Word of the Day: INNOCENCE

I must say that I resisted writing anything about the topic I will cover today...not out of fear, but out of a sense of not wanting to shed any additional light on the topic.  However, I could resist no longer, and the light I will be shedding on this comes from a place where both sadness and disgust reside within me.

By now, you have probably heard of something that is trying to be passed off as a film, titled Innocence of Muslims.  If you've heard of the film, you have also likely heard about the protests that have arisen throughout the Middle East, Europe, and Asia, as well as Australia and Canada in response to the film.  Although it is being said that some of the protesting is in direct response to the film, and some is the result of the film being a last straw in many people's minds.

To begin, let me address the least important aspect of this: Innocence of Muslims as a film.  If I had seen the entire film, I would be able to address this more fully, but all I have seen is a fourteen-minute long video on YouTube that is supposed to be a trailer for the full-length film.  The full-length version is supposed to have been screened only one time, at the Vine Theater in Hollywood, California in mid-June of this year.  It has been reported, however, that an actual full-length film may not even exist. 

What I saw when I watched the fourteen-minute video was absolute garbage.  It doesn't even suffice as a trailer.  What "clips" were shown displayed a film that visually looks like it was done by rank amateurs.  To say that it looks like high school film students made the film isn't incorrect, but it would give high school filmmakers a bad rap.  The acting is so bad that it makes Robert Pattinson look Oscar-worthy.  ("Muhammad" asking someone questioning his sexuality, "Do you remember the night at the gym?"  Come on!)  Actors in the film who have said they didn't know anything about what the finished product would be are, in my mind, telling the truth because many lines of dialogue were clearly (and poorly) dubbed in during post-production. 

Speaking of high school filmmakers, I'm sure they could do a far better job at making a movie than this piece of crap.

Okay, enough about the as-a-film aspect.  More importantly, the film is an anti-Muslim propaganda piece.  It has been called by its makers and promoters as anything but an attack on Muslims.  Make no mistake about it, dear readers, whether you've seen the video or not, whether you want to see the video or not, this film is an attack on Islam.  Period.

Much has been made about the producer of the film, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (aka Sam Bacile).  Some articles have him as being a porn film producer.  He once was a government informant on a bank fraud case to try and benefit himself, since he was implicated.  He served jail time for the bank fraud and has had other run-ins with the law, including time served for the manufacturing of methamphetamine.  He has also reportedly used more than a dozen aliases.  Mr. Nakoula is no stranger to lying or breaking the law.

He is also no stranger to antagonism, since he claimed, during an interview for the film, that he was an Israeli Jew and had received five million dollars to fund the making of the film from Jewish friends.  So, let me see if I have this right: You're Jewish and Jewish friends fund the film which is anti-Islam.  Is it such a huge stretch to make the observation that this film could be oddly considered as an early birthday present for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, who has repeatedly stated he wants to wipe Israel off the map?  (No, I have absolutely no proof that such is true; it is merely an observation, which wouldn't seem so far-fetched if it was ever proven true.)

There is one more player in this exercise of ignorance and intolerance: Pastor Terry Jones.  Does the name ring a bell?  This bile-spewing individual -- that's bile, not bible -- who gives both ministry and Christianity a dark stain of discredit, is the man who wanted to burn copies of the Qur'an, the Muslim sacred text, in 2010.  (He and several others went ahead with the burning in April of this year.)  Just two weeks ago, on September 11th, what Jones called "International Judge Mohammad Day", he screened a copy of the film for his parishioners at Dove World Outreach Center, located in Gainesville, Florida.

Clearly the use of the word "innocence" in Innocence of Muslims is derisive.  The idea is to say, "Hey, you know that [wink, wink...nudge, nudge] all Muslims know this is all true, right?"  (I guess "Insert Laugh Track Here" is supposed to be appropriate.)  Mr. Nakoula and Pastor Jones obviously feel very passionate about this subject and this film.  Their positions are that any finger-pointing at them is unjustified, and that anyone who does that is ignorant. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula and Pastor Terry Jones, it is the two of you who are ignorant, and any finger-pointing is, indeed, justified.  You are nothing more than hate-mongers!  You're not as innocent as you'd like to think!

