’s life, his story, and what happened after the trial are all equally interesting to me, especially since the book was written later after he’s had time to reflect on it.

If you’re in Boston, you should definitely go and see him read. Don’t miss the chance!

Via Pesky Apostrophe. More about Dr. Edelin here and here.

Our lovely lawmakers have finally gotten up the nerve to tackle Bush’s abstinence-only sex education funding. It’s no surprise that it took a Democrat controlled House and Senate to allow this challenge to happen, but the question is, why didn’t it happen sooner? Despite years of outcry and criticism, it took our lawmakers seven years into Bush’s term as President to put any concentrated energy towards the removal of abstinence-only sex education in schools.

In a letter signed by 76 House and Senate members, they urged Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), chair of the House Appropriations Committee, to redistribute abstinence-only education funds towards more effective programs, such as the comprehensive sex education that was used several Presidents ago. While I am all for a letter urging someone to action, I highly doubt that will be the solution to ending abstinence-only education. I’d think the many studies from prominent and well-respected institutions that have shown that abstinence-only education does not work would have pushed our legislators to action sooner, but apparently not.

From the National Partnership on Women and Families:

The letter did not suggest specific alternative programs that could be funded, CQ HealthBeat reports. Emily Kryder — press secretary for Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.), who signed the letter — said that Capps would prefer to fund the type of comprehensive sex education programs authorized by HR 1653 and HR 819, which contain a variety of measures intended to increase access to contraception and comprehensive sex education. Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) — sponsors of HR 1653 and HR 819, respectively — also signed the letter.

Capps in an e-mail said, “Abstinence-only education, such as that funded through CBAE, doesn’t work and is a waste of our limited financial resources.” She added, “We need to give our young people access to accurate information that will enable them to make healthy decisions.” Shays said, “The extraordinary number of teen pregnancies and growing rate of sexually transmitted disease transmission among teens underscores the necessity of comprehensive sexual education.” He added that children “need a responsible education that includes both abstinence and contraception approaches to pregnancy prevention and sexual health.”

Reps. Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.) and Lee Terry (R-Neb.) also recently sent a letter to Obey that asks for CBAE funding and policy guidelines to be maintained. “Millions of youth will continue to receive education that provides a risk-eliminating advantage gained by abstaining from sexual activity if abstinence education funding is continued,” McIntyre and Terry wrote, adding, “This is not a partisan issue” (Grimaldi, CQ HealthBeat, 3/31).

Call you local legislators and urge them to join sign onto this letter. It may not be the driving force to end oppressive abstinence-only sex education, but it could be the catalyst for something bigger.

Image from Getty.

I guess today is the day for humor! As I’m sure everyone knows, the Vatican has just recently released new sins. Yes, much like a summer blockbuster or a new fashion line, the Vatican decided to get hip with the times and tell everyone that there are more things they need to not do in order to get into heaven.

Of course, the hilarious part is the sins are totally and completely political. Some, quite ironically, are liberal… but the majority, in true Catholic fashion, are conservative and completely irrelevant to your level of innocence and sin free-ness.

The new sins also are seven in number, and as far as I can tell, have not been advertised with quite the “deadly” fervor of the original sins, even though they are (apparently) also considered deadly. The Catholic Church divides sins into venial, or less serious, sins and mortal sins, which threaten the soul with eternal damnation unless absolved before death through confession and penitence. Guess what kind the new sins are? Yup! Mortal! Mmm death by hellfire!

Side note: this is going to be confusing, now there are original sins and new sins - as opposed to original sin, which is one particular type of act. Damn Catholicism and their sins.

For the record, the original seven deadly sins are:

1. Pride
2. Envy
3. Gluttony
4. Lust
5. Anger
6. Greed
7. Sloth

While I can understand the root in the original seven deadly sins, I don’t really understand how some of the new sins are, well, deadly. Unless, of course, you’re a Democrat, in which case there is also a nice cozy chair made of nails and thumb tacks for you right next to Satan and Bill Clinton. The new sins are decidedly political in nature, and somewhat amusing, especially since they don’t contain pedophilia, which is kind of a huge hello, DUH.

