Your daily dose of seething with rage...
Nov. 18th, 2009 10:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
usernamenumberHaven't posted in a while, so why not a political screed?
To quote![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
londo:
"""
The Archdiocese of D.C. is apparently threatening to pull all social services/break relevant contracts with the city if they pass a certain non-discrimination law primarily dealing with homosexual couples.
Washington Post article
Don't take my or the WP's word for it. Read the Archbishop's op-ed yourself, on his own website.
"""
...or, if I may paraphrase the archbishop:
"But... but we want to take public money and be dicks to a sizeable portion of the public!"
Cry me a river.
To me the most irritating thing in that op-ed was the repeated use of the phrase "recognize and promote", as if the one follows from the other. This notion that acknowledging the existence, or even the legality, of something promotes it, or put another way, that refusing to acknowledge such things is a legitimate or constructive way to express disapproval, pisses me off something fierce.
If the poor babies have that hard a time complying with the law by offering equal benefits to equally committed couples in their employ, and then have the special mix of nerve and idiocy required to cite "the creation of children" as justification for such behavior, and then even have to think about whether their discomfort around that is more important than the charitable services they provide, then boy oh boy do I hope to enjoy the view of them in my rear-view mirror as they're consigned to the past. Good riddance.
One thing about religion, though, is that it's a force-multiplier for the worst and the best in people. In other words, the churches get charity done, so I can't fully mean the previous paragraph until there are more secular charities, motivated by nothing more or less than the belief that each other is all we have, to take their place. If anybody knows some good ones, lemme know. I'm looking to donate.
/vent.
To quote
londo:"""
The Archdiocese of D.C. is apparently threatening to pull all social services/break relevant contracts with the city if they pass a certain non-discrimination law primarily dealing with homosexual couples.
Washington Post article
Don't take my or the WP's word for it. Read the Archbishop's op-ed yourself, on his own website.
"""
...or, if I may paraphrase the archbishop:
"But... but we want to take public money and be dicks to a sizeable portion of the public!"
Cry me a river.
To me the most irritating thing in that op-ed was the repeated use of the phrase "recognize and promote", as if the one follows from the other. This notion that acknowledging the existence, or even the legality, of something promotes it, or put another way, that refusing to acknowledge such things is a legitimate or constructive way to express disapproval, pisses me off something fierce.
If the poor babies have that hard a time complying with the law by offering equal benefits to equally committed couples in their employ, and then have the special mix of nerve and idiocy required to cite "the creation of children" as justification for such behavior, and then even have to think about whether their discomfort around that is more important than the charitable services they provide, then boy oh boy do I hope to enjoy the view of them in my rear-view mirror as they're consigned to the past. Good riddance.
One thing about religion, though, is that it's a force-multiplier for the worst and the best in people. In other words, the churches get charity done, so I can't fully mean the previous paragraph until there are more secular charities, motivated by nothing more or less than the belief that each other is all we have, to take their place. If anybody knows some good ones, lemme know. I'm looking to donate.
/vent.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-11-19 03:51 pm (UTC)I think in addition to the already stated rant, the part that went missing was that the Catholic Church (American? Universal? I'm not sure if the elsewhere ones would feel differently) supports *new* babies, in an already overcrowded situation, for couples or individuals who have *no way* to raise them (or no intention, or whatever), such that they end up in the already overcrowded and poor foster home system, when there are couples who *want* babies, and can't *make* babies, but this is *bad*, and shouldn't be allowed, much less supported, and if we do allow or support it, then it *encourages* the problem.
(Sorry if that got long and twisted and convoluted, I think it's just one of those days.)
no subject
Date: 2009-11-19 05:44 pm (UTC)They quickly went in the pile of people it's just not worth talking too.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-19 05:49 pm (UTC)And there's today's dose of seething with rage*... =:\
* mitigated only by the fact that Anneka's birth means one more datum to balance out the douche/not-douche ratio of people on the earth.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-19 06:20 pm (UTC)My argument against shiving is threefold:
1) this is a public post
2) it is not, historically speaking*, very effective
3) it is not a pragmatic way to effect change
* Though, the spanish anarchists gave it a good try, and might have managed if they hadn't had to fight Germany, Italy, half of Spain, the US, France, England, etc all at the same time.