As I mentioned at the opening of this entry, this film saddens and disgusts me.  It breaks my heart to see people using religion, as it has been so many times throughout history, the wrong way for the wrong reasons.  Additionally, I am just so sick and tired of religion bashing.  I couldn't care less who is doing the bashing and who is getting bashed.  People such as Nakoula and Jones, and many others like them, who use misconstruing and misinformation with heavy doses of ignorance and arrogance to create a world ruled by hatred and fear are not, cannot, have never been, and never will be oh-so-innocent.  

How about a film called Innocence of Nakoula and Jones?

Terry

Movie of the Day: THRIVE: WHAT ON EARTH WILL IT TAKE?

[Something a little different today, and something that will take you longer than my lengthier posts, a Movie of the Day.]

(c) 2011, The Thrive Movement
Directed by Foster Gamble and Kimberly Carter Gamble
I own no rights.             

(You'll probably want to enlarge the video box above, as I haven't found a way to enlarge it here, by clicking on the button to the right of the YouTube logo that looks like four corners of a square.)

I watched this film a couple of weeks ago and really enjoyed it.  If you've seen any of the documentaries Inside Job, Capitalism: A Love Story, or Food, Inc., there are elements in those films in the first half of this film.  (If you've seen none of them, this will be quite the eye-opener.) 

The film will have elements that seem rather new-agey, so you are likely to be turned off early in the film if that does not appeal to you.  I would, however, encourage you to take the time and watch the film in its entirety.  It does not stay in the new-agey realm throughout the entire film.

The film discusses who is in control of things and how, why, and when they work...and for whose benefit.  It then goes on to offer ideas on what can be done to combat what has been happening for years, with the intent, as the film's creators put it, of our "reclaiming our lives and our future".  The "our" means both individually and communally.

At its core, the film is a multidisciplinary look at, and statement on ways to address, the crossroads at which society -- and, by extension, humanity in general -- is today.

Terry

Term of the Day: NATIONAL TRAGEDY

Eleven years ago today, the United States of America suffered a terrible blow.  Within the span of seventeen minutes, two airliners (American Airlines flight 11 and United Airlines flight 175) crashed into the Twin Towers at the World Trade Center.  Thirty-four minutes later, another airliner (American Airlines flight 77) crashed into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C.   A half-hour after that, a fourth airliner (United Airlines flight 93) crashed in Shanksville, PA., possibly having The White House as its intended target.  In the midst of all this, the South Tower of the Twin Towers collapses, while the North Tower collapses twenty-one minutes after the crash of Flight 93.  A little over seven hours after the collapse of the North Tower, Seven World Trade Center building collapses.  Almost 3,000 persons, including first responders, died on that day.

A national tragedy, to be sure.

While there are those who disagree with the official story of what happened that day, and I admit I count myself among them, today is a day to focus on the victims, both those who died that day and this nation as a whole.

That it was the worst attack on America on American soil is sufficient to qualify the events eleven years ago as a national tragedy.  The loss of so many lives is part and parcel of such a denotation.  The element of surprise adds to the horror of that day.  No citizen in America woke up that Tuesday morning in September of 2001 expecting anything like what happened to take place.  I think back to an event that occurred sixty years earlier, the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and how the element of surprise added to the horror.  The Oklahoma City bombing nearly 7 1/2 years ago would also be a similar example of the same.

There can be an argument made that our political and military involvement in affairs around the world, both known and unknown to the general public, but mostly unknown, has been an example of instigation to foreign entities.  Seldom accepted as reality, or even in the realm of possibility, it has been vilified as nationalistic heresy, or unpatriotic behavior.  This is not say that those who already have a hatred toward this country are really nice people or they never would have tried something, anything, against the U.S. if we hadn't meddled in their affairs.  (That meddling can also be seen by them as the occupying of their country, absent of any attack on them directly.)

How anyone can say, without question, that they would absolutely hate it if any other foreign force occupied our country and that we should respond accordingly (forcefully), but that any country we occupy should just welcome us with open arms because we're the ones doing the occupying isn't nationalistic heresy.  It's nationalist arrogance.