1. Bioethical violations: birth control seems to be the big example everyone is using. So, apparently, it is now a sin punishable by death and eternal hellfire to wrap it up or pop a pill that prevents pregnancy. Courteous of Mark Morford: “Speaking of babies, here’s a terrific new statistic: 25-40 percent of American teenage girls have a sexually transmitted disease. Isn’t that wonderful? Abstinence education has been a blessing and a joy.” I’m thinking adding “bioethical violations” to the list of deadly sins isn’t going to help that problem.
   
2. “Morally dubious” experiments such as stem cell research. You know the Catholic church had to squeeze something in there related to abortion, they just had to. And, of course, the only way the Catholic church sees stem cell research is as a close cousin, or hell, maybe sibling, to abortion.
3. Drug abuse: duh, but somehow I think their definition of drug abuse is vastly different from mine or the legal and psychological definitions.
4. Polluting the environment: a shockingly liberal point of view, if they mean saving the trees and oceans and fluffy baby penguins. However, they could also mean polluting the environment by talking about sex, drugs, and alcohol, so maybe not.
5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor: so, basically, you can’t be a Republican. How sad!
6. Excessive wealth: this one just makes me giggle. I mean, the Catholic church saying excessive wealth is a sin? Are you serious? Again, thank you Mark Morford for writing what I was thinking: “I also enjoyed the new sin of excessive wealth, given how the Vatican is one of the most — if not the most — gluttonously wealthy organizations on the planet, oozing with real estate and massive stock portfolios, dripping with cash, billions of dollars in hoarded treasure and unknown gems, icons, art, the solid gold vaginas of 1,000 pagan goddesses locked up in its vaults. The hypocrisy is positively comical. Epic.”
7. Creating poverty: …

I AM SO GOING TO HELL.

Is it just me, or are sins #5-7 all related to wealth? Couldn’t they have just combined that all into one happy sin? Apparently not. I guess the whole point was to not have excessive wealth by donating to the Catholic church so they could use some of that to stop poverty.And because I always find a way to tie everything back to women, feminism, and reproductive health:

Note to the Vatican: You want true sin? Here you go: Lying to women is a sin. Pathological hypocrisy is a sin. Half a billion dollars in pedophilia lawsuit payouts is a sin. Homophobia is a sin. Hiding those golden vaginas is a sin. And creating new sins in a strange attempt to stay relevant as your church withers and struggles and falters in the new and spiritually hungry but religiously mistrustful world, that’s surely a sin.

No, wait. Check that. That’s not a sin at all. It’s actually just a sad, inexcusable joke.

See! I don’t hate the Catholic church. I just find them absolutely hilarious and moderately (to severely, depending on the day) annoying.

[Image via Getty]

When I was younger I was quite the reader. I liked to read because I wanted to be just like my mom (and I still do want to be just like my mom, hence the knitting and the reading) and she loved reading, too. After my brother was born, we spent a lot of time trying to prepare him for school by teaching him how to write and read (he has Asperger’s). When we started working with my brother, I started reading more because my mom began purchasing books that were shorter, quicker, and easier to read. I like books that go by quickly, even if they are 700 page bricks. But the one author I never liked was Dr. Seuss.

I was scared to death of Dr. Seuss. The rhymes, the scary pictures, the political undertones, it was all too much for little four year-old me. The only Dr. Seuss book I read was I’ll Teach My Dog 100 Words - which I probably still have memorized. And then, one day, even though she knew better, my mom brought home Horton Hears A Who!. I begrudgingly read the book, and it ended up being one of my favorite books as a child. As an adult, I even have a Horton Hears A Who! tshirt with his catch phrase “a person’s a person, no matter how small.”

So this weekend I went to see the movie. I was excited for many different reasons, but the two most prominent being 1.) Horton!! and 2.) amazing new animation technologies. And I can just say, I really really do not like it when my childhood memories get hijacked by wing nuts.

From AlterNet:

Anti-choicers demonstrate at a children’s movie to claim that “a person’s a person no matter how small” — unless that person has a uterus.

