Boycott

If some business does something that does not please you, it is your perfect right not to spend your money there.  If you feel strongly about how wrong that business is, tell your friends and ask them to go elsewhere with their money.

Don't think that, because you a mayor or something that that gives you imperial power to decide that that business cannot do business where you are.  Simple disagreement over something does not grant permission to deny folks around you access to a business.  If the majority does not like the business, it will go away when there are no profits to be made.

It is also not your right physically to impede the flow of customers.  Picket if you must, shout slogans, behave in a manner guaranteed to disgust most folks but stay out of their way.  You can complain and demonstrate, but you can't impede.  If you are right, others will join you.  If the business has a better day for your presence it is a good bet that you're on the wrong track.

The week's nonsense about Chick-fil-A started all this - and it seems it gave the place lots of business, indicating that a goodly number of folks either like what they make or disagree with the atheists that did not want to hear what the founder had to say - or maybe both.

Just because you have a different viewpoint does not give you permission to try to destroy the persons or business with whom you disagree.  You might try being nice - they might listen to you.  Get in their faces, and all you'll get is a bunch of angry people facing you.

The simple fact is that many are offended by the mere though of someone's being a devout Christian. That is unfortunate, but it is a fact, however it does not confer upon the hater blanket permission to revile, persecute, attempt to damage or otherwise hinder the Christian - although if you do so he might pray for you.  \

You are free to say that he contributes to organizations for which you have no use.  He is likewise free to say the same about you, although he probably will not.  There are lots of Christians around,'t likely to convert many to your way of thinking, and you are likely to get really irritated and generally pissy about your failure, so why not find some other rope to push?

You can be a Christian, a Jew, a Mormon, a Unitarian, a Buddhist, a Seventh Day Adventist, a Jehova's Witness, an agnostic (I do not believe in atheists - they make too much noise about what they believe, and anyhow almost everyone knows at least which church from which they are staying away) a Daoist, or just about anything else and we can talk about things in general, or our differences without becoming shrewish and strident.

I've never eaten at Chick-fil-A - but after the past few days I just might have to - to support folks who don't weasel-word things, but tell the truth when asked questions in spite of the fact there may be backlash.  Honesty is underrated these days, and it is a damn shame.

Mosques at Ground Zero redux...

I can think of a way that I could support the mosque at Ground Zero.

Since the primary source of funds for this endeavor is Saudi Arabia, it seems to be that building a synagogue in Saudi Arabia's capital city, along with a Catholic cathedral and a Christian megachurch, and disavowing harrassment thereof would be a start.

But what would really convince me would be Teheran signing up for the same three religious edifices and the same disavowal.

What's that you say, don't hold my breath?

I won't, and I don't expect any of it to happen - which is why I say that I might support the mosque at Ground Zero - when pigs fly out of my arse!

Mosques at Ground Zero

I do not want to see one built, not now, not ever.  It is said that Muslims are peace-loving peoples, and that what has been done by angry Muslim men is a travesty. Why do we not hear the highest Muslim authorities disavowing this activity? Our president is apologizing all over the world for our slights real or imagined - why has no Muslim authority or nation apologized for this massive affront?

It was not the Christians, the Jews, the Buddhists, the Taoists, the Hindi or any of thousands of others who so desecrated that place, and I for one am not interested in permitting the glorification on that site of the actions by the heirarchy of the group that created the devastation but has yet to acknowledge any complicity or even the wrongness in the actions.

No mosque at Ground Zero.

Honor

Apparently there's a lot about being a Muslim that I don't understand.

In Arizona, a father used his Jeep to run over his own daughter and the mother of her American boy friend. His daughter was comatose for several days before dying. The murderer fled the country. So much for honor - an honorable man would not have killed his own child and then run, but stayed and stood for his principles.

Her sin that called the family honor into question consisted of deciding to marry whom she pleased, to get a college education, and make use of social networking used by most Americans in that age range - in other words, become too westernized.

Children are neither property nor are they pets, to be killed out of hand at the whim of a parent (unless, of course, they are not yet born...) and that one who comes here from another land has done so little of the homework as to believe that such an action is proper simply boggles my mind.

Apparently, however, the Powers that Be have decided that it necessary that we softpedal this behavior in order to avoid causing offense to folks who by their very behavior are not civilized, and are not therefore owed any special consideration.

From the reading I have done over the years, this sort of behavior is not something that the Prophet would have either encouraged or applauded - it is the mullahs that have encouraged this sort of barbarious behavior.

Now, if folks that live in Iraq want to behave this way, it is not necessarily any of my concern - they find it OK, and we are not required to take such action if we live among them, nor are we required to approve. We are, however, required not to interfere if such actions are in accordance with the law of the land in that part of the world.

Normally, Americans are a pretty tolerant bunch. We don't however allow such actions to be taken as a matter of law.

As a father, I can state without fear that many of the things my children have done would not have had my approval had they asked, and some might well have embarrassed me, but none dishonored me - the reflection is upon the adult doing the deed. I don't believe in collective guilt, and at some point my children stand or fall on their own. If they ask for my opinion, they get it and if they ask for my help in an endeavor that is not dishonorable they'll get all that I can give.

But once a child is an adult, there is no more that I can do - they then have their own identity.

I wonder - had that child been a son, would that so-called man felt free enough to kill him, or are sons more valuable? I think I know the answer, and it pleases me not one damn bit, because it does even more to devalue women.

At some point a stand must be taken, and such people must be held accountable - and folks who would join us here in this great nation have to understand the rule of law - and understand that such behavior is intolerable in a free nation.

I sincerely hope that that barbarian father is caught and returned to face the justice he has denied his own daughter.