The surprising nature to the average U.S. citizen of the attacks and the loss of life in the thousands are part of the national tragedy of the events eleven years ago today.  There are other elements of this tragedy as well, which became apparent after the day itself.  It was announced just yesterday that Federal health officials included several forms of cancer, in relation to the various toxins released onsite and the first responders who were exposed to them.  That it took eleven years for that to happen is a national tragedy.  Efforts in Afghanistan to find Osama bin Laden and other members of al-Qaeda being undermined for a stronger effort in Iran against Saddam Hussein to take place is a national tragedy.  

The people of this country being led into a war based on lies is another national tragedy.  (You might also want to research the Gulf of Tonkin incident in August of 1964 and check out the film The Fog of War.)  It is also a national tragedy that the flag-draped coffins of U.S. military dead were not allowed to be photographed and published.  They are our deceased citizens, our deceased military, and our deceased sons, daughters, mothers, and fathers, for crying out loud!

We have experienced a kind of rubber band effect in this country, and the same has happened in other countries around the world as well.  Whereas we were fired up when this tragedy happened, we later found ourselves harshly divided over it.  Do we stay to win in Iraq or leave...and what does "win" mean?  Patriotism was labeled as flat-out, unwavering, unquestioning agreement with the government.

"All you have to do is tell [the people] they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.  It works the same in any country."
                                                                                                          Nazi leader Herman Göring
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."
                                                                                                    American author Edward Abbey
"Loyalty to country always.  Loyalty to government when it deserves it."
                                                                                   American author and humorist Mark Twain
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
        from The Use of Force in International Affairs by the Friends Peace Committee (Philadelphia)

How love of one's own country excludes disagreement is disheartening and, I admit, frustrating.  I love my country so much that I want it to do the right thing as often as possible.  However, I love it so much that I know, as it is run and represented by human beings who inherently make mistakes, it will make mistakes.  I hope those mistakes will be few and far between, and that when they happen, my country will "'fess up" and do what it takes to make things right.  That is not hatred for one's own country, and saying it is not the absence of patriotism.  Just the opposite.

Silence and acquiescence are unpatriotic.

While I can comment a great deal on the events eleven years ago and the years since, on this day, I remember and honor all those who lost their lives on that day of national tragedy.  You were a part of your families' and loved ones' lives and you will always be missed.  You were a part of the fabric of this country you called home and you will always be missed.  May the loss we all suffered, directly or indirectly, compel us and others to never have to go through this again by the use of common sense, decency, and discernment.  Then, and only then, can we turn this national tragedy into a national triumph.  Rest in peace.

Terry

Word of the Day: FAMOUS

"The fame you earn has a different taste from the fame that is forced upon you."
Gloria Vanderbilt

"In the future everybody will be world-famous for fifteen minutes."

Andy Warhol

To many people, the idea of being famous is appealing.  Look at anyone who is famous and you're likely to see that person getting attention, sometimes lots of attention, and usually lots of perks.  They are well-known, liked by some or many, hated by some or many.  That's one of the aspects of fame: it is not an all-encompassing across-the-board thing.  Fame means there will always be those who understand why you are famous and celebrate you -- thus the word "celebrity" -- and there will always be those who cannot figure out why in the world so many people like you so much.  ("What did he/she ever do that's so wonderful?") 

There are also huge drawbacks to fame: gossip stories, death threats, extortion attempts, paparazzi, over-zealous admirers, lack of privacy, and people wanting to know all your business, to name a few.  I once heard Harrison Ford during an appearance on 'Inside the Actors Studio' say, "You have to be willing to live in front of people."  Easier said than done.  As a fairly private person myself, it was probably a good thing, in hindsight, that my attempt at an acting career twenty years ago never came to fruition. 

My focus today, however, is on what being famous has become in the last dozen or so years.  Growing up, some of those persons who were famous were astronauts, sports figures, entertainers, scientists, and authors.  Many of those same types of persons remain famous today, rightfully so.  There is, however, another kind of fame that has gained a lot of traction.  I chalk it up to the unfortunate phenomenon called Reality TV.