The book was written in 1954, long before Roe v. Wade and the modern framework of the abortion debate. If Seuss’ simple rhymes do contain social commentary, they appear to be a condemnation of Cold War era paranoia. But context doesn’t matter to the anti-choice crowd — in fact a quick internet search reveals that there are many out there who believe that God spoke through the decidedly liberal Seuss’ pen, willing him to write this line that can now be used to justify a movement he didn’t support. They are undeterred by Seuss’ widow’s support for Planned Parenthood and an interview with Seuss Scholar Philip Nel, who said that the author threatened lawsuits against anti-choice groups: “It’s one of the ways in which Seuss has been misappropriated. He would not agree with that.” Death of the author, indeed.

This past Saturday a group of anti-abortion protestors filtered in to the Hollywood premiere of the “Horton” film, voiced by Jim Carrey, Steve Carrell and Carol Burnettt, and others. They interrupted the screening with a coordinated protest, shouting during the film and then walking around with tape over their mouths. It was a bizarre stunt, considering the fact that most of the audience was made up of children who doubtless missed their political message, and Hollywood journalists who made fun of them.

But these kinds of shenanigans, while frustrating, weren’t exactly shocking. Despite lawsuits and voiced disapproval from Dr. Seuss and his widow, the “a person’s a person no matter how small” line has snowballed and is now a de facto motto for the anti-abortion movement. Just google the line: some pro-life sites show up above Dr. Seuss.

[…] The anti-choice protesters, incidentally, were happy to ruin the afternoon of hundreds of those kids, too busy advocating on behalf of blastocysts to pay attention to real people — real “small people,” in fact. This kind of behavior sums up the hypocrisy of a movement that would give personhood to a fertilized egg while denying health care to children and physical autonomy to women.

The problem is that those who are particularly proud of saying “a person’s a person” don’t care about actual persons.

And from Seuss’s side of things:

None of this sat well with Audrey Geisel, widow of Dr. Seuss (Theodor Geisel), who attended the screening. So did Karl ZoBell, the lawyer who represents her and who has represented the interests of Dr. Seuss for some 40 years. In an interview with NPR, he said he couldn’t make out the yelling and thought maybe “some nut” was in the theater. Later, he asked the protesters what group they represented, and none would answer. Their silence didn’t seem like an accident to him, which makes sense, because ZoBell has not been bashful about sending cease-and-desist letters to those who appropriate Dr. Seuss’ material for their own purposes. And many do. (According to ZoBell, politicians love to sling the term Grinch at their rivals.)

ZoBell says it would be nice if these people came up with their own material. But if they don’t go too far—by copping the illustrations, for example—they can use a line like “A person’s a person, no matter how small,” even if it wouldn’t have pleased Dr. Seuss. And it wouldn’t have. The Geisels were opposed to using the Dr. Seuss books for any political agenda.

STOP RUINING MY CHILDHOOD, ANTI-CHOICERS! And more importantly, stop ruining the childhoods of the millions of children going to see this movie.

I understand that they are trying to make their point in as public a venue as possible, but it is a children’s movie: the primary audience is children (and families)… not exactly the kind of people that need to be converted to their cause.

If a person’s a person (no matter how small), then why is the person in my uterus more important than me?

Two years ago at about this time of year, I wrote a brief essay on why I don’t celebrate Christmas*. I actually don’t celebrate any religious holiday, although I do observe some secular holidays. I feel the need to elaborate on my previous opinion and provide my readers with a little more information.

My favorite thing to say when people ask me why I don’t celebrate Christmas is: “I have integrity.” I admit, it is snarky and tends to rub my beliefs in people’s faces. It makes me sound like I think I’m better than them. Well, for some people… this is true, for other people it’s not. Regardless of my snakr, my integrity truly is the reason I don’t celebrate Christmas.

Christmas infuriates me.

People say “Christmas is about family!” or “Christmas is about giving!” Except, really, it’s not.