Reality stars, as they're called, get a lot of attention.  They also expose not only the good inside them, but all of the bad, too.  In fact, it is the bad that gets the most attention.  Look at shows like 'Survivor' and 'Big Brother' (which are more game show/reality TV hybrids) to see people scheming to screw over someone else for their own gain.  Other shows like 'Ice Road Truckers', 'Swamp People', and 'Deadliest Catch' (all three of which, in my opinion, do not belong on the highly reputable cable channels The History Channel and Discovery Channel) simply show people doing their jobs.  Granted, they are dangerous jobs, but a TV special on these and other jobs would be sufficient; a series is overkill.  Programs such as the Paris Hilton/Nicole Richie series 'The Simple Life', 'Keeping Up with the Kardashians' (and all of its spinoffs), and 'Jersey Shore' merely show people being famous for ... being famous.

All of the above-mentioned shows feed into this whole concept of being famous for being famous.  In other words, if you can find a director and a producer who's willing to stick you in front of a camera, you can be famous.  No special talent or skills are required.  No major notable life achievements are required.  No solving of any major problems or issues here or around the world is required.  Just a director, a producer, a subject, cameras, etc., and a desire to show trumped-up conflicts that bring out the worst in people and, wham-o, you have a TV series.

And you will have a following.  And people will laud you as though you have done something spectacular.

While fame is a fleeting and fickle thing, being famous for doing something of major importance seems appropriate; the fame those on reality shows have is just plain ridiculous.  It makes being famous cheap and shallow.  This kind of pre-fab fame overshadows earned fame, and that is truly sad.  I think of someone who recently died, Neil Armstrong.  In the summer of 1969, he became the first person to walk on the moon, uttering the famous line: "It's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."  He knew going into space and walking on the moon would make him famous, but he never sought the spotlight for himself afterward.  He was humble and his fame was earned.  The only thing reality TV stars earn is a paycheck.

Terry

Phrase of the Day: BACK TO SCHOOL

It is that time of year once again, when parents and students alike are preparing for the new school year.  No doubt the new school year ahead is invoking a myriad of emotions, from excitement to dread.  It is a time of both the known and unknown.

I remember when I was in elementary school, which included kindergarten, and what the end of August was like.  It was the annual trip to the store to get school supplies and, as I was in parochial (Catholic) school that had a dress code, any new dress shirts, dress pants, or ties I might need.  It was exciting for me, seeing all the new pens, pencils, notebooks -- they were called "composition books" with a black-and-white marble-looking cover -- and other supplies from which I could choose.  I wasn't crazy about the clothes part, however.  Having to try on pants, and maybe needing to get them hemmed, was my least-favorite part of this pre-school year ritual.

By the time I reached high school -- there were no middle schools then, just 1st through 8th grades, then on to high school -- this pre-school year time was still somewhat exciting for me.  Even though I knew my wish that Summer vacation would last longer would never come true, the shopping element was a reminder of new beginnings...including one final reminder that I had, indeed, made it through the previous school year.  (I needed that reminder.  More on that in a moment.)

By the time I had reached college, everything was much more "business-like" and matter-of-fact.  So, it was get this, this, and this...make sure I have that, that, and that.  College was the first time I was not attending a parochial school and the dress code was much more relaxed (i.e. no dress shirts or ties required, jeans were acceptable) than what I had known for the previous thirteen years. 

Now, back to what I mentioned earlier about my needing a reminder that I had made it through the previous school year.  When I began my postgraduate studies, and all throughout that time, I never imagined myself being able to finish.  Self-confidence has never been a strong suit of mine.  You would think, after my final paper was handed in, and my final class had ended that it would sink in.  It didn't.

I remember the commencement ceremony from when I finished my postgraduate studies.  While my fellow graduates and I were lined up, ready to process in, one of my fellow graduates, David, could see the look on my face and came over to me.  Here's how the brief exchange between us went.
David: "Are you all right?"
Me: "I'm just afraid."

David: "Of what?  Being in front of everybody?"
Me: "No.  That I'm going to wake up."
David: "It's real, brother.  It's real."

After all papers were handed in, all classes were finished, and even the commencement ceremony was over, I still didn't believe it until I received the diploma in the mail.

I cognitively knew that I had done the three years of study and had completed all requirements necessary to graduate, but I never believed that I could do all that.  At that moment, it was the known and the unknown converging.  (It was more like colliding.)  I cannot say that my self-confidence has risen dramatically to an enormously more constructive level, but it is far better than it was.  My decades of poor self-identity regarding how smart I was, at least in terms of formalized education, was finally shattered.