Christmas is supposed to be about Jesus’s birthday. It’s a religious holiday. I’m not religious, ergo I don’t celebrate. This is where my integrity comes in. I’m not going to throw my religious beliefs down the toilet because someone wants to buy me a gift to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. Last time I checked, Jesus was a pretty low key guy - he was fairly unmaterialistic. I’d think religious conservatives would be a little offended that th ebirth of their god’s son has been turned into the most disastrous and stressful holiday of the year. You’d think they’d be outraged that his celebration is associated with mountains of credit card debt, shopping, and bitchy people waiting in line to buy the latest Coach purse or the new iPod for their teenager. But they’re not. And if they are, they aren’t doing anything about it (except for Rev. Billy). Why aren’t they doing anything about it? Because not celebrating Christmas is tantamount to terrorism: you are unAmerican if you don’t celebrate Christmas.

Here’s another thought for the religious bunch: Jesus wasn’t born in December 25th, Luke suggests that he was born in the spring or summer. You’d think religious folk would be outraged at the misrepresentation of this most sacred day, and that they’d boycott Christmas because of it. You’d think that they would form new traditions during the time of year that Jesus really was born. But they don’t. Why?

Continuing with this, you’d think liberals and non-religious folk would be outraged at the association of Christianity and its many tenets with Christmas. You’d also think that political liberals would be outraged at the credit card debt, economic struggle, and environmental hazards associated with Christmas. But they’re not either.

So why aren’t people mad about Christmas? Probably because people love getting gifts. I’d hate to break down a potentially complicated situation into something so simple, but that’s the only solution I’m left with. If conservatives aren’t sticking to the holiday’s traditional roots and liberals and non-religious people aren’t protesting the obvious problems with the holiday, then there has to be something so simple, so small, so obvious getting in the way. Sure, it could be the time you spend with your family… but if you need a quasi-religious holiday to make up a reason to spend time with your family, you should probably rethink your family structure.

I guess the most difficult part for me about not celebrating Christmas is that my view isn’t respected. If I didn’t celebrate Christmas because I was Jewish, people would nod, smile, and say “Happy Holidays”. But when I tell people that I don’t celebrate any holidays in the month of December because I’m not religious, they get confused and ask why. When I complain that my right to not be Christian is being violated because employers play Christmas carols, I get laughed at by the people I complain to. Actually, at one job, I was given disciplinary action because I didn’t play the Christmas carols CD during the shift I was supervising. They tell me that Christmas isn’t a religious holiday and that I shouldn’t be offended. They tell me I should stop being such a Grinch and just celebrate like everyone else does. People don’t even try to comprehend the reasons why I choose not to celebrate Christmas: they are so confused by it that they mock it instead of trying to understand.

The ridiculous thing is, it’s just assumed that you celebrate Christmas. I guarantee you when I go grocery shopping a week before Christmas, someone is going to tell me “Merry Christmas” - or “Happy Holidays” if they’re trying to be politically correct. While I could smile, shrug it off, and say “you, too”, I don’t think that’s very fair. I shouldn’t have to fall prey to the fact that it’s assumed I’m ignorant of the holiday’s meaning. When people tell me “Merry Christmas”, I tell them “oh, thanks, but I don’t celebrate the holidays”. Most people just smile and leave it at that, but others ask why. “I’m not religious” is usually my answer, but that tends to prompt more questions. So I’m kind of stuck in a Catch-22: I want people to respect my beliefs and my decision to not celebrate Christmas, but I don’t want to spend 3 hours trying to explain to them that it’s a religious holiday and that’s why I don’t celebrate it.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not just about religion: it’s about all the ridiculous notions included in with the celebration of Christmas. For example, “tradition” denotes that you should celebrate the holiday by giving gifts to those you care about. But we are not allowed to ask people directly what they want because it’s supposed to be a surprise. They’re left to return, discard, or re-gift the item that was given to them. In addition to this, you always have your list of “obligation gifts”: the people you give gifts to because you have to, not because you want to. These people can include anyone from your boss to someone you hardly know, but it is socially required that you give them gifts.

I guess, really, the only thing I can do is encourage people to BUY HANDMADE (from me!) this year, instead of going to your local mall and buying something heartless and made without love that is probably going to be returned, regifted, or discarded. At least when you buy handmade you know you’re supporting the artist and the loving detail, attention, and skill they put into their products.

Edit: I can’t believe people are actually criticizing Madonna and calling her a scrooge for this.
* Source for statistics, quotes, etc.