I remember the words of the woman who served at the time as Director of Admissions during her speech at the beginning of our time there: This is not the beginning of your journey; it is the continuation of your journey.  Very true.  To that extent, all of my time before my postgraduate studies, during my studies, and all of my time since then, including my sitting at my keyboard typing this, has been part of my journey. 

That reminds me of an old adage: "You learn something new every day."  While I cannot say that I am aware of learning something new every single day of my life, learning is an on-going, lifelong process.  To any readers of this who are younger and in the midst of their schooling, that might seem depressing.  It's not, though.  Going to school is formalized education and life is informal education, but both are education nonetheless.  I would also add this as advice: Be open to the lessons in the classroom as well as outside the classroom.  I have learned you need both.

I can remember telling a former neighbor of mine in the apartment complex where I was living at the time who was a med student -- and this was long before I ever entertained the idea of attending a postgraduate school -- that we both had classrooms.  Hers were in the school, and mine was outside my front door.  Learning can happen anywhere at any time.

One final thought: When I lived on campus during my postgraduate studies, I hung just a few things on my walls.  (Apparently, I was told that I was in line with bachelors who live alone...their walls are usually sparsely covered.)  One thing I had hanging up on my wall was a sign that really sums up my life.  Here's what it read:

"I am a full-time student in the course of Continuing Education at the School of Life."

Terry

Phrase of the Day: NATURE DOING WHAT NATURE DOES

A few months back, a rabbit had dug a nest in the front yard to have her babies.  I let cutting the grass go for several weeks so as to not disturb the in-ground maternity ward, as well as to help provide a little cover for momma bunny's young ones.  It was amazing watching the momma come and feed her babies and, when the time came, for the three of them to take their first steps (or first hops) out of their nest.  Finally, they had all left the nest, literally, and were on their way.  I did see one of the young ones several days later.

Nature doing what nature does.

Several days ago, we had the teenage son from next door, who regularly cuts the grass, finally give the front lawn a much-needed mowing.  About a week-and-a-half prior to that, I had noticed the momma bunny in the yard again a few times, but saw no new holes.  We have several wild animals in the area, including the usual birds and squirrels, but also chipmunks and even a groundhog (that I've nicknamed Gary the Groundhog), so seeing momma bunny again was nothing more than a pleasant surprise.  Around the time the neighbor's son had cut the grass -- I forget if it was just before or just after -- I had noticed a hawk was in the area.  (I first heard the screeching sound, which I initially thought was an injured bird, and then noticed the hawk high up in a tree across the street.)  The hawk was in the area for a few days, until one day, I look out the front window...and there was the hawk standing in the front yard!  I went to get my camera, but the hawk had flown off by the time of my return.

Several minutes later, the hawk had returned, but something was different.  As I readied my camera, I noticed the hawk looking down a great deal and standing somewhat oddly, more so than I thought it should on the ground.  It quickly snatched something -- it was so quick, I couldn't tell what -- and used its massive wings to whisk off airborne once again.  Many more minutes had passed and there was no return by the hawk.  The ground where the hawk had landed, however, looked different, altered, but somehow familiar.  Familiar...like moved dirt...as though a hole had been dug.  My heart sank.  I went outside and looked at the area more closely.  There was tufted grass and patches of fur.  The fur was also familiar; it was rabbit fur.  Just off to my right, a patch of displaced grass covered what was a fairly shallow hole, nothing like the one from several weeks earlier, not nearly as deep; it was not much bigger than the size of my fist.  The hole was empty.  My heart sank further.  The hawk had come to take the baby rabbits for itself to eat.

I felt so bad, especially after trying to leave the front yard alone weeks earlier so that the rabbit babies could be safe and secure until their time to go on their way arrived.  I felt good that I was able to do that.  This, however, was the opposite feeling.  Obviously, the momma bunny had given birth again in the front yard, and the mowing of the lawn had blown her young ones' cover.  A few days later, I mentioned this in a group setting and one person even mentioned that the hawk may have fed itself or perhaps some babies of its own.  The person echoed what I had thought to try and fully grasp the situation, "Nature doing what nature does."