What can I say, I’m not surprised. With Alito’s confirmation, this was pretty much going to be the only decision we saw handed down. The most disgusting part, the most frightening part, the most ridiculous part of this decision is that they made it without any considerations for a woman’s health. There is absolutely NO exceptions to this ruling: if a woman has a choice of dying or undergoing “partial-birth” abortion, she no longer has that choice. She has to die. You would think that even the most conservative person would want there to be an exception to this ruling for life or death circumstances.

The ramifications of this event are going to be severe.

Links for people who want to know more:
Information on the decision
Opinions and articles
AP story
Opinions of Presidential hopefuls

I think the most painful thing to read is that the Republican candidates for President support the decision made by the Supreme Court, even though it can potentially put a mother in danger. The Christian Right wants to raise live babies so they can go be dead soldiers (thank you, George Carlin) in their fruitless conquests that are motivated by exteremly ethnocentric reasons - not to mention to settle daddy’s squabble.

So - answer me this: if that fetus you saved at the cost of its mother’s life turns out to be gay, how much will you care about its rights then?

I think Obama said it best:
I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women.

If things like this keep happening, carrying liquids on a plane won’t be the last thing we’ll be bitching about. People need to stop being so damn scared and quit giving up their freedoms because of “terrorist” attacks.

Don’t you get that our country has basically treated everyone like shit for the past century or two and now we’re finally getting what we’ve been handing out to everyone else? Eventually, we’re going to get attacked by a country NOT from the middle east and then Bush is going to have to redefine the meaning of terrorism.

Did it ever occur to you that we might be terrorists too? The good old U S of A has done some pretty shitty stuff since its inception (not to say that other countries haven’t) and now we’re bitching because someone finally grew enough balls to attack us.

WE ARE NOT INVINCIBLE. People need to realize this. Shit like the Patriot Act is not going to save you from “terrorists”. AND! Preventing immigrants from coming into this country is just one of the reasons why people are starting to hate us more.

And if Bush could stop referring to all of Islam as facist terrorists, I would greatly appreciate it. If he took 5 seconds and looked at the Koran and the majority of the people who practice Islam, he’d stop generating stereotypes that are causing people to be beat down in the streets. Not everyone is educated enough to know that Islam isn’t a violent religion. Every religion, every culture, has an extremist vein to it… and I’m starting to think that Bush is ours. I’d be willing to bet a large amount of money Bush is going to use this incidident to invade Iran. Iran is not Iraq. We should not be fucking with Iran. If we fuck with Iran… we’ll end up bending over and taking it.

All Bush is doing with these speeches is generating hate and prejudice towards a normally civilized group of people. I don’t know… this crazy part of me is thinking if we weren’t INVADING THEIR COUNTRY they wouldn’t be trying to attack us all the fucking time.

Muslims : Bush :: Jews : Hitler

I realize this is not the most articulated thing in the world, but I am extremely pissed off right now. I hate the fact that I am being associated with my country and the racist (not to mention sexist, classist, etc) views our President holds.

Over the past few years, I haven’t been Christmas’s biggest fan. I hate that people celebrate the holiday without embracing its religious backgound (not that I do, but still). Christmas is, clearly, a religious holiday… yet almost every person in America feels the need to go into credit card debt every year, failing to realize that they are supposed to be celebrating the birth of Jesus - NOT THE BIRTH OF PLASTIC. A person I agree with very strongly once said:

The reasons I’ve rejected Christmas are economic, environmental, social and religious. The fact is, Christmas today has become a thoroughly illiberal event, at odds with everything that liberals stand for.

I can totally understand the point of Christmas if you are a Christian and go to church on a regular basis. It makes sense to celebrate the birth of Jesus. What I never understood was how Christmas got transformed from Jesus’s birthday to the one day a year where we have to buy every single person we know a fucking gift. I don’t know Jesus, nor do I celebrate his life, so I don’t feel the need to participate in Christmas. Including almost all shopping between the day after Thanksgiving and New Years.