Sometimes, as a human, it is hard to understand that phrase.  Add to the fact that baby rabbits are cute, increasing the "Awwww" factor, and the understanding is even harder to find.  Nature doing what nature does can seem harsh, even inhumane, to our eyes.  We may try to stop it or, if unable to do so, simply watch in horror.  We value life -- well, at the very least we do so cognitively -- and, granted, we value human life more so, thus we find this behavior shocking or saddening. I felt so bad for the baby rabbits, but my friend was likely correct: the hawk knew it or its offspring needed to eat, and that's all it knew.  It thought on a (surprise, surprise) totally animalistic level.  Hungry, get food, eat.

Humans tend to think of themselves as the protectors of...everything.  It's their job; it's their duty.  Sometimes, however, there are things out of our reach, or even not ours with which to tamper, that we cannot protect, correct, or fix....harsh, disturbing, saddening, upsetting, but true.  If I had known the momma bunny had given birth again, I may well have told to neighbor's son to hold off again and just done some weedwhacking around the yard, but leaving the grass surrounding that hole untouched.  Indeed, the hole's cover had been blown, and it was not my taking the baby rabbits out of the hole and leaving them exposed in the yard, but perhaps the hawk had not eaten in quite some time.  Perhaps the hawk babies, if there are some, may have not eaten for some time, or were screeching for their first meal.  Who knows for certain, but the fact remains that, as sad as that was, I needed to let it be. 

I briefly thought about what animals, if they possessed the same brain capacity as humans, would think about some of our behavior!  No doubt, they might see a lot of it as savage.  I did not struggle over this for days on end, but I needed to remind myself that life is very dangerous for wild animals.  When I drive around I see a squirrel or skunk or some other wild animal lying dead in the road, unable to get out of the way of an oncoming vehicle, I need to remind myself that such is the case with animals living in rural or suburban areas (and sometimes in cities, too).  This was, as sad as it was to see, a natural unfolding of the cycle of life for wild animals.  It was nature doing what nature does.

Terry

Term of the Day: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

[Something a little different today: a Term of the Day, instead of my usual Word/Phrase of the Day.]

In mid-July, the president and Chief Operating Officer of the Chick-Fil-A restaurant chain, Dan Cathy, took a public stance regarding same-sex marriage in an article in the Biblical Recorder, a weekly newspaper published by the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina.  He opposes same-sex marriage:

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit.  We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives.  We give God thanks for that."

On the weekly radio program The Ken Coleman Show, Mr. Cathy further explained his stance:
"As it relates to society in general, I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than You as to what constitutes a marriage.'  I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about."

For anyone who has ever eaten at Chick-Fil-A, or at least knows something about it, the restaurants are somewhat operated under religious principles, specifically Christian principles.  Its most obvious example of that is being closed on Sundays, the Christian holy day of the week.  It is not unusual to go to a food court at a mall on a Sunday and to see every restaurant in it open except for Chick-Fil-A.  I don't think it is such a shock to learn that Mr. Cathy -- or anyone else in the upper echelons of Chick-Fil-A management, for that matter -- has religious views.

Personally, I don't have a problem with Dan Cathy having religious views; that is his business.  I couldn't care less what his religious views are, since they are his and his alone; I have nothing vested in what he believes.  He did, however, decide to go ahead and make his business the business of others with his public statements.  That does change things a little.  What it does not change, as far as I'm concerned, is whether or not anyone can openly air his/her beliefs.  That is his right to do so.  Period.  All of the outcry to shut down or ban Chick-Fil-A restaurants is silly; it wouldn't stop him, anyway.  I say that if you don't like what his beliefs are to a huge degree, then just don't eat there.

When he did make that choice to go public, albeit many will call it now open to "public scrutiny", he now must enter into public discourse.  Anyone with their own beliefs, religious or otherwise (but I'm focusing on religious here), who keeps them to him/herself is not doing anything that puts them in a position where they have to engage in public discourse.  (Not that any of them need me or anyone else as a "referee".  They certainly do not.)  Anyone who shares their beliefs with others, but on a smaller scale than nationally/internationally, must be open to public discourse between him/herself and others in those however-big-or-small circles.  Exponentially, sharing one's beliefs on the public scale as Dan Cathy has must be open to public discourse on an even larger scale.

Being open to public discourse does not mean he is required to change his position.  It means he must be allowed to say his piece and others need to listen, and others must be allowed to say their piece and he needs to listen.