I feel that holidays should have a bit of integrity. When I was little, I believed in Santa and that was the sole reason for celebrating Christmas. As I got older and it became clearer to me that Santa did not exist, I started wondering what the hell Christmas was about. The minute I found out that I was supposed to be celebrating the birth of JESUS (the son of a God that I don’t worship or believe in) I stopped participating in the holiday. Which is why it angers me so much to see white trash such as Britney Spears pimping out her son’s nursery for his first Christmas (which he will never remember). I highly doubt she attends church, or believes in God. If she did, she wouldn’t have married K Fed (more to the point, if there was a God, people like K Fed and George Bush would not exist).

For most Americans, Christmas is about spending money and getting presents. The spiritual (or childhood) meaning of the holiday is lost on them. All they care about is getting a good parking spot at the mall and grabbing that last sweater in their daughter’s size so she can look just like Paris Hilton… except about 8 sizes larger.

To be honest, I could write a novel on why I hate Christmas. The shoppers, the soccer moms, the food, and probably about 10,000 more things. But I think I’ll stop here so you don’t think I’m the devil more than you already do.

I wonder when Americans will wake up and realize that the Christmas they’ve been celebrating for decades - centuries - is a gross misrepresentation of the holiday’s true meaning and religious background.

I have feeling that this post might cause a bit of a stir. So I just want to warn you that I’m not the most politcally correct person in the world.

I was driving out to Target today and there was a truck in front of me that was making a blatant stab at John Kerry when he made it very clear that he was still Catholic and pro-choice. It had a bumper stick that said “YOU CAN’T BE CATHOLIC AND PRO-CHOICE”.

Well, now, that’s just stupid. Yes you can.
Just like you can be a Muslim and GAY.
Just like you can be Jewish and eat pork.
Just like you can be Catholic and pre-marital sex.

You can do whatever you want. This is why I don’t like organized religions: they make decisions for you. And, heaven forbid, if you’re a Catholic and you believe that getting an abortion is a right a woman should have.

It is just like the gay marriage thing: it is not a moral issue, but Bush makes it seem that way. It is a rights issue. There is no reason why gays can’t marry. Just like there wasn’t a reason back in the 1960s for interracial couples to marry. Abortion and gay marriage are made into moral issues by the churches. There is nothing morally right with aborting a fertilized egg, but it is the right a woman has to make that choice. That decision was made years ago and reversing it would have an extremly negative effect on society.

I don’t like ignorant religious people. What’s so wrong with being gay - besides the fact that god hinted at it in the bible? Is falling in love with someone who is the same sex as you really a good enough reason to go to hell? In my personal opinion, if you feel that way, you’re a bad person and should go to hell. Love is a beautiful thing, and who the fuck is GOD to tell you that you cant love another man? Or another woman?

Who the fuck is the CHURCH to tell you what you can and cannot support? Who the hell does the church think they are by renouncing communion to a prominent politician simply because he supported a woman’s right to chose.

With this, I present an open letter to the Catholic church. Well, and Bush. But that’s a whole nother blog entry.

Dear Catholic church:
You cannot control the world, what individuals think, who they sleep with, and whether or not they abort their babies. Stop trying to assert control over those of us individual enough not to follow your iron fisted attempts at controlling the moral actions of everyone in the world. Why should us non-Catholics have to suffer because you want things a certain way?

What makes you think your way of life is better than mine? What makes you think your beliefs and laws are better than mine? What makes you think you’re worthy of making rules and telling people what they can and cannot believe?

Quit acting like Joseph Stalin. You’re not a dictatorship. You can’t control anything outside of your walls, stop trying to. You’re destroying the lives of millions of innocent people. How could you support a family when they decide to disown their homosexual son/daughter because you’ve told them that they are going to burn in the flames of hell *?

With that said, I am aware that your beliefs differ from mine. The difference is mine don’t restrict people from their basic rights, yours do. And that, dear Catholic church, is why I will stand by my beliefs until the end of time with unwaivering support.

Love, the girl not afraid to have her own opinion.

Take that, Bush. Some of us managed to graduate high schools during your reign with our own thoughts and opinions still in tact… not to mention with supporting facts.

How is it ok to tell people what they can and cannot believe in? I am starting to feel like Bush is a milder version of Hitler. Holocaust II anyone?

* I hope you understand what I mean by this. The church doesn’t agree with gay sex practices… this is what I am referring to. Duh.