The initial public response has included a "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day", put forth by former Arkansas governor and 2008 Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, on August 1st.  Two days later, on August 3, gay rights groups around the country organized "kiss-ins" at various Chick-Fil-A locations across the country.  (Although, the Appreciation Day attracted more individuals than the Kiss-Ins.)  I do not believe Mr. Cathy's stance will hurt Chick-Fil-A financially, not one bit.

Mr. Cathy's stance is based on the Bible's definition of marriage: one man and one woman.  Okay, fair enough.  After all, the Bible does say that; there are no examples of men marrying men or women marrying women to be found within its pages.  If that is what he believes, then that's what he believes.  No one has to agree with it.  Most people know that, but does Mr. Cathy?  I think so, but is he okay with that?  I don't know for certain.  Only he can answer that.

If he is not okay with that, then I have a few questions for him.  One question I have is about the law.  You know, that thing under which marriages are deemed legal?  Now, the Bible says nothing about forbidding or shunning marriage from having a legal element to it.  However, if one man and one woman get married in a church, but do not obtain a marriage license (including getting it signed by all perspective parties and returning it to the relative authority for it to be properly processed), is the marriage legal?  No.  Is the couple married spiritually?  Certainly.  The spiritual aspect is irrelevant to the law and other pertinent matters, such as all marriage rights (i.e. access to medical information, visitation rights), just as the legal aspect is irrelevant to spiritual matters.  Thus, marriage, as we have it today, has both a spiritual and legal aspect to it, but only the legal aspect opens the couple to the benefits of marriage.  Anything in the Bible arguing against that?  Not that I'm aware of. 

That alone, tells me that any exclusivity of marriage being for one man and one woman only is Biblically-based -- thus, by extension, religiously-based -- and has no legal leg on which to stand.  Yes, I know that same-sex marriage is not an across-the-board law of the land -- and you have the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the majority of U.S. states defining marriage heterosexually -- but I, personally, do not see any legal basis for it.  Not all laws are religiously-based, even if certain religious understandings are in sync with those laws. 

Civil unions are a joke.  (I mean that with all deference to my gay friends and the gay community at large.)  It was supposed to be akin to "equal", but was more along the lines of "separate, but equal".  In reality, they are separate and unequal.  Let me be frank here: civil unions are not equal to marriage.  I know a gay couple who are good friends of mine who have now been together over thirty years.  When civil unions became legal in their state a number of years ago, they were joined at a civil union ceremony.  One of the two has been in the hospital a lot the past couple years.  Does his partner have the same rights to his medical information as a married spouse?  No.  In any legal matters, even though they are legally joined in a civil union, are they always recognized as a "married couple"?  Again, no. 

The argument that giving gay couples the right to marry will destroy the institution of marriage is also bogus.  It doesn't seem to me that heterosexual couples are doing the institution any favors.  How does Mike & Steve or Mary & Sheila getting married really hurt marriage?  What if you get divorced...do you think that hurts marriage?  Probably not.  (You're likely to be busy being angry at your ex-spouse, or at least just glad to get away from him/her, and figuring out who gets what.) 

Maybe those people are afraid that "the gays are trying to takeover everything".

With regard to the term "marriage" itself, I don't have any vested interest in it and I think getting hung-up on terminology bogs the process down.  If all of the rights and privileges that go with heterosexual marriage are also given to same-sex couples, does calling it "marriage" or "civil union" or even "mutually agreed upon same-sex couple conjoinment" really matter that much?  After all, this is not a religious issue, although there are religious angles from which to view it; this is a civil rights issue.  Same-sex couples do not have the same rights when it comes to marriage as opposite-sex couples do.  Period.  That's not doctrinal destruction...that's civil rights.

Here's my take:  If you really had no problem with gay couples getting joined together and sharing in the benefits of "traditional" marriage, but didn't want to call it "marriage", then call it something else and give them the same rights as heterosexual couples.  End of story.  However, if you do the proverbial "tossing a bone" to same-sex couples by saying you'll give them a legally-recognized rite, but that rite doesn't come with all the rights normally afforded heterosexual couples, then you really don't want gay couples to get joined together for life...and taking it a step further by using the Bible as your defense for your exclusion.  

Say, are there any homophobes in the audience tonight?

Terry